civil penalties of man yet not from the judgement of God if that Religion be against the Laws of God No Laws of man can bind above much less against the Laws of God and this all rational men will confess Austine denies the perfection and according to Tullies definition the very being of a Common-wealth to the Roman State because it commanded subjection unto and worship of Devils By what this Author hath delivered Christ and the Apostles are made guilty because they required obedience to the positive Laws of the Gospel seeing they were contrary to all civil Laws of the world Upon this account the Rulers of the Jews heathen Princes and the Roman Emperours who persecuted the Christians are justifiable as all such who received the Christian Religion contrary to their own Laws are condemnable but of this you will hear more hereafter For he makes it indifferent what Religion any man professeth if it be agreeable to the Laws of the State where he lives T. H. There is also another distinction of Laws into fundamental and not fundamental but I could never see in any Author what a fundamental Law signifieth c. A fundamental Law is that by which the subjects are bound to uphold whatsoever power is given unto the Soveraign c. G. L. This doth argue his ignorance in Politicks For fundamental Laws in every State are those which concern the constitution not fundamental such as are made immediately to regulate the administration The former are such as cannot be altered without taking asunder and disjoynting the very frame and form of Government the latter may be altered and yet the essential frame may stand The former are the foundation of a State the latter are but superstructions The former determine the Soveraign who he is and what his power and also define the bounds of the liberty and subjection of the subject The golden Bull is said to contain the fundamental Laws of the German Empire as the Salick or as some call it the Gallick of excluding females from succession to the Crown is said to be one of the fundamentals of France T. H. I find lex civilis jus civile promiscuously used for the same thing even in the most learned Authors which nevertheless ought not to be For Jus is Liberty Lex is Obligation G. L. That they are often taken for the same and in learned Authors is certain and that without any errour But yet Jus doth not properly signifie the liberty left unto us by the Law but id quod Justum est and ought to be the matter of the Law And when the Civilians take Jura and Leges to be the same they understand by Jus not Jus vagum but Jus à lege determinatum For the Laws determine what is right and what is wrong and in this sense Jus cannot be liberty as he doth fondly imagine but must either be or at least imply an Obligation CAP. XI Of the Second Part. The 27. of the Book Of crimes excuses and extenuation THE Author in this Chapter is methodical and cannot much be charged with errours or misprisions as in the former The proper place for crimes excuses extenuations and aggravations is next to that of Laws For as the Apostle teacheth us Where there is no Law there is no transgression And herein the Authors of Politicks seem to be defective because though they treat of Laws and Jurisdiction yet they say little or nothing of Crimes Yet the Civilians in this particular have done their part He doth distinguish betwixt sins and crimes and his distinction may be allowed though hardly in Politicks Yet the word Crime in Learned Authors is not alwaies taken as here it is for an offence as it is an object or matter of Judgement And sometimes causes judicial are distinguished into civil criminal capital In which distinction criminals are onely one sort of mules That which we call Sin in Divinity is nothing but disobedience to a Law in general though it be strictly taken for disobedience to divine Law Disobedience being an anomy presupposeth a Law and a Law must have a Soveraign and a Law-giver and there can be no violation of a Law without wrong unto the Law-giver And those offences are most hainous which directly oppose and wrong the power of the Soveraign lawfully constituted because the tend to the rasing of the very foundation and constitution of the Government it self Such are denying of the supreme power resisting it and revolting from it so as to be Soveraigns our selves or independent or subject to another The first law God gave was for to secure his Soveraignty Thou shalt have no other Gods but me as the Septuagint do well and truly turn it And this by Philo is said to be the Commandment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the supreme power of one God All other offences are against the Laws of administration which though they may be hainous yet are not so hainous as those former against the institution These offences of disobedience may be considered either with reference to the Laws antecedent as violated or to Jurisdiction following in which sense the Author handles them and calls them crimes And these may be reduced unto certain heads as they have been by Civilians and also by the Lawyers of particular States yet this is most exactly done by the Common-Law of England which was entire before the Conquest and followed the order of the ten Commandments of the moral Law of God Thus some Antiquaries in Law do inform us The Author acquits all motions of the soul antecedent to a deliberate consent resolution and intention from being sins yet this I cannot do It s certain that to understand know and remember that which is evil and unjust cannot be sin because God doth so and all this may be done with a detestation of it yet to like approve incline unto delight in evil thus known and remembered though we never yield a deliberate or any formal consent must needs argue some imperfection if not corruption in the heart of man which should never think of evil but with hatred The rest of the Chapter is rational if rightly understood the greatest part whereof is taken up in that of aggravations wherein he hath done better then others yet he is far short of some who have both more largely and also accurately handled that point out of Scriptures It s a common theme of Casuists and Civilians and might have been much improved The original of all crimes and offences are either from the understanding or the will not the passions as he affirms From the understanding either not apprehending or not judging aright from the will averse or enclined another way by reason of corruption Ignorance and error are from defect or negligence or wilfulness severally or joyntly And here it s to be observed That the more of meer will there is in any offence the more hainous it is The highest degree of wilfulness is in obstinacy resisting all
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
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
obligativa 4. Not content to give the definition he explains what is right and that is that which is not contrary to the Law and wrong and its that which is contrary But what he means by rule is hard to know If he mean by rule Law it self then its absurd if he intends some antecedent rule of divine wisdom manifesting what is just or unjust before a civil power command it he is obscure Though he undervalue the Philosopher so much as far below him though he was far above him he might with Marsulis of Padua in his Defensor Pacis pars 1. cap. 10. have observed out of him a better definition of a Law given Ethn. ad Nicho. lib. 10. cap. 9. Lex est sententia doctrina seu judicium universale justorum conferentium civilium suorum oppositorum cum praecepto coactivo per poenam aut praemium de ejus observatione in hoc saeculo destribuenda More briefly it s a coactive precept of the Soveraign binding the subject to obedience and upon the same to be rewarded or upon disobedience to be punished in this life where many things are to be observed 1. The matter of this Law is something in it self just and conducing to the publik good yet so that it reacheth to the contrary 2. This must be known and judged to be so by the wisdom and understanding of the Soveraign for all Laws arr made by wisdom Political 3. This judgement of the Law-giver must be made known unto the subject therefore the Philosopher saith its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word And he means not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word not only inwardly conceived in the mind of the Law-giver 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle saith but it must be uttered and made known as the ten Commandements are called the ten words therefore it s said Exodus 20. God spake all these words 4. It must be praeceptum which includes the will of the Soveraign intending to bind the subject and so declaring himself 5. It must be an universal precept binding the whole community of the subject 6. It must be a coactive precept and backt with the sword for to make the Obligation effectual In this respect the Philosopher saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law must have a coactive force And the Apostle saith he beareth not the sword in vain which words imply the Law-giver must have a sword 7. This sword protects and rewards the obedient who observe this Law according to their obligation and it punisheth the disobedient and for these two ends the Law must be co-active and armed with a sword 8. These rewards and punishments are to be conferrd and inflicted in this life for it cannot reach the soul and the life to come and this doth difference the civil Laws of men from the Laws of God which bind men to obedience upon the promise of spiritual and eternal rewards and for defect of obedience unto eternal and spiritual penalties This hath far more of the definition of a Law then his and more fully declares the nature of a Law civil Yet if either he or any other will improve it I shall like it well for I know mine own imperfections From his definition he infers several conclusions the first whereof is T. H. The Legislator in all Common-wealths is the Soveraign Again the Common-wealth is the Legislator by the Representative G. L. That pars imperans is the Legislator in every State must needs be granted but that the Common-wealth should be the Legislator either by or without pars imperans the Soveraign I do not understand For it consists of two parts the Soveraign and the subject and if the whole Common-wealth make Laws then the subject as well as the Soveraign is Legislator In a Republick or free-State there is a difference between the Soveraign and the subject much more in other models and forms Therefore he must needs speak either improperly or untruly when he saith the State is Legislator T. H. Conclusion 2. The Soveraign is not subject to the civil Laws because he hath power to make and repeal them at pleasure G. L. That the Soveraign in divers respects and especially as a Soveraign is not subject unto but above the Laws is a certain truth For Laws do bind the subject not the Soveraign to obey or be punished but the Soveraign doth command as Superiour not obey as inferiour doth punish is not punished The power to make a Law when there is none and to repeal after that it s made is sufficient evidence of his superiority as also dispensations in judgement and pardons be Yet this supreme will Legislative over men is subject to the superiour will of God and must neither make nor repeal Laws but according to wisdom and justice T. H. Conclusion 3. Custom is not Law by long continuance of time but by consent of the Soveraign G. L. This follows from the first Conclusion For if the Soveraign only be the Legislator then continuance of time and practise of the people though universal cannot make a Law The Soveraign must give either an express or tacit consent and this consent is then most evident when he makes the custom a rule in judgement and observes it And the Civilians well observe that besides continuance of time and the Soveraigns consent A third thing is required and that is that the beginning of it be reasonable as the Author here doth note T. H. Conclusion 4. The Law of Nature and the Civil Law contain each other and are of equal extent For the Laws of Nature which consist in equity justice gratitude and other moral vertues on these depending in the condition of meer nature are not properly laws but qualities that dispose men to peace and obedience when a Common-wealth is once actually settled then are they Laws c. G. L. 1. This is no Conclusion from the definition except he mean that the rule of right and wrong be the Law of Nature 2. The Laws of Nature are the Laws of God and not of man and not only subjects but Soveraigns are bound by them 3. Therefore they bind not as commanded by the civil Soveraign but as written by the hand of heaven in the heart of man Neither is that which afterwards he makes the difference between the Law of Nature and the Law of civil Governors any difference at all that the one is written the other not For both are written one by the hand of man though every Civil Law be not written and the other by the hand of God the one in the heart the other upon some other material substance and that which is written in the heart may be written out of it 4. Equity justice gratitude and other moral vertues are not Laws of nature but either habitual or actual conformities unto the Laws of Nature 5. How the Laws of Nature and Laws Civil should be of equal extent and yet contain one
another and be parts one of another I do not understand 6. A Law of Nature is only then a civil Law when it s declared to be so by the civil Soveraign yet it s a Law before 7. For the most part learned men do understand by the Laws of Nature certain divine principles imprinted upon the heart of man by the Laws of Nations more immediate by the Laws civil more remote Conclusions of constitutive Laws civil T. H. Seeing all Laws have their authority and force from the will of the Soveraign a man may wonder whence proceed such opinions as are found in the Books of Lawyers of eminence in several Common-wealths directly or by consequence making the Legislative power depend on private men or subordinate Judges as for example That the Common-Law hath no Controuler but the Parliament Item That the Common-Law hath two arms Force and Justice the one whereof is in the King the other deposited in the hands of the Parliament G. L. The former Conclusion which is the fifth in order That the Laws of Princes and Countries subdued depend upon the Soveraign conquering is true And it is wisdom in the Conquerors to grant them the Laws and Customs of God and no waies prejudicial to their power For many are willing to change their Governors yet unwilling to change their Government But as concerning the two maximes of Law I might refer him to the Learned in that profession who no doubt can make them good against any thing he hath said They seem to him to be unreasonable partly because he is ignorant of the Constitution both of this and also of other States partly because they are inconsistent with his Utopian principles For he presupposeth 1. That the King of England is an absolute Monarch 2. That the Parliament as a Parliament is meerly a subject 3. That the King hath power at will and pleasure to call Parliaments and dissolve them yet these hath he not made good neither can he 1. That our Kings are not absolute Monarchs is well known the Laws and practice have made it manifest And whatsoever ignorant persons and parasites may say yet wise men both English and Forreign States-men who have dealt with England have been assured of the contrary especially when in certain leagues they have required the consent of the Parliament Again the Kings of England never made or repealed a Law nor levied a subsidie alone themselves without a Parliament And they are sworn corroborare leges quas vulgus elegerit For let Elegerit be what tense it will vulgus which is populus non rex eligit leges and the late King in his answer to the 19. Propositions did confess that the Lords and Commons had a share in the Legislative power And it were very much to be wondered at if that King who himself alone could never make or repeal a Law nor levy or impose a subsidie nor revoke the judgement of any Court nor alter a word or clause in any Law agreed upon in Parliament should be an absolute Monarch It s far more probable he was only trusted with the force for the execution of justice according to Law and Judgement according to the second maxime And if he was no absolute Soveraign then his second supposition that the Parliament as such is only an Assembly of private men and subjects and to be considered in no other capacity is false As likewise his third That the King can call and dissolve Parliaments at will and pleasure For by the Constitution the Laws and practise he was bound to call them once a year and oftner as the necessity and exigency of affairs either of peace or war should require And in such cases to dissolve them before the ardua Regni were dispatched was both dangerous and destructive and did argue either a bad constitution or a corruption of the same T. H. Law cannot be against reason neither is it the letter but the intention of the Law-giver that is the Law And this reason is not private of subordinate Judges but of the supreme Lawgiver G. L. All this is willingly granted if he understand by Reason not the meer conceit or will of the Soveraign but that reason which is a ray of divine wisdom shining in the mind of the Law-giver regulating his judgement and expressed in the words of the Law And the sense of a Law given by a learned Judge subordinate may be very true yet not authentick because he that makes the Law can interpret Law in that manner and none else I pass by his discourse concerning promulgation and interpretation of Law as also the qualification of Judges which belongs to that Chapter of Officers formerly mentioned He might have done well to have improved these excellent Treatises of other learned Authors who have informed us both more accurately and also more particularly of these things then he himself hath done But he conceits himself as far above them as they surpass ordinary men Neither is his distribution of Laws worth the examination as being very crude and indigested as also heterogeneous I proceed therefore to his two questions concerning what assurance may be had of and obedience ought to be given unto divine positive Laws The questions are T. H. 1. How can a man without supernatural revelation be assured of the revelation received by the declarer of those Laws 2. How can he be bound to obey them The answer to the first By sanctity miracles wisdom success without particular revelation its impossible for a man to have assurance of a revelation made to another Therefore no man can infallibly know by natural reason that another hath had a supernatural revelation of Gods will but only a belief G. L. This presupposeth 1. That there is a positive Law of God 2. This positive Law is declared and witnessed to be the Law of God 3. That this testimony concerning this Law is divine and infallible 4. That it is such because it s grounded on and agreeable to an immediate revelation from God of that Law to him that doth declare it as to Moses the Prophets or Apostles For God formerly spake unto the Fathers by the Prophets in the latter times to their children by his Son first and after by his Apostles The question here is not how we shall attain a demonstrative clear or intuitive knowledge of the matter of the Law nor of the manner of the revelation but how we may be assured that the declaration or testimony of him to whom the revelation was made is divine that we may believe it as divine and from God The means whereby the divinity of the testimony was made evident at the first were extraordinary as signs wonders and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost according to his own will Heb. 2.4 But after that upon these divine attestations the Gospel was generally received in all Nations and the prophesies of the Old Testament in this particular fulfilled these ceased yet one thing
A second cause of weakning and dissolving a State are certain Doctrines The first That every private man is Judge of good and evil actions G. L. Judgement is publick or private publick no private man can pass private he may and that both of his own actions and others too The acts of others are private or publick of both these he may Judge Publick acts of the Governors are Laws Judgements Execution Even of Laws he may he must within himself so far as they are a rule and bind him enquire examine and determine whether good or evil Otherwise he can perform but only a blind obedience to the best and if he conform unto the unjust he in obeying man disobeys God which no good man will do In other acts which are apparently just we may judge of them truly as they are and no otherwise Yet this must not be done to palliate our disobedience to that which is just or raise sedition or rebel but we may complain to God and by our humble prayers seek redress T. H. A second Doctrine That whatsoever a man doth against conscience is sin The conscience may be erroneous and he that is subject to no Civil Law sins in all he acts against his conscience Yet to him that is in a Common-wealth the Law is the publick conscience by which he hath undertaken to be guided G. L. Conscience is a mans knowledge of his own acts as agreeable or disagreeable to the Law of God It s not a faculty but an act of the soul and an act not of the will but understanding and the same as practical The proper act is knowledge the object is his own acts and these acts not any way but as agreeable or disagreeable to the Law of God For as Aquinas saith there must be applicatio facti ad legem Otherwise a mans understanding cannot judge of it as conformable or not unto the Law of God These acts may be considered as to be done or done In the former respect conscience binds as a Law though it be not the Law but presupposeth or includeth the knowledge of the Law In the latter respect it judgeth and is a kind of judge of himself in some sort as superiour to himself But before the tribunal of God it is a witness and doth accuse or excuse The great Question so much vexed by the Casuists is whether an erroneous conscience doth bind But let them determine what they please an erroneous conscience in proper sense is no conscience For an errour is no knowledge but a defect of knowledge or rather a plain want of knowledge and also an act contrary to knowledge Conscience is a knowledge in proper sense and knowledge is true and certain and it s a knowledge of a mans own act or acts as agreeable to the Law of God this an erroneous conscience cannot be That conscience is such a knowledge is made evident by the Apostle saying That when the Gentiles not having the Law do the things contained in the Law they having not the Law are a Law unto themselves who shew the work of the Law written in their heart by their conscience witnessing c. Rom. 12.14 15. Where we may observe 1. That the conscience could not witness accuse or excuse except there were something to be accused or excused 2. The thing accused as evil or excused as good must be something conformable or contrary to the Law of God 3. The conscience could not accuse or excuse any thing as good or evil without knowledge both of the Law and of the act that was contrary or consentaneous to that Law 4. Therefore the Apostle before he makes mention of the conscience affirmeth 1. That they did the things contained in the Law 2. They were a Law unto themselves 3. That they did by their conscience witnessing prove or demonstrate the work of the Law that is the work which the Law did command written in their heart To have the work of the Law written in their heart is to have a certain true knowledge of it not an erroneous mistake But to return to the Author Conscience in proper sense doth bind yet not as it is knowledge nor as knowledge of a mans proper act nor as knowledge of the Law in general but by vertue of the Law known as a rule of his particular act For man being subject unto God and under his Laws cannot bind himself and be his own Law-giver but the Law of God not an errour truly understood by him doth bind him But let the erroneous judgement of the practical understanding be called conscience as by a Trope it may because there may be something of conscience in it yet whether can it bind or no I answer it cannot bind for an errour of the understanding cannot be a binding rule to command the will of man neither can it be a rule at all Again an erroneous judgement especially practical is a sin and against the Law of God therefore it can no waies bind only thus far most Casuists do grant that by it a man is so far bound as not to act against it yet this it doth only per accidens for per se he is bound to act otherwise then it doth dictate For because God hath made a mans reason his guide he must needs be much depraved in his will that will act contrary unto his reason And he that will not seruple to act against his erroneous judgement will be bold to act against his judgement rightly informed But the full debate of this I refer to another occasion And these things premised I return unto Mr. Hobbs that of the Apostle Whatsoever is not of faith is sin and therefore whosoever acts againt saith and conscience properly so taken sinneth and for him to affirm that the true Doctrine of God revealed in the Scripture should be either false or destructive of eivil States and Governments is no waies tolerable Whereas he alledgeth that the Law of the Common-wealth is the publick conscience by which the subject hath bound himself to be guided it s too loose and fallacious if examined For 1. The Law is not the publick conscience but the publick rule of conscience in matters civil 2. It s a rule of the subjects obedience not as its a Law of the Common-wealth but as it is agreeable and not contrary to an higher Law the Law of God For the Laws civil do not immediately bind the conscience and immortal soul as the civil Soveraign hath no power to punish it for his sword cannot reach that spiritual substance Secondarily and by consequence they may oblige the soul 3. No subject may or ought to make the Law of the State his absolute guide For the Law may be against the Law of God and then how can the subject undertake to obey it and make it his rule and not offend God 4. Every subject is first bound and subject unto God before he be subjected to civil powers and is first
them in the supreme power Others are of a mind that seeing they cease to be Kings or Soveraigns they may be lawfully tryed and put to death as well as private men and that without any ordinary jurisdiction Others determine this to be lawful in such States as that of Lacedemon in Grece and Arragon in Spain What the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is cannot be unknown For the Pope doth arrogate an universal Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction whereby he may excommunicate any Christian King that shall not obey his Canons and Edicts and upon this sentence once given he may depose him free his subjects from their allegiance and command them as Catholicks to rise in rebellion against him some of them have taught that its a meritorious art to poyson stab or any other way murther Kings for the promotion of the Catholick cause This question after the terms thereof clearly explicated is of very great moment and let men advise well how they do determine either in their own judgement privately or before others T. H. There be Doctors that think there may be more sorts that is more Soveraigns then one in a Common-wealth and set up a Supremacy against the Soveraignty Canons against Laws and a Ghostly Authority against the Civil c. G. L. There cannot be any Soveraign but one in one and the same Common-wealth and to set up Supremacy against Soveraignty Canons against Laws Ghostly authority against Civil must needs be a cause of division confusion dissolution Yet this will not prove any inconsistency of an Ecclesiastical independent power with the Civil Soveraignty in one and the same Community And the distinction of the power of the keyes given by Christ unto the Church and the power of the sword trusted in the hands of the higher powers civil is real and signifies some things truly different one from another though he either cannot or will not understand it With Mr. Hobbs indeed this distinction can signisie nothing because he hath given unto the civil Soveraign an infallible judgement and an absolute power in all causes Ecclesiastical and Spiritual His discourse may be good against those Ecclesiastical persons who have usurped civil power otherwise it s impertinent and irrational And he must know that it is alike difficult to prove That the State hath the power of the keyes as for to evince that the Church hath the power the sword It s as great an offence for the State to encroach upon the Church as for the Church to encroach upon the State The Bishops of Rome have been highly guilty of the one and many protestant Princes and States of the other And though men will not see it yet its clear enough that one and the same Community is capable both of a Civil and Ecclesiastical Government at one and the same time and that the Church and State are two distinct Common-wealths the one spiritual and the other temporal though they consist of the same persons And these persons as Christians considered in a spiritual capacity make up the Community and Common-wealth Christian which is the Church as they are men having temporal estates bodily life and liberty they are members of the civil Community and Common-wealth The Power Form of Government Administration Laws Jurisdiction Officers of the Church are distinct and different from those of the State The sentence of the Church is Let him be an Heathen or a Publican and the execution is expected from heaven according to the promise Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and this sentence doth take away some spiritual but no temporal or civil right of the person judged though the judgement be passed and made valid both in foro interiore exteriore The sentence of the civil State is Let him be fined imprisoned stigmatized banished put to death and it s executed by the sword The several members of a Church National and the whole Church joyntly is subject to the civil power and the civil Soveraign if a Christian is subject to the Church because as a Christian he is subject to Christ and bonnd by his Laws And as a civil Soveraign he is bound to protect the Church and he may by civil Laws ratifie the Ecclesiastical Canons and then they bind not only under a spiritual but a civil penalty too If Church-assemblies give cause of jealousie to the Civil powers they may regulate them and order their proceedings if they offend they may punish them Their persons lives estates are under the sword and if this be taken from them because they will not obey them to disobey Christ they ought to suffer it patiently for Christs sake In this case the Church may pray and weep resist and rebel they may not for Christians as Christians have no power of the sword against any man not their own members much less against the civil Soveraign whom if they resist they must do it under another notion or else they transgress and can have no excuse And here it is to be observed 1. That Christ gathered Disciples instituted Church-discipline made Laws and the Apostles executed them in making Officers Acts cap. 1. 16. made Laws cap. 15. passed sentence and executed the same 1 Cor. 5. and all this without any Commission from any civil Soveraign Therefore it s not true which some learned Divines have affirmed That the State and Church are one body endued with two powers or faculties for they are two distinct bodies Politick It s true that if as some conceive there were no power but coactive of the sword then they must needs be one body But there is another power as you heard before 2. If a King become Christian by this he acquires no power not the least more then he had before and if he be Heathen or Mahometan and all his subjects become Christian he loseth not one jot of his former civil power which they are bound to submit unto by the very Laws of Christianity If he command any thing contrary to the Laws of Christ they may and must disobey but deny his power they may not they must not In this case a Christian may be perplexed between the Devil and a Goaler as some of Scotland were said to be when if they obeyed the Parliament and joyned with Duke Hamilton to invade England the Kirk excommunicate them and deliver them up to Satan if they obeyed the Church prohibiting them they were cast in prison by the State The cause of this perplexity is not from this that the Church and State are two distinct Common-wealths but because the commands of the one or both may be unjust T. H. Some make the power of levying money depend upon a general assembly of conduct and command upon one man of making Laws upon the accidental consent of three Such government is no government but a division of the Common-wealth into three independent factions c. G. L. Here again he hath made the Parliament which is the
be their due and lest they should lose any of them he renews his Catalogue of them again These must be taught the people that they may know themselves to be absolute slaves And Princes must take heed of tranferring any of their Soveraign Rights unto another But this was needless for they have a desire of power before they do obtain it and after they are once possessed of it they not only keep that which is due but also usurp far more then either God or man hath given them Kings who are but trusted with a limited power endeavour to make themselves absolute Lords and Despotical Soveraigns must be petty Dieties The best Princes had always a greater care to exercise their power well then to enlarge it And by their Wisdom and Justice have governed more happily then any of these absolute Soveraigns who desire rather to be great then good and themselves more honourable then the people happy The Errours of this Author vented in this part as that Soveraign power Civil is absolute A civil Law against Rebellion is no Obligation A good Law is not a just Law because no Law can be unjust All his Rules of Government may be proved out of Scripture and other such like I will not here examine because some of them are ridiculous some of them have been formerly answered and his proof of these in his next part shall be discussed CAP. XV. Of the 2. part the 31. of the Book Of the Kingdom of God by nature THis Chapter is the conclusion of the second part the Leviathan and makes way for the third following The principal subject hereof is the Laws of nature as distinct to laws supernatural For he truly and wisely makes God the King and Law-giver both in the Kingdom of God by nature and above nature That God is the universal King by nature he seems to prove out of the Scripture T. H. God is King let the earth rejoyce saith the Psalmist Psal 96.1 And again God is King though the nations be angry and he that sitteth upon the Cherubins though the earth be moved Psal 98.1 Whether men will or not they must be subject always to the Divine Power G. L. In the Allegation of these two places he seems to follow the vulgar Latine and the Septuagint both for the number of the Psalms and the Translation For with us they are the words of the first verses of the 97. and 99. Psalms and are turned in another manner The translations though seemingly different may agree in the substance And it s agreed on all hands that the Psalmist speaks of the Kingdom of God yet seeing there is a kingdom of God as Creator and a kingdom of God as Redeemer it may be a question whether his kingdom in general be here meant or one of the former particular kingdoms Both ancient and Modern Divines for the most part understand both the Psalms of the kingdom of Christ and which is more the Apostle Heb. 1.6 so expounds the former Psalm which agrees with Psal 2. which speaks to the same purpose and undoubtedly intends the Kingdom of Christ The Kingdom and Government of God is most properly so called in respect of Angels and men as onely capable of Laws Punishments and Rewards no rational man will deny yet he by his wisdom doth direct and order all creatures T. H. God declareth his Laws three ways By natural reason Revelation and Prophecy From the difference of the natural and Prophetick Word of God there may be attributed to God a two-fold Kingdom Natural and Prophetick c. G. L. In the rest of this Chapter we may observe three things 1. The manner how God declares his Laws 2. The distinction of his Kingdom 3. The ground of his Dominion 1. God doth manifest himself both to Angels and men two wayes by his Works and his Word By his works in the Creation and Providence By his word immediately by Revelation mediately by Prophesie In the latter he maketh use of man to speak to man the same thing he hath spoken to man by Revelation and the word of prophesie to man is the word of Revelation from God and the matter of both is the same The word of Creation and Providence is received by natural reason the word of Revelation seems to be apprehended by reason supernaturally elevated and illuminated The Kingdom of God is natural or supernatural according to the natural or supernatural Laws The first Kingdom by the rules and dictates of natural reason directs man unto a temporal peace and prosperity on Earth The second by the Laws of Revelation orders him to a supernatural and eternal peace and felicity to be enjoyed fully in Heaven For the former end all civil Policies were instituted For the second the polity spiritual of the Church The declaration of the Laws of Gods Kingdom by nature were universally always declared even to all nations the Laws of his supernatural Kingdom were revealed universally at the first in the times of Adam and after in the dayes of Noah But after a general Apostacy Israel was trusted with the Oracles of life untill the exhibition of the Messias and after his Resurrection the Apostles received a Commission to teach all Nations and make these Laws known more generally So that this Author doth bewray his ignorance in divinity and pretending to the knowledge of the Scripture he little understands them and much abuseth those heavenly Writings For the Kingdom of God by Prophesie was in all times and confined in a more special manner for a time unto the people of Israel for a special reason And at the first election of them after their deliverance from the Egyptial bondage he immediately instituted not onely their spiritual but their civil Government In which respect their civil government might be called in a peculiar manner the Kingdom and Common-wealth of God and so the government of no Nation in the world could be accounted T. H. The right of Gods soveraignty is not derived from Creation but from his irresistible Power G. L. This is his great ignorance to think that Gods Soveraignty should be derived from the executive power of force and strength of his Godhead For Dominion in general is twofold Possessionis ant regiminis of possession or government That of possession we call propriety in which respect God is absolute Lord of all his creatures because he createth and preserveth them so that their very being is more his then theirs But his soveraign power over man ariseth not onely from propriety in general but from Gods propriety in him as a rational intellectual creature ordinable to an higher end then the inanimate and irrational creature is capable of For God created and preserved him a rational creature and both as a creature and as rational he is wholly his As he is rational he is capable of Laws Rewards Punishments and hath a power to become Gods subject by voluntary submission and donation of himself and also
that though no Reason can prove yet no Reason can contradict justly because there is nothing in them contrary to the principles of pure Reason They are proposed unto us with such credit and urged upon us as matters of greatest concernment in the world in so much that he cannot be rational that shall refuse either to give assent unto them or make trial of them with the sincere heart which once done he shall find by reall effects in the heart not only that God did reveal them as he believed before by an acquired faith but have an intuitive knowledge that they are Gods testimony because he who spake by the Scriptures and the Ministers hath spoken to him immediately by his spirit working in his heart and then Reason is satisfied and convinced that God hath spoken and thereupon ceaseth to deny and oppose and yields a firm assent And to conclude this point whereof 〈◊〉 had formerly spoken if we will but consider what kind of men have questioned or opposed the divinity of the Scripture we shall find it in that very thing to be much honoured 〈◊〉 and the reason why men do not believe them is not onely the imperfection but the corruption of Reason and mans will For most men love darkness rather then the light and the Doctrine of the Cross of Christ as it declares a deep design of Gods Eternal Wisdom so it s directly contrary to our false notions and base lusts And this is a plain reason why an acquired faith cannot be sufficient to save any man without the powerful sanctification of the Spirit both to prepare the heart and work a Divine Faith which can never take kindly in an heart that is not prepared These Scriptures he pretends to make the rule of his ensuing discourse yet it s but a bare pretence for he followes his own fancies and false notions not the sense and genuine mind of God in them He doth not re ferre sed ferre sensum as grave Hilary saith He doth not conform his notions to the Scripture but wrests it and makes it to speak that which God never intended CAP 2. Of the third part the 33. of the Book of the Number Antiquity Scope Authority and Interpreters of the holy Scripture SEeing he had made the Scripture to be his Rule he thought good to say something of the Scripture in general And 1. Of the number of the Books and seeing herein he follows the Church of England which followed the Ancient Canon I agree with with him in this as I have no reason to the contrary neither will I debate with him in the second point of Antiquity It s the most Ancient writing in the world and the doctrine more ancient then the writing And its remarkable that though it contain the History of 4000. years yet it was written within the space of 2000. 2. That all the Writers of it if Luke be not excepted were of the seed of Abraham by Jacob and of no other Nation all of them according to the flesh kinsmen to our Saviour Christ 3. That the Prophetical part reacheth the end as the Historical did the beginning of the world and this no other book in the world doth 4. That neither Jews nor Mahumetans have any thing good just and rational but that which is contained in these books and retained by them 5. That these Scriptures are found translated into the languages of the most if not all civil Nations of the world The scope of these writings is to direct sinful man unto eternal life And because this eternal life is virtually in God and issues from him as the Fountain and Author thereof therefore in the same is revealed the Eternal Infinite glorious perfection of God in himself and also his glorious works of Creation and Preservation his supreme and universal Dominion his Laws and Judgements and special government of man And because man as sinful and guilty is no ways capable of eternal life in strict justice therefore the Scripture directs him to God as Redeemer in Jesus Christ that by the observation of the Laws of Redemption he may be for ever blessed Christ our Lord Redeemer is the principal subject of that Book of books For Moses and all the Prophets speak of him as well as the writers of the New Testament though not so clearly and the doctrine of his Laws takes up the greatest part of that Revelation though many other things are therein declared yet in reference unto the principal subject and End In a word the end of the Scripture is to teach us to believe and obey God the Father Son and Holy Ghost Creating Redeeming and Sanctifying us if it speak of civil Kingdoms Laws and judgements it s upon the by with reference to the eternal spiritual Kingdom of God Redeemer and Sanctifier This end and scope is both obscurely and confusedly declared by the Author as will more appear hereafter The Authority of the Scripture is Divine and so perfect that it cannot be improved or impaired by all the Laws of all the civil Soveraigns of the world Neither can the Angels in Heaven add any degree of Authority unto it but if any of them should as they cannot contradict it they are by the divine Apostle declared to be accursed That any person or persons do not apprehend it to be Divine that 's accidental and cannot prejudice it Therefore how vain and false is that of Mr. Hobs when he gives the supreme power of making it to be Law and interpreting the same so made unto the Civil Soveraignss There is a two-fold Law the one is Divine and binds the conscience immediately the other is humane and Civil and cannot bind the conscience but per accidens The Doctrine of the Scripture not onely in Morals but in Positives is Divine and the precepts thereof as being the precepts of God do bind the conscience immediately The Laws of Civil Soveraigns may bind their subjects upon peril of civil and temporal punishment to receive them as authentick But Laws they are and binding to obedience and belief though there were no civil government in the world The State and Church may declare them to be Divine but no wayes make them to be such And as our Saviour said of his Doctrine so its true of all the Scripture that if any man will do the will of God declared therein he shall know it to be of God It s not so much the imperfection of our understanding or the difficulty of the thing to be understood as our disobedience which is the cause why we do not see the divinity of these blessed Books These things being so how absurdly and falsly hath he stated the Question concerning the Authority of the Scripture so as to make it depend either upon the civil Soveraign in his Territory or upon the Pope For thus he writes The Question of the Authority of the Scripture is reduced to this Whether Christian Kings and the Soveraign Assemblies in Christian
did add nothing to Gods power which before was absolute and as high as could be yet it did encrease their Obligation That which he afterwards affirms That he finds the Kingdom of God to signifie in most places of Scripture a Kingdom properly so named constituted by the Votes of the people of Israel in a peculiar manner is very false For 1. That Kingdom of Israel was not constituted by the Votes of the people 2. Suppose it had been so constituted and the word Kingdom of God used in many places of Scripture to signifie that government yet in the most places its never found so taken neither can any man find it most frequently taken in that sense For this is remarkable that it hardly ever so signifies in the New Testament where we have the most frequent mention of the Kingdome of God and the Kingdom of Heaven signifying the spiritual not any temporal Kingdome of God Redeemer by Christ T. H. From the Creation besides his natural reign over all he had peculiar subjects whom he commanded by a voyoc c. This Kingdom was continued in Noahs family after this God made a Covenant with Abraham and for memorial ordained the Sacrament of Circumcision And this was called the Old Covenant or Testament c. This Covenant was afterwards renewed by Moses c. G. L. The Kingdom spiritual is two-fold the first by the Power and Law of Creation requiring perfect obedience without promise of any pardon or Redeemer to expiate sin if man made holy should transgress but this government lasted not long because Adam did violate it and so the second Kingdom and government of God Redeemer by promise succeeded This continued from Adam to Noah and was renewed to Abraham with the addition of the solemn Rite of Circumcision and the promise of the Land of Canaan It was continued from Moses to the exhibition of the Messias yet with an especial appropriation of it to the people of Israel All this is clear out of Scripture and received by the general consent of all the Orthodox Christians And here by the way observe 1. That he makes no difference between the Kingdom of strict justice according to the Law of Creation and of that of Mercy in Christ according to the Law of Redemption 2. That with him the Covenant and promise to Abraham was the Old Covenant whereas the Apostle Rom. 4. and Galat. 3. affirms the contrary and makes the promise 430 years before the Law of Moses to be altogether different from the Law 3. That the Old Covenant was that between God and Israel at Mount Sinai and the New was the Gospel as may appear Heb. 8. from vers 6. unto the end 4. This new Covenant of the Gospel was promised 430 years before the Law and the Law could not make the promise of none effect For it continued in force in the time of the Law which was annexed unto it for certain ends till the Son of God should be incarnate 5. This Kingdom is distinct from Gods special government over Israel and Judah which was subordinate unto it till the Word should be made flesh and assume humane nature from the House of David Therefore Mr. Hobbs his discourse of Gods Kingdom over the Jews is confused false and bewrays either his great ignorance or negligence or wickedness But he begins to act the Critick and sits as Judge to pass sentence upon the Translations of those words of Scripture Exod. 19.5 6. Thou shalt be a peculiar treasure above all people and a Kingdom of Priests For so the Hebrew expresseth the priviledge of this people But he curiously distinguisheth between a peculiar treasure above all people and a peculiar people yet these in sense are the same and also between a sacerdotal Kingdom and a Kingdom of Priests or Royal Priesthood yet these do not differ And whereas the words are a promise of God engaging himself upon condition they will obey him he makes them a promise of the peoples giving their consent that God shall be the Lord and Soveraign But to whom was this promise made onely unto the Priest or to the Prince No such matter but to the whole Nation and every several person that shall keep the Covenant and obey God And this promise doth include the Covenant made with Abraham concerning Christ by faith in whom to come this promise was fulfilled to the Saints of old and by faith in him already come not onely to the believing Jews but Gentiles it was made good And so that place of 1 Pet. 2.9 is to be understood Which Text is not to be taken of Kings and civil Magistrates but all Christians truly such indeed For Christ by one offering hath perfected or consecrated the sanctified for ever Heb. 10.14 And washing us in his blood hath made us Kings and Priests to God his Father Rev. 1.5 6. from that one place of Exod. 19.5 6. misinterpreted by two others one of Paul to Titus 2.14 the other of 1 Pet. 2.9 and all mis-applyed He concludes that the Kingdom of God is a civil government over the Israelites wherein God was King and the high Priest after Moses his death was his sole Viceroy or Lieutenant After all this done in this manner he endeavours to make his opinion good from two places Historical three Prophetical out of the old Testament and two others out of the New Testament The two first are properly to be understood of the special government of God over Israel The three Prophetical places are meant of the spiritual Kingdom of Christ and so are the two last which are most palpably abused For the first of them relates the Angels words unto the blessed Virgin signifying that her son Jesus Christ should sit on the Throne of David and should reign over the house of Jacob for ever and of his Kingdome there should be no end Luke 1.32 33. Which is meant directly of his Spiritual Heavenly and Eternal Kingdom whereof the Kingdom of David was a Type For Christ never reigned as a temporal King over Israel according to the flesh The second place is Matth. 6.10 Where our Saviour amongst other things directs his Disciples to pray Thy Kingdom come By which Kingdom is meant the Reign of Christ Incarnate and exalted at the Right hand of God which was then to come but now hath continued 1600 years and upward and yet all Christians pray for the continuance encrease and especially the consummation of the same when death the last enemy shall be destroyed and God shall be all in all and reign most perfectly without any enemy without any opposition Yet such is his intolerable boldness that from these places thus abused he confidently concludes that the Kingdom of God is a civil government managed by the Christian Civil Soveraigns of the world That Holy is the same with Publick per accidens sometimes is true But every thing that is holy is not publick nor every thing that is publick holy Therefore his
sin of man and merited for himself eternal power and glory and for us eternal life and all effectual means for the certain attainment thereof All the rest of his acts performed by him as King Priest and Prophet tended unto the application of his sacrifice that we by faith might be partakers of the benefit thereof This is the sum of that Doctrine of Redemption delivered clearly and more fully in several places of the Scripture especially of the New Testament Yet this Innovatour hath obscured the same several ways and determines the Kingdom of Christ to begin when the world doth end because Christ said to Pilate My Kingdom is not of this world Joh. 18.36 From whence he concludes T. H. That the Kingdom of Christ is not to begin before the general Resurrection G. L. This is a gross mistake and mis-interpretation of a place which is clear in it self For by his gloss he makes the Scripture to contradict it self Christ was then Candidatus imperii and was King when he gave this answer unto Pilate yet he began to reign and exercise his Royal power more eminently when he was set at the Right hand of the Father yet his Kingdom was not of this world that is not civil but spiritual and as Austin upon the place It was Hic non hinc in the world not of the world in the world yet not worldly but divine and far more excellent then the Kingdoms of the world This is the genuine sense of the words That Christ doth reign now and hath reigned since his ascension and sitting at the right hand of God is evident Before his Ascension he lets his Apostles know that all power in heaven and earth was given him and according unto and by vertue of that power he gave Commission to his Apostles to teach and baptize and perswade men to the obedience of his commands Mat. 28.18 19 20. He that hath an universal power in heaven and earth who makes officers and gives them power who makes Laws Institutes Sacraments and sends down the Holy Ghost must needs reign and his Kingdom is begun already We read that Christ must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet and the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death And when all things shall be subdued unto him then shall also the Son of man be subject unto him that put all things under him that God may be all in all 1 Cor. 15.25 26 28. Where first from Psal 110.1 The Apostle tels us That Christs Kingdom did Commence at the time of Christs sitting at the right hand of God 2. That with him to sit at the right hand of God is to reign 3. That he must reign by Word Sacraments Spirit Ministry till all enemies whereof death is the last be destroyed 4. That when death is destroyed he shall deliver up his Commission and kingdom in respect of this administration by Ordinances 5. That at the Resurrection this manner of reign shall end when Mr. Hobbs saith it shall begin 6. That then God shall be all in all that is reign perfectly in his Saints without any enemy without opposition without Ordinances and more immediately Before that time indeed he will not proceed to the final and universal sentence and execution of the same Yet there are many acts of government besides judgement and many acts of judgement be sides those of the general Assizes and last Sessions To make Laws reduce men to subjection appoint Officers pass sentence and execute the same in the very souls of men are acts of one that reigns as likewise to subdue enemies Sin Satan and the world to protect the Church And in this manner Christ hath reigned since his Ascension And many Millions do adore him subject themselves unto him and obey him to this day Yet with this man Christ doth not yet reign Let him read Psalm 2. throughout It began to be fulfilled upon his Resurrection and Ascension as appears out of the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles And if he or any other shall deny the present reign of Christ they must expect with his Iron Scepter to be dasht in pieces like a Potters Vessel CAP XI Of the third Part the 42. of the Book Of Ecclesiastical Power AFter he had enthroned Civil Soveraigns cap. 40. Dethroned Christ in the former Chapter In this he takes away all power from the Church and invests the Christian civil powers with it And herein it may be a question whether his ignorance or presumption is the greater for he is highly guilty of both He that will determine the controversie concerning the power of the Church must distinguist the universal power of God the spiritual power of Christ incarnate and exalted to the Throne of glory and the power deligated from Christ unto the Church universal here on earth as subject unto Christ as Lord and Monarch and also that which every particular Independent association of Christians is trusted withal for to preserve the Society and the Ordinances of God from profanation This he hath not done and therefore little or rather nothing can be expected from him This last power of particular Churches is called the power of the keys in foro exteriori in the particular government of their several combinations for there is no supreme universal Independent judicatory on earth to which all Churches in the world are bound to appeal in this outward visible administration General Counsels can be no such thing Neither was there ever any Oecumenical Synod in proper sense since the Gospel was preached to all Nations This power of outward Discipline is challenged by the Pope by the Clergy by the people Christian and by the States civil and Soveraigns of the world And in this last party is the Author deeply engaged but upon what reason I know not except he intends to side with the strongest for such are they which bear the sword The power of ordaining Ministers preaching the Word administring the Sacraments was in the universal Church since the time of the Apostles And in every particular Church reduced to a form of outward discipline there is a power of making Canons of jurisdiction of making Officers so far as shall conduce unto the better ordination of Ministers the preservation of the purity of Doctrine and the right administration of the Sacraments least they be profaned and Christ offended by the admission of ignorant scandalous and unworthy persons There is a power also of disposing and dispensing of those goods which are given to the Church for the maintenance of Christian Religion Civil Christian States may and ought to make civil Laws to confirm the just Canons and jurisdictions of the Church And those Laws may be a fence unto it against these who shall oppose or persecute Yet when all this is done those Laws are but Civil though the object of them be Ecclesiastical matters This might suffice for to confute and make void the main body and break in pieces