Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	bind_v	earth_n	loose_v	5,255	5	10.5190	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

the new Testament and therefore could not be done by Christ himselfe much lesse by his Pastors and to remit the impenitent seems to be against the will of God the Father from whom Christ was sent to convert the world and to reduce men unto obedience Furthermore if each Pastor had an authority granted him to remit and retain sinnes in this manner all awe of Princes and civill Magistrates together with all kind of civill Government would be utterly destroyed For Christ hath said it nay even nature it ●elfe dictates that we should not feare them who slay the body but cannot kill the soule but rather feare him who can ca●t both soule and body into hell Mat. 10. vers 28. Neither is any man so mad as not to choose to yeeld obedience rather to them who can remit and retain their sinnes then to the powerfullest Kings Nor yet on the other side it is to be imagined that remission of sinnes is nothing else but an exemption from Ecclesiasticall punishments for what evill hath excommunication in it beside the eternall pains which are consequent to it or what benefit is it to be received into the Church if there were salvation out of it We must therefore hold That Pastors have power truly and absolutely to forgive sinnes but to the penitent and to retain them but of the impenitent But while men think that to Repent is nothing else but that every one condemn his Actions and change those Counsels which to himselfe seem sinfull and blameable there is an opinion risen that there may be repentance before any Confession of sinnes to men and that repentance is not an effect but a cause of Confession and thence the difficulty of those who say that the sins of the penitent are already forgiven in Baptisme and theirs who repent not cannot be forgiven at al is against Scripture and contrary to the words of Christ Whose soever sins ye remit c. We must therefore ●o resolve this difficulty know in the first place that a true acknowledgement of sin is Repentance for he that knows he hath sinned knows he hath erred but to will an errour is impossible therefore he that knowes he hath sinned wishes he had not done it which is to repent Farther where it may be doubtfull whether that which is done be a sin or not we must consider that repentance doth not precede confession of sins but is subsequent to it for there is no repentance but of sinnes acknowledged The penitent therefore must both acknowledge the fact and know it to be a sinne that is to say against the Law If a man therefore think that what he hath done is not against the Law its impossible he should repent of it Before repentance therefore its necessary there be an applicacation of the facts unto the Law but it s in vain to apply the facts unto the Law without an Interpreter for not the words of the Law but the sentence of the Law-giver is the rule of mens actions but surely either one man or some men are the Interpreters of the Law for every man is not judge of his own fact whether it be a sin or not wherefore the fact of which we doubt whether it be a sinne or not must be unfolded before some man or men and the doing of this is confession Now when the Interpreter of the Law hath judged the fact to bee a sinne if the sinner submit to his judgement and resolve with himselfe not to do so any more t is repentance and thus either it is not true repentance or else it is not antecedent but subsequent to confession These things being thus explained it is not hard to understand what kinde of power that of binding and loosing is for seeing in remission of sinnes there are two things considerable one the Judgement or Condemnation whereby the fact is judged to be a sinne the other when the Party condemned does acquiesce and obey the sentence that is to say Repents the remission of the sinne or if he repent not the Retention The first of these that is to say the Judging whether it be a sinne or not belongs to the Interpreter of the Law that is the Soveraign Judge the second namely Remission or retention of the sinne to the Pastor and it is that concerning which the power of binding and loosing is conversant And that this was the true meaning of our Saviour Christ in the institution of the same power is apparent in the 18. of Mat. vers 15 16 17 18. thus He there speaking to his Disciples sayes If thy Brother sinne against thee goe and tell him his fault betweene thee and him alone where we must observe by the way that if thy Brother sinne against thee is the same with if he doe thee injury and therefore Christ spake of those matters which belonged to the civill Tribunall he addes if he heare thee not that is to say if he deny that he hath done it or if having confest the fact he denies it to be unjustly done take with with thee yet one or two and if he refuse to heare them tell it the Church But why to the Church except that she might judge whether it were a sinne or not But if he refuse to hear the Church that is if he doe not submit to the Churches sentence but shall maintain that to be no sin which She Judges to be a sinne that is to say if he repent not for certain it is that no man repents himselfe of that action which She conceives not to be a sinne he saith not Tell it to the Apostles that we might know that the definitive sentence in the question whether it were a sin or not was not left unto them but to the Church but let him be unto thee sayes he as an Heathen or Publican that is as one out of the Church as one that is not baptized that is to say as one whose sinnes are retained For all Christians were baptized into remission of sinnes But because it might have been demanded who it was that had so great a power as that of withholding the benefit of Baptisme from the impenitent Christ shewes that the same Persons to whom he had given authority to baptize the penitent into the remission of sinns and to make them of heathen men Christians had also authority to retain their sins who by the Church should be adjudged to be impenitent and to make them of Christian men Heathens and therefore presently subjoynes Verily I say unto you Whose soever sinnes yee shall binde upon Earth they shall ●ee bound also in Heaven and whose soever sins yee shall loose upon Earth they shall be ●oosed also in Heaven Whence we may understand that the power of binding and loosing or of remitting and retaining of sinnes which is called in another place the power of the keyes is not different from the power given in another place in these words Goe and teach all Nations Baptizing them

springs from Contract we have already shewed in the 6. Chapter And the same Right is derived from nature in this very thing that it is not by nature taken away for when by nature all men had a Right over all things every man had a Right of ruling over all as ancient as nature it selfe but the reason why this was abolisht among men was no other but mutuall fear as hath been declared above in the second Chapter the 3. art reason namely dictating that they must foregoe that Right for the preservation of mankinde because the equality of men among themselves according to their strength and naturall powers was necessarily accompanied with warre and with warre joynes the destruction of mankinde Now if any man had so farre exceeded the rest in power that all of them with joyned forces could not have resisted him there had been no cause why he should part with that Right which nature had given him The Right therefore of Dominion over all the rest would have remained with him by reason of that excesse of power whereby he could have preserved both himselfe and them They therefore whose power cannot be resisted and by consequence God Almighty derives his Right of Soveraignty from the power i● selfe And as oft as God punisheth or slayes a sinner although he therefore punish him because he sinned yet may we not say that he could not justly have punisht or killed him although he had not sinned Neither if the will of God in punishing may perhaps have regard to some sin antecedent doth it therefore follow that the Right of afflicting and killing depends not on divine power but on ●…si●s VI. That question made famous by the disputations of the Antients why evill things befell the good and good things the evill is the same with this of ours by what Right God dispenseth good and evill things unto men and with its difficulty it not only staggers the faith of the vulgar concerning the divine providence but also of Philosophers and which is more even of holy men Psal 73. v. 1 2 3. Truly God is good to Israel even to such as are of a clean heart but as for me my feet were almost gone my steps bad well nigh slipt And why I was grieved at the wicked I do● also see the ungodly in such prosperity And how bitterly did Job expostulate with God that being just he should yet be afflicted with so many calamities God himselfe with open voyce resolved this difficulty in the case of Job and hath confirmed his Right by arguments drawn not from Jobs sinne but from his own power For Job and his friends had argued so among themselves that they would needs make him guilty because he was punisht and he would reprove their accusation by arguments fetcht from his own innocence But God when he had heard both him and them refutes his expostulation not by condemning him of injustice or any sin but by declaring his own power Job 38. v. 4. Where wast thou sayes he when I laid the foundation of the earth c. And for his friends God pronounces himself angry against them Job 42. v. 7. Because they had not spoken of him the thing that is right like his servant Job Agreeable to this is that speech of our Saviours in the mans case who was born blind when his Disciples asking him whether he or his Parents had sinned that he was born blind he answered John 9. v. 3. Neither hath this man sinned nor his Parents but that the works of God should be manifest in him for though it be said Rom. 5. 12. That death entred into the world by sinne it followes not but that God by his Right might have made men subject to diseases and death although they had never sinned even as he hath made the other animalls mortall and sickly although they cannot sinne VII Now if God have the Right of Soveraignty from his power it is manifest that the obligation of yeelding him obedience lyes on men by reason of their * weaknesse for that obligation which rises from Contract of which we have spoken in the second Chapter can have no place here where the Right of Ruling no Covenant passing between rises only from nature But there are two Species of naturall obligation one when liberty is taken away by corporall impediments according to which we say that heaven and earth and all Creatures doe obey the common Lawes of their Creation The other when it is taken away by hope or fear according to which the weaker despairing of his own power to resist cannot but yeeld to the stronger From this last kinde of obligation that is to say from fear or conscience of our own weaknesse in respect of the divine power it comes to passe that we are obliged to obey God in his naturall Kingdome reason dictating to all acknowledging the divine power and providence that there is no kicking against the pricks By reason of their weaknesse If this shall seem hard to any man I desire him with a silent thought to consider if there were two Omnipotents whether were bound to obey I beleeve he will confesse that neither is bound if this be true then it is also true what I have set down that men are subject unto God because they are not omnipotent And truly our Saviour admonishing Paul who at that time was an enemy to the Church that he should not kick against the pricks seems to require obedience from him for this cause because he had not power enough to resist VIII Because the word of God ruling by nature onely is supposed to be nothing else but right reason and the Laws of Kings can be known by their word only its manifest that the Laws of God ruling by nature alone are onely the naturall Lawes namely those which we have set down in the second and third Chapters and deduced from the dictates of reason Humility Equity Justice Mercy and other Morall vertues befriending Peace which pertain to the discharge of the duties of men one toward the other and those which right reason shall dictate besides concerning the honour and worship of the Divine Majesty We need not repeat what those Naturall Laws or Morall vertues are but we must see what honours and what divine worship that is to say what sacred Lawes the same naturall reason doth dictate IX Honour to speak properly is nothing else but an opinion of anothers power joyned with goodnesse and to honour a man is the same with highly esteeming him and so honour is not in the Party honoured but in the honourer now three Passions do necessary follow honour thus placed in opinion Love which referres to goodnesse hope and feare which regard power And from these arise all outward actions wherewith the powerfull are appeased and become Propitious and which are the effects and therefore also the naturall signes of honour it selfe But the word honour is transferred also

the Christians themselves although not actually assembled if they be permitted to enter into the Congregation and to communicate with them For example Tell it to the Church Mat. 18. vers 17. is meant of a Church assembled for otherwise it is impossible to tell any thing to the Church But Hee laid waste the Church Acts 8. vers 3. is understood of a Church not assembled Sometimes a Church is taken for those who are baptized or for the professors of the Christian ●aith whether they be Christians inwardly or feignedly as when we reade of somewhat said or writ●…n to the Church or said or decreed or done by the Church sometimes for the Elect onely as when it is called holy and without blemish Ephes 5. vers 27. But the Elect as they are militant are not properly called a Church for they know not how to assemble but they are a future Church namely in that day when sever'd from the reprobate they shall bee triumphant Againe a Church may bee ●ometimes taken for all Christians collectively as when Christ is called the head of his Church and the head of his body the Church Eph. 5. vers 23. Colos 1. vers 18. sometimes for its parts as the Church of Ephesus The Church which is in his house the seven Churches c. Lastly a Church as it is taken for a Company actually assembled according to the divers ends of their meeting signifies sometimes those who are met together to deliberate and judge in which sense it is also called a Councell a Synod sometimes those who meet together in the house of prayer to worship God in which signification it is taken in the 1 Cor. 14. vers 4 5. 23. 28. c. XX. Now a Church which hath personall Rights and proper actions attributed to it and of which that same must necessarily be understood Tell it to the church and he that obeys not the church and all such like ●ormes of speech is to be defin'd so as by that word may be understood A Multitude of men who have made a new Covenant with God in Christ that is to say a multitude of them who have taken upon them the Sacrament of Baptisme which multitude may both lawfully be call'd together by some one into one place and he so calling them are bound to be present either in Person or by others For a multitude of men if they cannot meet in assembly when need requires is not to be call'd a Person For a Church can neither speak nor discerne nor heare but as it is a congregation Whatsoever is spoken by particular men to wit as many opinions almost as heads that 's the speech of one man not of the Church farthermore if an assembly be made and it be unlawfull it shall be considered as ●●ll Not any one of these therefore who are present in a tumult shall be tyed to the decree of the rest but specially if he dissent and therefore neither can such a Church make any decree for then a multitude is sayd to decree somewhat when every man is oblig'd by the decree of the major part We must therefore grant to the definition of a Church to whith we attribute things belonging to a Person not onely a possibility of assembling but also of doing it lawfully Besides although there be some one who may lawfully call the rest together yet if they who are called may lawfully not appeare which may happen among men who are not subject one to another that same Church is not one Person For by what Right they who being call'd to a certaine time and place doe meet together are one Church by the same others flocking to another place appointed by them are another Church And every number of men of one opinion is a Church and by Consequence there will be as many Churches as there are divers opinions that is to say the same multitude of men will at once prove to be one and many Churches Wherefore a Church is not one except there be a certaine and known that is to say a lawfull power by meanes whereof every man may be oblig'd to be present in the Congregation either himselfe in person or by Proxie and that becomes One and is capable of personall functions by the union of a lawfull power of convocating Synods and assemblies of Christians not by uniformity of Doctrine and otherwise it is a multitude and Persons in the plurall howsoever agreeing in opinions XXI It followes what hath beene already said by necessary connexion that a City of Christian men and a Church is altogether the same thing of the same men term'd by two names for two causes For the matter of a City a Church is one to wit the same Christian men And the forme which consists in a Lawfull power of assembling them is the same too for 't is manifest that every Subject is oblig'd to come thither whither he is summon'd by his City Now that which is call'd a City as it is made up of men the same as it consists of Christians is styled a Church XXII This too is very cohaerent with the same points If there he many Christian Cities they are not altogether personally one church they may indeed by mutuall consent become one Church but no otherwise then as they must also become one City For they cannot assemble but at some certaine time and to some place appointed But Persons places and times belong to civill Right neither can any Subject or stranger lawfully set his foot on any place but by the permission of the City which is Lord of the place But the things which cannot lawfully be done but by the permission of the City those if they be lawfully done are done by the Cities authority The Universall church is indeed one mysticall body whereof CHRIST is the head but in the same manner that all men together acknowledging God for the Ruler of the world are one Kingdome and one C●ty which notwithstanding is neither one Person nor hath it one common action or determination Farthermore where it is said that CHRIST is the head of his body the Church it manifestly appeares that that was spoken by the Apostle of the Elect who as long as they are in this world are a Church onely in potentiâ but shall not actually be so before they be separated from the reprobate and gather'd together among themselves in the day of Judgement The Church of Rome of old was very great but she went not beyond the bounds of her Empire and therefore neither was she Universall unlesse it were in that sense wherein it was also said of the City of Rome Orbem jam totum victor Romanus habebat when as yet he had not the twentieth part of it But after that the civill Empire was divided into parts the single Cities thence arising were so many Churches and that power which the Church of Rome had over them might perhaps wholy depend on the authority of

those Churches who having cast off the Emperours were yet content to admit the Doctours of Rome XXIII They may be called Church-men who exercise a publique office in the Church But of offices there was one a Ministery another a Maistery The office of the Ministers was to serve Tables to take care of the temporall goods of the Church and to distribute at that time when all propriety of riches being abolisht they were fed in common to each man his portion The Maisters according to their order were called some Apostles some Bishops some Presbyters that is to say Elders yet not so as that by the name of Presbyter the age but the office might be d●stinguisht For Timothy was a Presbyter although a young man but because for the most part the Elders were receiv'd into the Maistership the word denoting age was us'd to signifie the office The same Maisters according to the diversity of their employments were called some of them Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors or Teachers And the Apostolicall worke indeed was universall the Propheticall to declare their owne revelations in the Church the Evangelicall to preach or to be publishers of the Gospell among the infidels that of the Pastors to teach confirme and rule the minds of those who already beleev'd XXIV In the Election of Church-men two things are to be considered the Election of the Persons and their consecration or institution which also is called ordination The first twelve Apostles CHRIST himselfe both elected and ordain'd After CHRISTS asc●nsion Matthias was elected in the roome of Judas the Traitour the Church which at that time consisted of a Congregation of about one hundred and twenty men choosing two men And they appointed two Joseph and Matthias but God himselfe by lot approving of Ma●●ias And Saint Paul calls these twelve the first and great Apostles also the Apostles of the Circumcision Afterward were added two other Apostles Paul and Barnabas ordain'd indeed by the Doctours and Prophets of the Church of A●…h which was a particular Church by the imposition of hands but elected by the command of the Holy Ghost That they were both Apostles is manifest in the 13. of the Acts v. 2 3. That they receiv'd their Apostleship from hence namely because they were separated by command of the spirit for the work of God from the rest of the Prophets and Doctours of the Church of Antioch Saint Paul himselfe shewes who calls himselfe for distinctions sake an Apostle separated unto the Gospell of God Rom. 1. ver 1. But if it be demanded further by what authority it came to passe that that was receiv'd for the command of the Holy Ghost which those Prophets and Doctours did say proceeded from him it must necessarily be answer'd by the Authority of the church of Antioch for the Prophets Doctours must be examined by the Church before they be admitted For Saint John saith Beleeve not every Spitit but try the Spirits whether they are of God because many false Prophets are gone out into the world but by what Church but that to which that Epistle was written In like manner Saint Paul reprooves the Churches of Galatia because they Judaized Gal. 2. v. ●…4 although they seemed to doe so by the Authority of Peter for when he had told them that he had reprehended Peter himselfe with these words If thou being a Iew livest after the manner of Gentiles and not as doe the Iewes why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do● the Iewes Not long after he questions them saying This onely would I learne of you Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Law or by the hearing of faith Gal. 3. ver●… Where it is evident that it was Judaisme which he reprehended the Galathians for notwithstanding that the Apostle Peter compelled them to Judaize Seeing therefore it belonged to the Church and not to Peter and therefore also not to any man to determine what Doctors they should follow it also pertained to the authority of the Church of Antioch to elect their Prophets and Doctors Now because the Holy Ghost separated to himself the Apostles Paul Barnabas by the imposition of hands from Doctors thus elicted its manifest that imposition of hands consecration of the prime Doctors in each Church belongs to the Doctors of the same Church But Bishops who were also called Presbyters although all Presbyters were not Bishops were ordain'd somtimes by Apostles for Paul Barnabas when they had taught in Derbe Lystra and I●onium ordained Elders in every Church Acts 14. v. 23. sometimes by other Bishops for Titus was by Paul left in Crete that he should ordain Elders in every City Tit. 1. v. 5. And Timothy was advised not to neglect the gift that was in him which was given him by Prophesy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery 1. Tim. 4. v. 14 And he had rules given him concerning the Election of Presbyters But that cannot be understood otherwise then of the ordination of those who were elected by the Church for no man could constitute a Doctor in the Church but by the Churches permission For the duty of the Apostles themselves was not to command but to teach and although they who were recommended by the Apostles or Presbyters were not rejected for the esteem that was had of the recommenders yet seeing they could not be elected without the will of the Church they were also suppos'd elected by the authority of the Church In like manner Ministers who are called Deacons were ordained by the Apostles yet elected by the Church for when the seven Deacons were to bee elected and ordained the Apostles elected them not but look yee out say they among you Brethren seven men of honest report c. And they chose Stephen c. And they set them before the Apostles Acts 6. vers 13. 6. It is apparent therefore by the custome of the Primitive Church under the Apostles that the ordination or consecration of all Church-men which is done by prayer and imposition of hands belonged to the Apostles and Doctors but the Election of those who were to be consecrated to the Church XXV Concerning the power of binding and loosing that is to say of remitting and retaining of sinnes there is no doubt but it was given by Christ to the Pastors then yet for to come in the same manner as it was to the present Apostles now the Apostles had all the power of remitting of sins given them which Christ himselfe had As the Father hath sent me sayes Christ so send I you John 20. vers 21. and he addes Whose soever sins yee remit they are remitted and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained vers 23. But what binding and loosing or remitting and retaining of sinnes is admits of some scruple For first to retain his sinnes who being baptized into remission of sins is truly penitent seems to be against the very Covenant it selfe of

in the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Mat. 28. ver 19. And even as the Pastours cannot refuse to Baptize him whom the Church judges worthy so neither can they retaine his sinnes whom the Church holds fitting to be absolv'd nor yet remit his sinnes whom the Church pronounceth disobedient And it is the Churches part to judge of the sinne the Pastours to cast out or to receive into the Church those that are judg'd Thus Saint Paul to the Church of Corinth Do not ye judge saith he of those that are within Yet he himself pronounc't the sentence of Excommunication against the incestuous Person I indeed saith he as absent in body but present in Spirit c. XXVI The act of retaining sinnes is that which is called by the Church Excommunication and by Saint Paul delivering over to Satan the word Excommunication ●ounding the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easting out of the Synagogue seems to be borrowed from the Mosaicall Law wherein they who were by the Priest adjudged ●eprous were commanded to be kept a part out of the Camp untill by the judgement of the Priest they were againe pronounc't cleane and by certaine rights among which the washing of the body was one were purified Levit. 13. ver 46. From hence in processe of time it became a custome of the Jewes not to receive those who passed from Gentilisme to Judaisme supposing them to be uncleane unlesse they were first washed and those who dissented from the Doctrine of the Synagogue they cast out of the Synagogue By resemblance of this custome those that came to Christianity whether ●hey were Jewes or Gentiles were not receiv'd into the Church without Baptisme and those that dissented from the Church were depriv'd of the Churches Communion Now they were therefore said to be deliver'd over to Satan because all that was out of the Church was comprehended within his Kingdome The end of this kind of Discipline was that being destitute for a time of the grace and spirituall priviledges of the Church they might be humbled to salvation but the effect in regard of secular matters that being excommunicated they should not onely be prohibited all Congregations or Churches and the participation of the mysteries but as heing contagious they should be avoided by all other Christians even more then Heathen for the Apostle allowed to accompany with Heathen but with these not so much as to eate 1 Cor. 5. ver 10 11. Seeing then the effect of Excommunication is such it is manifest in the first place that a Christian city cannot be excommunicated for a Christian City is a Christian Church as hath been declar'd above in the 21. Art and of the same extension but a Church cannot be excommunicated For either she must excommunicate her selfe which is impossible or she must be excommunicated by some other Church and this either universall or particular But seeing an Universall Church is no Person as hath been prov'd in the 22. Artic. and therefore neither acts nor does any thing it cannot excommunicate any man and a particular church by excommunicating another Church doth nothing for where there is not one common Congregation there cannot be any Excommunication Neither if some one Church suppose that of Jerusalem should have excommunicated an other suppose that of Rome would it any more have excommunicated this then her selfe for he that deprives another of his Communion deprives himselfe also of the Communion of that other Secondly No man can excommunicate the subjects of any absolute government all at once or forbid them the use of their Temples or their publique worship of God for they cannot be excommunicated by a Church which themselves doe constitute for if they could there would not onely not remain a Church but not so much as a common-weale and they would be dissolved of themselves and this were not to be excommunicated or prohibited but if they be excommunicated by some other Church that church is to esteem them as Heathen but no christian Church by the doctrine of Christ can forbid the Heathen to gather together and Communicate among themselves as it shall seem good to their Cities especially if they meet to worship Christ although it be done in a singular custome and manner therefore also not the excommunicated who are to be dealt with as Heathen Thirdly a Prince who hath the Soveraign power cannot be excommunicated for by the doctrine of Christ neither one nor many subjects together can in●erdict their Prince any publique or private places or deny him entrance into any Assembly whatsoever or prohibit him the doing of what hee will within his own jurisdiction for it is Treason among all Cities ●o●any one or many subjects joyntly to arrogate to themselves any authority over the whole City but they who arroga●e to themselves an authority over him who hath the supreme power of the City doe arrogate the same authority over the City it selfe Besides a Soveraign Prince if he be a Christian hath this farther advantage that the City whose Will is contained in His is that very thing which we call a Church the Church therefore excommunicates no man but whom it excommunicates by the authrity of the Prince but the Prince excommunicates not himselfe his subjects therefore cannot doe it It may be indeed that an Assembly of rebellious Citizens or Traytors may pronounce the sentence of excommunication against their Prince but not by Right Much lesse can one Prince be excommunicated by another for this would prove not an excommunication but a provocation to Warre by the way of affront For since that is not one church which is made up of Citizens belonging to two absolute Cities for want of power of lawfully assembling them as hath been declar'd before in the 22 Art they who are of one Church are not bound to obey an other and therefore cannot be excommunicated for their disobedience Now what some may say that Princes being they are members of the Universall church may also by the authority of the Universall church be excommunicated signifies nothing because the Universall church as hath beene shewed in the 22. Art is not one Person of whom it may be said that shee acted decreed determin'd excommunicated absolv'd and the like personall attributes neither hath she any Governour upon Earth at whose command she may assemble and deliberate For to be guide of the Universall church and to have the power of assembling her is the same thing as to be Governour and Lord over all the Christians in the world which is granted to none but God onely XXVII It hath beene shewed above in the 18. Art that the authority of interpreting the Holy Scriptures consisted not in this that the interpreter might without punishment expound and explicate his sentence opinion taken thence unto others either by writing or by his owne voice but that others have a not Right to doe or teach ought contrary to his sentence

excepting this one Article that IESUS IS THE CHRIST which only is necessary to salvation in relation to internall faith all the rest belong to obedience which may be performed although a man doe not inwardly beleeve so he doe but desire to beleeve and make an outward profession as oft as need requires of whatsoever is propounded by the Church how it comes about that there are so many Tenets which are all held so to concern our Faith that except a man doe inwardly beleeve them He cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heaven But if he consider that in most controversies the contention is about humane Soveraignty in some matter of gain and profit in others the glory of Wits he will surely wonder the lesse The question about the propriety of the Church is a question about the Right of Soveraignty for it being known what a Church is it is known at once to whom the Rule over Christians doth belong for if every Christian City be that Church which Christ himselfe hath commanded every Christiā subject to that city to hear then every subject is bound to obey his City that is to say Him or them who have the supreme power not only in temporall but also in spirituall matters but if every Christian City be not that Church then is there some other Church more universall which must be obeyed All Christians therefore must obey that Church just as they would obey Christ if He came upon Earth She will therfore rule either by the way of Monarchy or by some Assembly This question then concerns the Right of ruling To the same end belongs the question concerning infallibility for whosoever were truly and internally beleeved by all mankinde that he could not erre would be sure of all Dominion as well temporall as spirituall over all mankinde unlesse himselfe would refuse it for if he say that he must be obeyed in temporalls because it is supposed he cannot erre that Right of Dominion is immediately granted him Hither also tends the priviledge of interpreting Scriptures For he to whom it belongs to interpret the controversies arising from the divers interpretations of Scriptures hath authority also simply and absolutely to determine all manner of controversies whatsoever but he who hath this hath also the command over all men who acknowledge the Scriptures to be the Word of God To this end drive all the disputes about the power of remining and retaining sinnes or the authority of excommunication For every man if he be in his wits will in all things yeeld that man an absolute obedience by vertue of whose sentence he beleeves himselfe to be either saved o● damned Hither also tends the power of instituting societies for they depend on him by whom they subsist who hath as many subjects as Monks although living in an Enemies City To this end also refers the question concerning the Iudge of lawfull Matrimony for he to whom that judicature belongs to him also pertains the knowledge of all those cases which concern the inheritance and succession to all the goods and Rights not of private men onely but also of Soveraign Princes And hither also in some respect tends the Virgin-life of Ecclesia●ticall Persons for unmarried men have lesse coherence then others with civill society and besides it is an inconvenience not to be slighted that Princes must either necessarily forgoe the Priesthood which is a great bond of civill obedience or have no hereditary Kingdome To this end also tends the canouization of Saints which the Hea●he● called Apotheosis for he that can allure forraign subjects with so great a reward may bring those who are greedy of such glory to dare and doe any thing For what was it but an honourable Name with posterity which the Decii and other Romans sought after and a thousand others who cast themselves upon incredible perils The controversies about Purgatory and indulgencies are matter of gain The questions of Free-will Iustification and the manner of receiving Christ in the Sacrament are Philosophicall There are also questions concerning some Rites not introduced bur left in the Church not sufficiently purged from gentilisme but we need reckon no more All the world knows that such is the nature of men that dissenting in questions which concern their power or profit or preeminence of Wit they slander and curse each other It is not therefore to be wondred at if almost all tenets after men grew hot with disputings are held forth by some or other to be necessary to salvation and for our entrance into the Kingdome of Heaven insomuch as they who hold them not are not only condemned as guilty of disobedience which in truth they are after the Church hath once defined them but of Infidelity which I have declared above to be wrong out of many evident places of Scripture to which I adde this one of Saint Pauls Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth for God hath received him One man esteemeth one day above another another esteemeth every day alike Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind Rom. 14. v. 3 5. FINIS The Introduction That the beginning of mutuall society is from f●ar Annotation Annotation That men by nature are all equall Whence the wil of mischieving each other ariseth The discord from comparison of wits From the Appetite many have to the same thing The definition of Right A right to to the end gives also a right to the means By the right of nature every man is judge of the means which tend to his preservation By right of nature all men have equall right to all things Annotation The right of all to all is unprofitable The state of men without Society is a state of War The definition of War and Pace War is an adversary to mans preservation That by the right of nature it is lawfull for any man to compell him whom he hath in his power to give him caution for his future obedience That the Law of nature is not an agreement of men but the Dictates of Reason Annotation That is the fundamentall Law of Nature to seek Peace where it may be had and where not to defend our selves The first special Law of Nature is That our Rights to all things ought not to be retain'd What it is to quit our right what to convey 〈…〉 it The will of the receiver must necessarily be declar'd before the right be convey'd Words convey not except they relate to the time present Words of the future suffice to convey if other testimonies of our will be not wanting In matters of free gift words of the fi●ure ●onveigh no Right The definition of Contract and Covenant In Covenants we passe away our Rights by words signifying the future Covenants in the state of nature are in vain and of none effect not so in Civill Government Annotation That no man can make Compacts with Beasts neither with God without