same continued till our times but the whole frame was strangely altered and corrupted Many different opinions there be concerning our Government yet three amongst the rest are most remarkable For one party conceives the King to be an absolute Monarch A second determines the King Peers and Commons to be three co-ordinate powers yet so that some of them grant three Negatives some only two A third party give distinct rights unto these three yet in this they are sub-divided and they would be thought to be more rational who give the Legislative Power unto the Lords and Commons in one house the judicial to the Lords in a distinct house and the executive to the King who was therefore trusted with the Sword both of War and Justice None of these can give satisfaction There is another opinion which puts the supreme power radically in the 40. Counties to be exercised by King Peers and Commons according to certain rules which by Antiquaries in Law together with some experienced States-men of this Nation might be found out but are not The seeds of this division were sown and begun to appear before the wars and the opinion that all these were only in one man that is the King absolutely some say was the greatest cause not only of the last but also of other civil wars in former times And it hath been observed that every man liked that opinion best which was most suitable to his own interest Our several opinions in Religion have heightened our differences and hindered our settlement yet Religion is but pretended for every party aims at civil power not spiritual liberty from sin And the power to settle us thus wofully distracted is only in God and if he ever will be thus merciful unto us the way whereby he will effect it will be by giving the greatest power to men of greatest wisdom and integrity not by reducing us unto one opinion that all the powers civil must be in one as the Author doth fondly fancy Let the form be the best in the world yet without good Governors its in vain The subject of this Chapter is Majestas jura Majestatis the Rights of Soveraigns which this Author hath handled very poorly and if he had but translated that which others had more excellently written in this particular before him he might have informed us better given his Reader more satisfaction reduced them to a better method and neither have made such to be Rights which are none nor omitted those which truly are such as he hath done CAP. III. Of the Second part and the Nineteenth of the Book of the several kinds of Common-wealths by institution and of succession to the Soveraign power BY these brief contents it appears that the subject of this Chapter is the distinction of Common-wealths and Succession to the Soveraign power in a successive State In the first part he 1. Reduceth all Common-wealths to three kinds 2. Prefers Monarchy one of them before all the rest T. H. Other kind of Common-wealths besides Monarchy Democracy Aristocracy there cannot be G. L. This is conceived to be a distribution into species or kinds yet if we throughly examine it it is not so for it s but an accidential difference For it ariseth only from the distinct and different manner of disposing the supreme power in one or more In more and these are the Optimates some of the best and most eminent or in the whole Community Yet in all these the essential acts of Government and so the Soveraign power are the same in all States and they are as you heard before three Legislation Judgement and Execution for its meerly accidental to the supremacy to be disposed more or more That it must be disposed in some certain such sect is necessary and that as the Supremacy is one and indivisible so the subject must be one also and that either physically or morally The great variety of Common-wealths which is such that there be not two in the whole world in all things like ariseth not from the constitution but from the different manner of administration Though the Author denies all mixt Common-wealths yet wise and learned men which without disparagement to him may be preferred before him as in other things so in State-learning have said 1. That there is no pure Monarchy or Aristocracy or Democracy in the world 2. That not only some but all Common-wealths are in some measure mixt or tempered and allayed because they conceive it s hardly possible for any pure State to continue long Against these I find in Mr. Hobbs a verbal contradiction but no real confutation And it seems to me he never truly understood them neither hath he taken notice of the difference between Real and Personal Majesty or of the Natural or Ethical subject of Supremacy or of the exercise thereof by certain persons and the constant inherency of it in a certain subject And we know by experience that such as are only trusted with the exercise of supreme power will by little and little usurp it and in the end plead prescription So Lewis the 11. of France when he violated the Laws of the constitution removed all such as by right ought to have poysed him could boast That he had freed the Crown from Wardship And this hath been the practise of the Princes of Europe which in the end will prove their ruine as for the present it hath been their trouble There is no Common-wealth but may be reduced to one of these three in some respect yet so that Monarchies differ as much from one another as they differ from the other two Some are regal some despotical and there be several sorts of these But I do not intend at this time to contest with him about this distribution but proceed T. H. Tyrannie and Oligarchy are but different names of Monarchy and Aristocracy not different forms of Governments G. L. These names do not signifie Chimera's but real Entities and if any have abused them to signifie forms of Government let them answer for themselves I know them not they cannot be men of any note Tyrannie doth not signifie Monarchy nor Oligarchy an Aristocracy They signifie the vicious corruption of States degenerate from their original constitution and that by the wickedness of a Prince and the faction of an assembly ingrossing power and enhansing it above that which is due and just and so become a multitude of Tyrants and this hath been the cause why many Nations when they had power in their own hands have altered the form of Government been jealous of trusting one man or assembly of men long with too much power and the wisest have set their wits on the rack to find out a way how to limit and restrain the power of their Governors T. H. Subordinate Representatives are dangerous And I know not how that so manifest a truth should of late be so little observed that in a Monarchy he that had the Soveraignty from a descent
in doubtful matters men should first debate and throughly examine the thing debated before they proceed to give their voices and this is most properly and conveniently done when after a diligent search no preponderant reason can be found for either part of the proposition Mens votes are inferiour to reason and superiour Laws and are not good because votes but because agreeable to reason And whereas he alledgeth two reasons 1. That to protest against a major part is injustice 2. It puts the party protesting out of protection the answer is easie 1. That a protestation is not unjust because it is against the major part except it be against reason and right and no man will be so mad as to assent unto a major against reason which is above all votes 2. It s true that the party protesting puts himself out of the protection of that Soveraign against whom he protests but this may be a misery but no injustice T. H. The Soveraigns actions cannot be accused of injustice by the subject because he hath made himself Author of all his actions And no man can do injustice to himself The Soveraign may do iniquity but not injustice G. L. 1. The Soveraigns actions are to punish the evil and protect the good as a Soveraign he can do no other actions and these cannot be justly accused 2. Neither can the consent of the people nor doth a Commission of God give him any power to act contrary to these 3. When he acts unjustly for so he may do and all iniquity is injustice neither God nor the people are authors of such actions for he was set up by them to do justly and no waies else 4. Civil justice and injustice as they consist in formalities differ much from moral and essential justice and injustice In this respect a Prince may be civilly just and morally unjust 5. To accuse may be judicial or extra judicial Judicially a Prince as a Prince cannot be accused by his subject as such Yet the subject may represent unto his soveraign his saults and by way of humble petition desire them to be reformed T H. Whatsoever the Soveraign doth is unpunishable by the subject because if the subject punish him he punisheth another for his own actions G. L. 1. A Soveraign as a Soveraign cannot be punished by his subject as his subject 2. Yet he that is supreme only for administration may be punished and put to death Thus the Ephori might punish the Lacedaemonian Kings and the Justice of Arragon the Kings of that Kingdom 3. Absolute Princes may cease to be such and then they differ not from other men And it will be an hard task to prove that any consent of man or humane title can free one from punishment with death who is guilty of a crime which God hath determined to be capital and commanded to be punished with death 4. Why should it be lawful for a forrein Prince warring and proving victorious upon a just quarrel to put a wicked Prince to death and not for those who have been his subjects when they have power to do it and tends to the publick good which cannot possibly without this act of justice be preserved Yet this cannot warrant any cursed Rebels or Traytors or the like to murther Princes though their pretences may be coloured with piety and justice The jura Majestatis or rights of higher-powers following are truly such Two things only I take notice of 1. That the Prince is only Judge of Doctrines taught so far as either the matter of right or manner of teaching may be prejudicial to the State or beneficial to the same as the Doctrine of the Gospel wisely taught alwaies is a blessing 2. Whereas he affirms that there is no propriety before a form of Government be established it s evidently false and civil Laws determine how every man may keep or recover that which is by justice his own According to his rules the institution of a Soveraign takes away all propriety of the subject That the rights of Soveraigns are indivisible and incommunicable is true if rightly understood To this purpose Authors distinguish these royalties into the greater and the less and say the latter may the former cannot be divided or communicated Others affirm That in a mixt State they of necessity must in a pure State they must not be either divisible or communicable This point may be made more clear if we understand 1. That these rights or jura are but so many branches of one and the same power supreme civil as it may act upon several objects And all these branches are reducible to three For supreme power civil is Legislative Judicial Executive as before and because it extends to these three acts therefore it may be said to be threefold And all these rights reckoned up by him which are such indeed are contained under these three though neither he nor other Authors have much observed it Amongst these the Legislative is the principal not only the first but the chiefest yet the other are necessary because without them it s in vain for what are Laws without Judgement and Execution yet even the Laws regulate both And to know who are Soveraign in any act the only infallible way is by the Legislation For in whomsoever the Legislative power originally is he or they are supreme for it is not the actual making of certain rules to order all things in a State but the giving of a binding force unto them which makes the Soveraign This power not only as it is a power but as supreme cannot be divided For if you take any essential part from it you destroy it so that its indivisible in it self 2. In respect of the subject For whether the subject be the Community or the Optimates they must be considered as one person morally though they be many physically and the reason is they must go all together otherwise there can be no first mover in a State for it is one supreme power in it self and must also be in one subject yet for the administration it may be divided because the Soveraign doth exercise this power and acts severally by several Officers which are but instruments animated and acted by him This power is also incommunicable within one and the same community and territory except you will constitute more States then one T. H. pag. 93. If there had not first been an opinion recieved of the greatest part of England that these powers were divided between the King and the Lords and the Commons the people had never been devided and fallen into these civil wars G. L. The cause moral of these wars was our sins the Political cause was the male-administration yet so that all sides have offended through want of wisdom and many other waies The ignorance of Politicks in general and of our own constitution in particular cannot be excused or excepted What the ancient constitution was we know not certainly though some reliques of the
AN Examination OF THE POLITICAL Part OF Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan By GEORGE LAWSON Rector of More in the County of Salop. LONDON Printed by R. White for Francis Tyton at the three Daggers in Fleet-street near the Inner-Temple Gate Anno Dom. 165â— The Epistle to the Reader TO glorifie God and benefit man both by doing good and preventing and removing evil should be the endeavour as its the duty of every Christian in his station Upon this account I have undertaken this examination of Mr. Hobbs I was indeed at the first unwilling though sollicited to do any such thing because upon the perusal of the Political part of his Leviathan I conceived that as little good was to be expected so little harm was to be feared from that book Yet after that I understood by divers learned and judicious friends that it took much with many Gentlemen and young Students in the Universities and that it was judged to be a rational piece I wondered for though I knew the distemper of the times to be great yet by this I found it to be far greater then I formerly suspected And upon which considerations I judged it profitable and convenient if not necessary to say something to the Gentleman and did so After that I had communicated my pains unto divers worthy and learned friends they pressed me to give way to the Printing of them which I did if they after serious perusal should think them worthy the Press They were at length approved and again by some desired to be publick yet by others thought too brief and I was desired to enlarge But this I refused to do both because there is very little if any thing material at all in Mr. Hobbs his Civil and Ecclesiastical Politicks omitted by me and not examined and also because I had formerly finished a Treatise of Civil and Ecclesiastical Government which if it had not been lost by some negligence after an Imprimatur was put upon it might have prevented and made void the Political part of Mr. Hobbs and though one Copy be lost yet there is another which may become publick hereafter When thou hast read this brief Examination thou maist if judicious and impartial easily judge whether there be any thing in Mr. Hobbs which is either excellent or extraordinary and whether there be not many things inconsistent not only with the sacred Scriptures but with the rules of right reason But not willing to prepossess thee I commit thee to God and remain Thine in the Lord Geo. Lawson EA est plerumque Apologiarum aut Vanitas aut infelicitas ut injustam amoliendo Censuram justam ferant vel nova saltem Apologia indigeant Whereas in the close of the Preamble to this Examination the Learned Author upon the account of his Ministerial calling Apologizeth for his undertaking the Political part of Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan he is not so to be understood as if he looked upon Mr. Hobbs as such an Hercules as could not be conquered by less then two a States-man in the Civil and a Church-man in the Ecclesiastical Part of his beastly Politie but as intending at first the consideration of the Civil Part only This was thought meet by a Friend of the Authors to be thus communicated least the Reader should take occasion to grow more Censorious than he ought or Mr. Hobbs more Proud than he is T. G. CAP. I. Of Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan concerning the Causes Generation and Definition of a Common-wealth CIvil Government derives its Being from Heaven for it is a part of Gods Government over mankind wherein he useth the Ministery of Angels and the service of men yet so as that he reserves the supreme and universal Power in his own hands with a liberty to depose the Rulers of the World at will and pleasure and transfer the Government of one Nation to another to lay the foundation of great Empires and again to destroy them for their iniquity To think that the sole or principal Cause of the constitution of a civil State is the consent of men or that it aims at no further end then peace and plenty is too mean a conceit of so noble an effect And in this particular I cannot excuse Mr. Hobbs who in the modelling both of a Civil and also of an Ecclesiastical Common-wealth proceeds upon principles not only weak but also false and dangerous And for this reason I undertake him This should have been done by some wel-skill'd in Political Learning and not by me who do not profess it as being a Divine and one of the meanest amongst many And my intention is not to inform my Betters who know the vanity and absurdity of his discourse but to undeceive the ignorant Reader who may too easily be surprized The first Chapter of the second Part which is the seventeenth of his Book doth inform us First That the end of civil Government is Security Secondly This Security cannot be had in the State of Nature because it is the state of War nor by a weak nor a great multitude except united by one perpetual judgement Thirdly A great multitude are thus united when they conferr all their power and strength upon one man or assembly of men that may reduce all their wils by plurality of voices to one will c. From whence ariseth a Common-wealth Fourthly This Common-wealth is defined and distributed Against all this some thing may be excepted For First That the State of Nature is the State of War may be doubted if not denied For man is a rational creature and if he act according to his nature he must act rationally and though he may seek to preserve himself and that sometimes with the dammage or destruction of another yet he cannot may not do this unjustly but according to the Laws of Nature which are two The First Love thy neighbour as thy self The Second Do as thou wouldst be done unto These tend directly unto Peace not unto War which is unnatural and they may be kept by multitudes of men not united in a civil State or under a form of Government And this is evident from Divine and profane Histories For Families and Vicinities which had no dependance one upon another and also States both by confederation and without any such thing have lived peaceably together When the Apostle saith The Gentiles which have not the Law by nature do the things contaâ—â— in the Law he doth not mean by Nature a Common-wealth or form of Government civil It s true the Apostle brings in a Bill of Indictment against all mankind and accuseth them That their feet are swift to shed blood Destruction and calamity or misery are in their ways And the way of peace they have not known Rom. 3.15 16 17. Yet he understands this not of Nature but the corruption of Nature and the parties here accused are not men only as in the state of Nature but also under a Government and that not only Civil but Ecclesiastical
shall have benefit even treasure in heaven if he do so Yet even this is so a counsel as it is a command For man is bound to love God more then the world and to preferr treasure in heaven before treasure on earth and this by command As it directs its counsel as it binds its command For one and the same sentence may be a command a counsel and an exhortation too yet in different respects as it binds a command as it directs a counsel as it incites an exhortation And very many exhortations include or at least presuppose a command and a counsel But I wonder why Mr. Hobbs should make these words of Peter Repent and be baptized Acts 2.38 a counsel only Are not all men especially which hear the Gospel bound to repent For doth not Saint Paul say And the time of this ignorance God winked at but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent Acts 17.30 And what will he contradict the Apostle and in express terms It seems he is but a Divine of the lowest rank as he is a States-man far under the highest form His presumption and boldness is very great but his knowledge and judgement very defective For if he had known that repentance had been a principal duty according to a principal command of the Gospel and that it was nothing else but a return to obedience after disobedience he might have corrected himself and avoided this errour 3. In the next place he undertakes to determine the qualifications of a good Counsellor of State which hath been done to his hand and far better then here we read He is a good Counsellor who gives good connsel and that is only good counsel which is a greeable to the wisdom and justice of God and tends to the publick good of the State therefore his first Condition is either imperfect or else directly false For the interest and ends of the Counsellor in his counsel to be consistent with the ends and interest of a Prince counselled is no waies absolutely good but may be very wicked and unjust The rest of the conditions prescribed by him are good yet none of the chiefest mentioned by others omitted by him 4. In the last part of this Chapter he endeavours to prove but yet upon very weak and also very false grounds That its better to hear Counsellors apart then in an Assembly What he means by these words prefixed supposing the number of them equal I know not For he argues against counsel given in Assemblies without any mention of the equality of their number Yet this is evident by this rule of God that the privy Council and Parliaments of England are made useless unprofitable at least not so good as a secret pact Juncto This is very unworthy and base and hath been the ruine of many Princes The Constitution of England required a Parliament as the great Council of the Kingdom in arduis regni negotiis and a standing Privy-Counsel as it was called in other matters of lesser moment That both these may be ill constituted abused and turned into factions there is no doubt we have had too woful experience of this Yet all these inconveniences with others mentioned by the Author may be prevented and the Counsels rectified The way to our good and the welfare of England is not to take them away and destroy them but reduce them if possibly it may be done to their prime institution Otherwise we may fear a military Government or an absolute Monarch or a Tyrannie or an Anarchy A wise council of Lords standing and the great Council of the Parliament have been the best supports under God of the peace and happiness of this Nation In this I am brief because here is little that is material and it more properly belongs to that head of Ministers of State and Officers CAP. X. Of the Second Part. The 26. of the Book Of civii Laws THE principal heads and parts of this Chapter are 1. The definition of a Law civil with certain conclusions thence deduced 2. The interpretation of Laws 3. The distribution of Laws in general In the administration of a Common-wealth once constituted the first thing is Legislation the second is the Execution In the execution 1. Officers are made 2. Jurisdiction exercised according to those Laws Therefore the proper place of treating concerning Laws civil in general is in the first part of administration which requires first that Laws be made For God himself did avouch himself to be Israels Lord and King and they avouch themselves his subjects and people and this was the constitution of that State This being done in the next place he proceedeth to make Laws And this is the order of all such as will imitate God and proceed orderly to govern a State as appears Exodus 19. and the 20. Chapters and so forward This also was Jethroes counsel unto Moses and approved of God Thou shalt teach them Ordinances and Laws and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk and the work that they must do Moreover thou shalt provide thee of all the people able men c. and place such over them This was making of Officers after he had given them Laws and let them Judge the people This is jurisdiction Exod. 18.20 21 22. From hence it appears how preposterously this man and others are that treat 1. Of Magistrates 2. Of Laws The difference between Laws Civil in general and the Civil Law of the Roman Empire is more easily known and learned from the Civilians who have clearly delivered it then from him For Politicks speaks of Civil or Political Laws made for the Government of State more generally and if it mention any Laws of particular States they are but examples to the general rules concerning Laws But let us pass by this and proceed to his definition which is as followeth T H. Civil Law is to every subject those rules which the Common-wealth hath commanded him by word writing or other sufficient sign of the will to make use of it for the distinction of right and wrong that is of what is contrary and what is not contrary to the rule G. L. In this definition the Genus is it s a rule the efficient cause is the Common-wealth the party bound is the subject the end is the distinction of wrong which is contrary and right which is not contrary to the rule But 1. The Genus is not a rule which is an act of the understanding whereas Law is not only an act of the understanding but the will which is facultas imperans Many may give rules by their wisdom which can make no Laws by their wills 2. The efficient cause is not the Common-wealth but pars imperans the Soveraign who is but one part of it 3. The end is not only to declare a distinction between right and wrong but to bind the subject to do that which is right and to forbear that which is wrong For lex est regula
to obey his Lord and Maker This no irrational being hath or can have So that Gods Dominion over man ariseth from Gods propriety in man as a rational being and from the voluntary submission of man as a rational creature unto his God who made him such Gods propriety in man is derived from creation and preservation and both these were not onely from Gods power as Mr. Hobs imagineth but also from his Understanding and Will For God by his wisdom made the world as well as by his power and worketh all things according to the Counsel of his Will Dominion of government is not onely from power nor by power alone for understanding will and power must all concur to Government Therefore how absurd is that assertion of his which followeth If there had been any man of irresistible power there had been no reason why by that power he should not have ruled If this were true a Leviathan a Dragon an Elephant hath more power then man and why should not brutes being stronger rule over men who are weaker By this rule the strongest man in a Kingdom should be King and he that hath the strength of Goliah or Sampson should rule over others though they have strength without wisdom and integrity T. H. The Kingdom over men and the right of afflicting them at his pleasure belongeth naturally to God Almighty not as Creatour and gracious but as omnipotent G. L. Obedience is due to God not meerly as gratitude to a benefactor but as a duty unto him as a Law-giver For as a Creatour he may have a right to command because by Creation he hath an absolute propriety in his being which is such as he is capable of a Law And Creation is not to be considered as any kind of benefit but such a benefit as his rational being was wholly derived from it and also wholly and perpetually depends upon his preservation and his eternal happiness upon his legislation and judgement And though he may afflict at pleasure as omnipotent because as such he can do it yet he never afflicted any but as a legislatour and Judge according to his just Laws Because God is omnipotent he can afflict but it doth not hence follow that he will afflict But he instanceth in Job and the man born blind both afflicted by God as omnipotent yet Job was upright indeed but not altogether innocent and though God did manifest unto him his glorious Majesty and Almighty power in his great works yet this was not done to shew him the cause why God did afflict Job but to humble him And being humbled he did not plead his integrity but repented of his infirmity in dust and ashes For though he was no hypocrite yet he was a sinner Job 42.6 And though the blind man John 9. was born blind as we might justly be yet he was conceived and born in sin as we are But neither he nor his parents were guilty of any such notorious crime as God doth usually recompence with exemplary punishment even in this life T. H. Honour consisteth in the inward thought and opinion of the power and goodness of another and therefore to honour God is to think as highly of his power and goodness as is possible And of that opinion the external signs in words and actions of men are called worship G. L. This is the first Law of Gods Kingdom by nature in respect of God that he is to be worshipped Worship is sometimes an act of the soul terminated upon his Divine excellency and dignity it s called Reverence and sometimes Adoration Sometimes it s an act terminated upon his supreme and universal Power And so it is submission to him as Supreme Lord and Law-giver Sometime for obedience and in this respect even the performance of our duty to our neighbours as done in obedience to him as our supreme Lord is an act of worship And all acts of the soul terminated upon the Deity immediately are called worship The worship of Reverence and Adoration is given unto God as most glorious and excellent in himself yet so manifested and apprehended The worship of submission and obedience is given and ascribed to him as Supreme Lord and the object of worship is some excellency apprehended in the party worshipped And because the excellency of the Deity is Infinite and Eternal therefore the highest degree of worship is due unto him even to the annihilation of our selves the resigning of our very being wholly unto him and the emptying of our selves into the Ocean of his most blessed Being God deserves and is worthy of all honour glory and worship as excellent in himself They may justly be required of the creature as depending solely and wholly upon him as Lord Creator Preserver And the creature is bound to worship him by vertue of his Law and Covenant By performance of this dutie we are capable of Eternal bliss in and from him and by his promise we come to have a right unto Eternal life The Excellency of God is his most perfect and blessed Essence which cannot be known by man as it is in it self yet it s manifested to us by several distinct attributes whereof some may be known by the light of Reason in some measure but more perfectly by the Revelation of the Scriptures These Attributes are many and distinct and so given to God by himself because by one act of Reason we cannot conceive of or understand his Essence which is but one in it self but represented to us as different and many and so apprehended And by our faith we believe the Divine perfections to be far greater then our Reason can apprehend them to be They are in himself one infinite being manifested by his works and more fully by his Word And our worship must ascend above our Reason and must be performed according to our faith which is a divine and supernatural light For the distinct knowledge of this worship with the several acts thereof and the several names we must not follow the Schoolmen but search into the Scripture diligently observe the use of the words as they are there applied to signifie the same How far Mr. Hobs is from the true understanding of worship in general and of the worship of God in particular may easily appear from this that he makes worship to be nothing else but the outward signification by words and actions of internal honour which with him is nothing else but the inward thought and opinion of the power and goodness of another But neither is worship nor honour any such thing as he hath defined them And his discourse of worship with the distinctions will be found very poor upon examination except we allow him a soveraign power over words to impose what signification upon them he pleaseth and the same different from that wherein they are used in Classical Authors Thus he hath finished his Politicks set forth under the name of Leviathan in the Frontispiece And though many have in
few passages to manifest that he never understood what liberty is Liberty of subjects is not Natural nor Moral nor Theologicall but Political and Civil In the Civil Law and Politicks it s opposed to servitude and bondage not simply and meerly to obligation by Laws as he fancieth for thus he writes T. H. So men have also made artificial Charms called Civil Laws which they themselves by mutual Covenants have fastened at one end to the lips of the Soveraign at the other to their own ears G. L. The Authors meaning is That so far as Laws bind the subject so far they take away his liberty and men by constitution of a Soveraign over them give a power absolute to make Laws and so far as they are virtually subject to his power and actually bound by his Laws they cannot be free yet this well examined will not prove true For not any kind of Obligation takes it away for then the Laws of Nature by which a man is bound before he be subject to a civil Soveraign should deprive him of his liberty yet they leave him as free a man as any possibly in a free-State can be The Obligation of just Laws and wise Edicts do regulate liberty keep it within its proper bounds and no waies destroy it or take it away Therefore that which follows is questionable For he affirms T H. That the liberty of a subject therefore lieth only in those things which in regulating their actions the Soveraign hath pretermitted G. L. But 1. In things left indifferent because not defined by Law the subject is not only liber sed dominus and hath not only libertatem but potestatem He is not only free but Lord of those actions and hath not only liberty but also an absolute power 2. Though wise and just Laws do regulate actions yet they do not make the agent a slave or a servant For to be a slave or a servant is to be cast below the condition of a man and make him subject to some thing below himself Wisdom and Justice are above the power of the Soveraign much more above the liberty of a subject They are particles of the divine perfection and to be bound by them is not only a liberty but an honour To be free from the dominion of our own base lusts and sins and the power of Satan is true liberty divine and so not to be subject to the lusts and imperious unworthy commands of absolute Soveraigns whose wills though irrational contrary to justice must stand for Laws is civil liberty And then a man is Politically free when he is so far Master of his life goods children and that which is justly his that they cannot be taken away from him but for some crime contrary to just Laws deserving such a penalty In a word the liberty of a subject is such a state or condition as that he is neither by the Soveraign power nor any Laws bound to do any thing which a rational and just man would not willingly do though there were no Laws or Penalties Civil at all This is not to be free from Laws And I do not know who they are which he saith demands any such thing The rude and ignorant people and also all children of Belial desire to have a licence not only to do good but evil too as they please and they judge all Laws as heavy burdens and grievous yoaks If he mean that the subjects of England demanding the benefit of Magna Charta and the Petition of Right did aim at any such extravagant liberty he must needs be a slanderer of his own fellow-subjects and an enemy to the English liberty as indeed he is and that through an erroneous notion and conceit of absolute power civil The liberty of the subjects of this Nation is very great and such as if we either consider the Laws of the Constitution or Administration the ordinary and common subjects of other Nations are but slaves unto them Our Free-holders have the choice of their Knights and Burgesses for the Parliament so that neither any Laws can be made nor moneys imposed upon them without their verbal consent given by their Representatives In all causes civil criminal capital no Judgement can pass against them but by the verdict of a Jury made up of their neighbours which in it self is an excellent priviledge The Civilians say Libertas est res inestimabilis and to be redeemed at any rate much more the English liberty is to be valued and ever was by our ancestors who obtained it recovered it kept it though with the blood of many thousands But the question is whether this liberty is consistent with the Soveraigns power His opinion is T. H. That by the liberty of the subject the Soveraigns power of life and death is neither abolished nor limited G. L. It s certain that the Soveraigns power and the subjects liberty are consistent For the Soveraign may take away the life of his subject yet according to the evidence of Judgement agreeable to Law no otherwise Yet he presupposeth 1. That the King is supreme and the primary subject owner and possessor of the original power which sometimes may be yet with us its far otherwise 2. That the power of civil Soveraigns is absolute For with him T. H. Nothing the Soveraign representative can do to a subject on what pretence soever can properly be called Injustice or Injury because every subject is Author of every act the Soveraign doth so that he never wanteth right to any thing otherwise then as he himself is the subject of God and bound thereby to observe the Laws of Nature When Jephtah sacrificed his daughter and David murthered Uriah both innocent yet they did them no injustice c. G. L. Here he seems to contradict himself For he grants two things 1. That the Soveraign is subject to God 2. That in that respect he is bound to observe the Laws of nature yet he saith he can do no injustice to the subject and that he hath right to any thing yet so as he is limited by subjection to God and the Laws of Nature 1. If he be Gods subject as certainly he is it follows 1. That in that respect he is but trusted as a servant with the Administration of the power civil 2. That he is fellow-subject with his subjects 3. He may do injustice as one fellow subject may wrong another Secondly If he be bound to observe the Laws of Nature which are the Laws of God then 1. He is not absolute or solutus legibus His power is limited and bounded by these Laws 2. Then he hath no power to murther oppress and destroy his innocent subjects who are more Gods then his and only trusted by God in his hands for to be protected righted in all just causes and vindicated from all wrongs 3. No Prince or Soveraign can assume or any people give to any person or persons any the least power above or contrary unto the
Laws of Nature These Laws are the moral precepts of eternal justice and equity from which all civil Laws have their rise and are either conclusions drawn from them or certain rules tending to the better observation of them Which things well considered do make it very evident how little the power of civil Lords and Princes must needs be In some few indifferent things they may be absolute have arbitrary power and be in some respect above those constitutive Laws which they themselves enact His instance in Jephtah gives them power above and contrary to the Laws of God and Nature Yet who will grant him that Jephtah sacrificed his daughter The text will not evince it for it only saith that whatsoever cometh forth of my doors to meet me c. shall be the Lords or I will offer it up for a burnt-offering Judges 11.31 For the particle 〈◊〉 Vau turned by some copulatively for and is here as in many other places dis-junctive and signifies or Again if Jephtah did sacrifice her he sinned not only against the Law of Nature but also the written Law of Moses For God gave no command permission or toleration to any that we read of but only to Abraham to sacrifice with humane blood and that Commandment was but to try him for he would not suffer him to put him to death Besides God threatens ruine and destruction to such as did offer their children to Moloch and shed their blood And their sin was not only because they offered them to Idols and Devils but also because they shed innocent blood without any warrant or Commission from God the only supreme and absolute Lord of life Further how could the vow of man which was but a voluntary Obligation be above the Law of God and make that lawful which by a Superiour Law was unlawful I verily believe she was devoted only not sacrificed But suppose he did sacrifice her to God to whom he had vowed her yet he did not this as a Soveraign of her life but as a subject to God The example of David murthering Vriah can much less prove the absolute power of Soveraigns to take away the lives of their innocent subjects For David had no such power for 1. He was no absolute Prince but limited both by the written Laws of God and also the Natural 2. Neither he nor any other can have any such power because man cannot God doth not give any such power 3. David did not only iniquity but injustice to Vriah 1. As his fellow-subject in respect of God 2. As his own subject whom he was bound as innocent to protect not to destroy 4. His proof out of Psal 51.4 Against thee only is invalid For 1. Though it be so translated by some and so understood by Ambrose and others who follow him yet neither that translation nor the interpretation thereon can be evinced either out of the Original or the Septuagint or the vulgar or Junius or Vatablus 2. Genebrard Vatablus Junius Ainsworth and others understand it that God only was privy to and knew of this sin and the words following And done this evil in thy sight seem to confirm this sense 5. Yet suppose it should be turned against thee only yet others interpret onely to be principally as supreme Law-giver and Judge not only to me but all others who only hast the Original power of punishing and pardoning not only me but others and that not only temporally but spiritually and eternally Yet the exposition of Ambrose is taken up because Princes desire it to be so absolute and both Divines and other men are very ready to slatter such as are in present possession of power But to make the point more evident let me digress a little and search out the reason and cause of the power of life and death as in the hands of civil Soveraigns To this end observe That no man hath absolute power of his own life as he hath of his goods Man may have the use and possession but not the propriety and dominion of it Therefore it s granted on all hands that though a mans life be said to be his own yet he may not be felo de se and kill himself he is not Master of his life so far as to have any power or liberty to do any such thing It s true that God who is Lord of life and death gives liberty to man in some cases to hazard in some he commands to lay down his life He may hazard it in a just war and defence of his own Countrey and also of himself against an unjust invader He must lay down his life and God commands it for the testimony of Christ in which case he that loseth it shall find it From all this it follows that no people can by making a Soveraign give any absolute power of life and death unto him For nothing can give that which it hath not neither can they make themselves Authors of the unjust acts of their Soveraign much less of his murthers and taking away the lives of their innocent subjects Id enim quisque potest quod jure potest If thus it be then they must have power to take away life from God who alone hath power of life and this power he only gives in case the subject be guilty of such crimes as by his Laws are capital T. H. pag. 110. in the margent The liberty which writers praise is the liberty of Soveraigns not of private men G. L. By writers he means the Roman and Greek Historians and Philosophers who wrote so much of liberty amongst the rest especially Aristotle and Cicero By this it seems he never understood these Authors though he accuse others of ignorance The liberty which the English have challenged and obtained with so much expence of blood is not the power of Kings much less of absolute Soveraigns as he would make the world believe but that which is due unto us by the constitution of the State Magna Charta the Laws and the Petition of Right It s but the liberty of subjects not Soveraigns when he hath said all he can we are not willing to be slaves or subject our selves to Kings as absolute Lords Neither are we willing that either flattering Divines Court-Parasites or Unjust Ministers of State should wind up the pretended prerogative so high as to subject our lives and estates and also our Religion to the arbitrary absolute and unreasonable will of one man whom they did desire to advance so much for their own interest There is a difference between the subjects liberty whereby in many things he may command himself and supreme power which commands others under their Supremacy By liberty Aristotle Cicero meant such a priviledge as every subject might have in a free-State not that Soveraignty which belonged to the whole and universal body over several persons where it is to be noted that one and the same person who is a subject and at the best but a Magistrate
hath a share in the Soveraign power Yet this he hath not as a single person but as one person joyntly with the whole body or major part at least of the people So in our Parliaments every man there is as a single person and all of them any waies considered but as the joynt Representative of the people in a certain place at a certain time acting according to a certain order are but subjects yet in the capacity and habitude of a Parliament they are no subjects but in the name of the people have a Legislative power and exercise the highest acts of Government excepting those of the Constitution And this may be one reason why our English Ancestors have been so careful to maintain and preserve this great Court and Assembly of Parliaments because they knew upon that depended their liberty in the vacancy and intervals of Parliaments For take away this and our liberty is gone And wise men know that the liberty of the English subject depends upon these great Assemblies Some therefore have attempted either the total extirpation of them according to the example of France and Spain or a diminution of their power and priviledges so as to make them meer shadows If any say and infer from all this that therefore the form of our Government even under Kings is popular and hath the nature of a free-State I say it hath much of a free-State in the Constitution but not in the Administration Yet it s far different from those four kinds of popular Governments mentioned by Aristotle Pol. lib. 6. c. 4. The constitution whereof is little better then levelling The principal thing aimed at in such forms as the Author alledgeth out of the Philosopher cap. 2. Ejusdem libri was liberty supposing it could be had no where but in such Governments and this liberty was to do either what they pleased or to govern by course fearing lest any person or persons continued long in any eminent place of command would in time ingross the power Yet this supposition was false For liberty might be had without levelling and free-States might be and have been better constituted and regulated For no constitution is good where provision is not made that Wisdom and Justice rather then persons may govern and the multitude so kept under as that they may be subjects not rebels and cast off all power To return unto the matter proposed and conclude this point 1. The English liberty is their birth-right 2. It s not the power of Soveraigns 3. It s not unlimited but bounded within reasonable bounds 4. We do not learn it out of the Greek and Roman Histories nor from the Athenians or Romans but from our own Laws which are far different from theirs and far more agreeable to the written Laws of God which left the people of Israel under their Judges the freest people of the world and yet no Levellers 5. Our learning out of Greek and Latine Authors hath not been bought so dear or cost so much blood except out of the breech of School-hoyes And most of those who have controlled the just acts of their Soveraigns never read much less understood those Authors T. H. pages 111 112 113. The liberty of the subject is in such things as are neither determined by his first submission to the Soveraign power nor by the laws G. L. This is the substance of three pages and amounts to so much as may easily be comprised in a few words For when a subject is not bound either by the Laws of the Constitution or Administration he is free according to Mr. Hobbs his judgement Yet in proper sense in both these cases he is no subject but Dominus and far more then liber The Civilians do better determine the liberty of the subject to be potestatem agendi sub publicae defensionis praesidio though this be no perfect definition As before so now I say that liberty here is not opposed to obligation but servitude For â—o be subject to a wise Soveraign according to just Laws is so much liberty as any reasonable man can desire for in this respect he is rather subject to God then man and to serve him is doubtless perfect freedom As no Soveraign should be denyed so much power as to protect the least if innocent and to punish the greatest if guilty so no subject should be bound to do evil which is servitude and bondage indeed or restrained from doing that good which God commands him Civil government was never ordained by God to be destructive either of moral or divine vertues or of the noble condition of man as a rational creature Therefore regular submission unto supreme power will never stand with any obligation unto evil or contract for protection except in innocency Paul pleading before Festus saith If I be an offender or have committed any thing worthy of death I refuse not to die Acts 25.11 How this can stand with what this Author saith when he affirmeth that its lawful for a man guilty and condemned to save himself if he can I leave to others for to examine From the Apostles words its evident he desires no protection even of himself as worthy of death neither hath God given any power to man to save in such a case And though any person by the Law of nature may defend himself yet this must be done cum moderamine tutelae inculpatae In case a subject hath made himself capitally guilty he hath forfeited his life to his Soveraign as Gods Vicegerent whom he must not resist in the execution of Justice though he be not bound to kill himself neither doth the multitude or strength of any such capital offenders any waies give them right to resist their Soveraign in their own defence as the Author would have it For they cannot defend themselves as men but they must defend themselves in this case as guilty men which is not lawful How the offer of pardon should take away the plea of self-defence I understand not seeing they had no right before it was offered The offer of pardon indeed if the party offering may be safely trusted may take away all fear and so all colour of any plea by force to defend themselves from that death which pardon will take away or remove In the close of this discourse concerning liberty of the subject he grants it a part of this liberty That the subject may sue his Soveraign and before a Judge appointed by the said Soveraign If this be so then 1. The subject hath propriety of goods 2. That he and his Soveraign are two distinct parties and in this case the Soveraign represents him not as one person 3. That the Law in this respect is above the supreme Governor 4. Therefore the Soveraign is not absolute 5. That the subject may complain of some actions and injustice of the Soveraign contrary to the Authors fourth right of Soveraigns 6. That to him belongs not all Judicature in all Causes as in
the eighth right of majesty he did affirm Yet he distinguisheth of the Soveraigns demand as twofold either by vertue of a Law or by force if he demand or take away any thing by power or pretence thereof there lyeth in that case no action of Law because the subject is made Author of the Soveraigns acts and therefore the suit against him is against the Plantiff himself being his subject If this answer be good then the Soveraign may do what he can and will not what he ought he may rule according to his strength and power and not according to Justice he may borrow and promise to repay take away and engage to restore and yet do no such thing but violate his promise and engagement contrary to the very Law of Nature He hath a liberty to be unjust and wicked and that more then any of his subjects as he hath greater power I leave him to be a subject of such a Soveraign and wish all good men a better The true reason why a Soveraign may be sued is 1. Because in the institution of a Soveraign especially of administration the subjects may reserve the propriety of their goods which may be done without any diminution of a lawful supreme power and in this case when a Soveraign takes away or detains that which is his subjects and an action is brought against him the subject is not his subject nor he his Soveraign in that respect Both of them in this particular are but private persons and he that is subject to him as he is just in his Government questions him as he is unjust in his actions Again propriety belongs unto the Law of nature which is above civil power But he proceeds T. H. If a Monarch or Soveraign Assembly grant a liberty to all or any of his subjects which grant standing he is disabled to provide for their safety the grant is void unless he directly renounce or transfer his Soveraignty to another G. L. By this we easily understand to what purpose the Treaty in the Isle of Wight with the King was For though the Parliament had voted his concessions to be satisfactory in some respect that of Bishops and he was ready to close with them yet in the judgement of this man and all that party adhering to the King the Parliament was accounted no Parliament the King an absolute Monarch and the Concessions ipso facto void and for this reason because the King had disabled himself by granting the Militia to protect his subjects And the issue of this Treaty to be expected was this so far as the King had obtained liberty and opportunity he would declare his Concessions void and unreasonable and so possess himself of the Militia and proceed against the Treators as Rebels and Enemies for so they were accounted Yet this was not a meer grant of liberty but of power which in the Treaty is presupposed to be his though confined and a prisoner and vanquished in a civil war But if we will speak properly the grant of liberty may be such as it may amount to an exemption from a sufficient degree of subjection but it doth not transfer the Soveraign power to another And this must needs be granted that to pass away any of the greater rights is to dethrone In the conclusion of this Cap. we are informed when the obligation of the subject to the Soveraign doth cease and it is then when his power to protect doth cease And there is great reason for it For whatsoever his title may be and how unjustly soever it may be taken away and howsoever his subjects may stand well affected towards him yet seeing there can be no protection from wrong within nor from invasion of enemies without nor administration of Justice without which any people returns unto the confusion of Anarchy except there be actual possession of power therefore Obligation for the present must cease or at least be suspended There be many waies whereby a Soveraign may cease to be a Soveraign as by conquest death resignation cession c. and when the Soveraign ceaseth to be such the Obligation must needs determine as to such a particular Governor And here I might take occasion to treat of subalternate Governments and fiduciary Princes who are Soveraigns in respect of their subjects yet acknowledge a superiour from whom they hold their territory But seeing he is silent I will be so too CAP. VI. Of the Second Part and the two and twentieth of the Book Of Systems subject Political and Private I Pass by his divisions and subdivisions of Systems as being well known to such as are acquainted either with Politicks or Civil Law For the subject of Jurisprudentia civilis being communio or communitas hominum wherein the Lawyers out of their institutions observe persons things and actions both private and publick that they may the better find out the several rights determined by Law They distinguish personam in singularem conjunctam Persona conjuncta consists of several persons distinct Physically yet made one by consent and association Politically And these Systems and Societies may be considered as parts of the Community which is the immediate subject of a Common-wealth and a civil Government Some of these are natural as a Family some are voluntary and by institution In a Common-wealth once constituted all these are subject to the supreme power and their actions are so far warrantable as they derive their power from the Soveraign and are agreeable to the Laws Some of these are made by division co-ordination and subordination as Provinces Counties Hundreds Allotments Town-ships Parishes Some of them are Ecclesiastical some Civil Some are made by Charter and Patent and have their special priviledges and immunnities and have their Statutes and power to make Orders and By-Laws within themselves and some have jurisdiction within their liberties Some are more noble as Colledges and Universities and Schools and all such as are Nurseries of Law and Learning some less noble as Corporations with their several Companies and Officers The end of the institution of these is either for the better and more easie Government of the whole Community or for the better education of the subjects in learning or trades or for the maintenance or enriching or adorning of the State And it concerns the supreme Governors of a State to have a special care of these Societies to order regulate and reform them as they shall see occasion or need For the good of the Common-wealth doth much depend upon the regulation and wise ordering of them CAP. VII Of the Second Part. Of the Book 23. Of the publick Ministers of the Soveraign power MY intention in the examination of the Author is to manifest 1. That where he hath done ill none hath done worse And 2. where he hath done well many before him have done better This latter is my work in this part of his Book as also in other passages of his discourse The subject of this
the main design of this long and tedious Chapter wherein he is not content to vent his errours but he must broach his blasphemies For after he had granted the Ecclesiastical power to be in the Apostles and their successors for about 300 years he tels us T. H. That the Trinity is a threefold representation of God 1. By Moses 2. By Christ on earth 3. By the holy Ghost in the Apostles and this agrees with that of the Divine Apostle There are three that bear witness in heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one 1 Joh. 5.7 G. L. This deserves no answer but detestation because it s not onely blasphemous but also devoid not onely of divine but humane learning and no ways to be suffered amongst Christians Having thus determined the proper and just subject of this power for so long a time he proceeds to let us know what this power is T. H. The power of the Church is but to teach to baptize to absolve to excommunicate G. L. The foundation and Rule of all Christian doctrine worship and discipline is briefly and by a wonderful wisdom comprised in those words of our Saviour ready to ascend into Heaven Go and teach all Nations baptizing them c. Mat. 28.19 20. For in those words we are taught 1. What Doctrine we must believe and profess 2. What worship we must perform unto the Deity and how and upon what grounds 3. Who may and who may not be admitted into Christian society and who may and who may not be continued in the same and enjoy all the priviledges thereof Those who being taught profess their faith in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and promise to obey the commands of Christ may be baptized and solemnly admitted into the Church They who continued to profess their faith to perform their promise of obedience unto Christ might be continued in this society and enjoy the priviledges otherwise not From which words its evident there must be a power to teach baptize absolve excommunicate and also to ordain and design fit persons to do these things and give rules out of the Gospel how they may be done aright This Author first makes void as he conceives all Bellarmines discourse concerning the form of Ecclesiastical government whether it be Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical 2. They have power but to teach The reason why Bellarmines discourse is void is given by him to be this because the Church hath no coercive power If he mean coercive civil by the sword its certain there is no such power Ecclesiastical Neither doth Bellarmine affirm or challenge it but indirecte per accidens Yet he was told before that the execution of the Churches censure is from heaven as it is passed in the name of Christ and by his power 1 Cor. 5.4 And he hath promised whatsoever is bound on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven Mat. 18.18 This is not in the name of the civil Soveraign nor by the power of the sword And it must be done by some power and this power must be exercised either by one or more or all according to some certain order And Government is nothing but ordo imperii subjectionis 2. That the Church hath but power to teach perswade counsel c. he proves first by his false supposition that Christ doth not reign until the universal Resurrection secondly by that time of Regeneration which he bounds within the terms of Christs ascension and his second coming to Judgement The former argument was grounded upon a false interpretation of our Saviours words and so the later is for by Regeneration in Mat. 19.28 is meant the Resurrection and so it s printed and distinguished in divers coples and so the King of Spains Bibles read it as others also and the sense is they which have followed me shall in the Regeneration that is Resurrection sit upon twelve Thrones c. But suppose that regeneration be not the resurrection Yet it cannot be a time of that continuance as to reach Christs coming to Judgement but only the time of their following Christ which cannot extend beyond his ascention Yet let it be granted that by it is signified the whole tract of time from his ascention till his coming to Judgement it will not follow from that text that Christ doth not raign till that time be expired for he may as he doth raign and exercise many acts of his regal power before he pass the final sentence upon all men and Angels His other reasons are frivolous and not ad idem Yet his last argument save one is That because Christ hath left to civil Governors their power therefore he hath left none to the Church And its true that he hath left no civil power of the sword to the Church yet it doth not hence follow that he hath denyed it the spiritual power of the keyes And here he makes a most abominable digression affirming that we may deny or profess against our conscience and comply with civil powers commanding and forbidding contrary to that which Christ hath commanded and forbidden and so hath taken away the ground of all Martyrdom and razed the very foundation of our Christian confession Besides he seems to put a difference between their power to Preach and their power to Teach but he will not let us know what this difference is And his arguments tend to prove that Ministers have no power to command no authority yet the people are commanded to obey them that rule over them and submit themselves because they watch over their souls Heb. 13.17 And he that heareth them heareth Christ and God that sent him and he that despiseth them despiseth Christ and God that sent him To that purpose we read in Luk. 10.17 And how can this possibly be true if this have no authority no law no sin To teach and preach in such a manner as they who will not hear and obey shall be guilty as contemners of the divine Majesty and so as that it shall be more tolerable for Sodom in the day of judgement then for them is to teach with authority and power and the same no doubt greater then any Prince civil in the world is invested withal For they cannot command so as to make the disobedient liable to eternal penalties He granteth further that they have power to Baptize and by Baptism admit into Christs Kingdom which is a spiritual naturalization and also to absolve and excommunicate yet the former is an act of Legislation the latter of Jurisdiction and how can that be performed without power Thus the man is pleased to confute himself Yet in the acts of Jurisdiction we do not affirm the judgement of the Church to be infallible because they can have no infallible knowledge of the inward disposition of the souls of persons penitent or impenitent Yet sometimes the evidence of the cause is such
that an absolute sentence on earth is made valid from heaven And this Jurisdiction exercised according to the Laws of Christ hath alwaies a real effect upon the party judged and that without any co-ercive power civil at all And the effect was comfortable or terrible both unto Believers and Apostates too according as they should be truly impenitent or penitent This power is alwaies in the Church and to be exercised by such as are trusted with that power and fit for such a work And this is the plain truth though the world be on a flame and so many Christians in a cumbustion because of their different opinions concerning the subject of this power But concerning this point I have spoken more at large in another Treatise He goes on to teach us the causes of Excomunication and denies heresie to be any cause though scandal by his own confession be yet heresie is the greatest scandal And here he abuseth that place of Titus 3.10 where it s written A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject where he plainly contradicts the Apostles words As though he had said Reject the heresie not the person whereas the Apostle commands the rejection of the person the Heretick and not only the heresie That some make Articles of Faith which God never made such cannot be excused After this he determines the persons who are liable to excommunication yet so as that he might have been instructed better then he hath instructed us by those who deserve to be his Masters He exempts one Church from the jurisdiction of another so that the one cannot excommunicate the other Yet he doth not inform us what the extent of a Church-Independent is and so leaves the question undecided He also exempts all Soveraign Princes and Assemblies from excommunication yet so as that he most grosly mistakes the nature and effect of excommunication Yet here he staies not but a subject obeying his Soveraigns command is not liable to this sentence neither can it be in this cause and case of any effect if we may believe him This in terminis is false except he mean obedience in licitis The rest of his discourse concerning this particular is frivolous The of the Chapter is taken up and spent in the determination of two points The 1. is making of Scripture Canon and Law The 2. the power of the Pope The power of making Scripture-Canon is given by him unto the Soveraign civil being Christian Yet whether he be Christian or no he hath power to bind his subjects to acknowledge it subpoena temporali But the Scripture is Canonical in it self without any such Law at all As for the controversie concerning the Popes power he undertakes Bellarmine who had often been answered in a far better manner and more effectually by many before him And the truth is both he and the Cardinal run in extreams the one on one side and the other on the other side of the way of truth For that power which the one arrogates to the Pope the other gives to Christian civil powers but both unjustly For Ecclesiastical power is due in some measure unto the Pope but not unto the civil Soveraign The Pope is a Presbyter and a Bishop and some power was due unto him by divine Law But by that which humane Constitutions gave him and by his own usurpation he had ingrossed he was advanced very high To be a Patriarch would not serve his turn but he must be Christs universal Vicar and in the end by that means at length he hooked in the temporal power of the sword But to leave them both in their errours wherein they have entangled themselves before I conclude this Chapter I will say something of Church-officers and the Church-revenue The Church-officers may be conâ—dered either according to their Constitution or Imployment According to the first they were extraordinary or ordinary Extraordinary were such as had their power and gifts more immediately from Christ as Apostles Prophets Evangelists And here by the way we may take notice of two errours and mistakes of the Author 1. In that he affirms Matthias to be made an Apostle by the Assembly of an hundred and twenty Brethren assembled together Whereas from the text its apparent that they did only single out by suffrage two persons whom they conceived so qualified that one of them might if God pleased be made an Apostle for to succeed Judas and refer the case to God by prayer and lot that he might determine whether of the two should be an Apostle to make up the number of twelve Upon the reference God did chuse Matthias and so that he made him an Apostle and refused the other To make an extraordinary Officer was above the power of the Apostles and the Church therefore they did not take it upon them 2. The second errour is That Paul and Barnabas were made Apostles by the Church of Antioch Acts 13.2 3. yet Barnabas in strict sense was no Apostle and Paul was an Apostle before he came to Antioch He was a servant of Jesus Christ called to be an Apostle separated to the Gospel of God Rom. 1.1 His calling to be an Apostle was not of men nor by man Gal. 1.1 His separation was twofold 1. From God who separated him from his Mothers womb Gal. 1.15 2. From man as by the prayers and fasting of the Church of Antioch Yet Mr. Hobbs is not afraid to contradict the Scriptures Ordinary officers of the Church who succeeded the extraordinary were Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4.11 Both the ordinary and extraordinary in respect of their employment were either such as were designed for feeding of the soul by Prayer Word Sacraments and were to perform the acts of doctrine worship discipline or for feeding of the body and outward relief and such were Deacons After that the number of Christians were increased and devided into Congregations the Pastors and Teachers were set over their several Congregations and Flocks assigned unto them and these were called Elders Now the Question is who in a Christian Common-wealth have power to make constitute ordain these ordinary Officers The Common-wealth saith he the Church say others He confesseth that the Church did exercise this power till civil Soveraigns became Christian and then both the power and exercise thereof ceased to be in the Church if we may believe him but his credit is not much and with me his Authority is none To determine this question we must observe that its one thing to be a Pastor Minister or Presbyter another thing to be the Pastor of a certain congregation and another to have a right to some temporal revenue or dignity annexed A Minister was constituted in all well-ordered Churches to this day by the Church The Church and such as the Church doth trust doth chuse him try him approve him and ordains him And by the nomination approbation ordination of the Church according to the will of Christ all Presbyters