because God hath said it That the place is not this earth we have some reason to think because our Saviour ascended into heaven and whilest he was on earth made intercession for us saying Father I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am John 17.14 And to comfort the hearts of his Disciples sad and troubled because he said he must leave them he useth these words In my Fathers house are many mansions if it were not so I would have told you I go to prepare a place for you And if I go and prepare a place for you I will come again and receive you to my self that where I am there ye may be also John 14.23 If eternal life shall be enjoyed on earth why need Christ ascend to heaven there to prepare a place for us and when he shall return from thence why will he not stay here and leave us on the earth and never trouble himself with any translation of us into any other place where he shall ever abide and we be ever with him Hell in Scripture and as we understand God in that Book to teach us is an estate directly contrary to eternal life And we believe that it is a most miserable condition of such as shall suffer eternal punishments and that in some certain place and our chiefest imployment in this life is to use all means whereby we may be freed from that condition and enjoy the contrary Concerning the particular ubi and distinct place we do not as we need not much trouble our selves To prove that both eternal rewards are to be enjoyed and eternal torments to be suffered perpetually on earth he doth most wofully wrest and abuse several places of Gods Book and with so little solidity of judgement that children may answer him And because this eternal life is prepared by God for such as are by reason of their sin in danger of hell and eternal death therefore in Scripture it s sometime called salvation and also redemption which is a freedom and deliverance from all the evil consequents and effects of sin one and the principal whereof is to be deprived of eternal bliss which consists in full communion with our God Yet the consummation of both these conditions is reserved by God for the world to come which will follow the universal resurrection The times of the Gospel in respect of the Law may be called the world to come and so some understand the words of the Apostle to the Hebrews 2.5 where we read that God hath not unto Angels subjected the world to come c. This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sometimes it s taken for the time following the resurrection and final judgement as Mark 10.39 Luke 18.30 This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Redemption is taken in another sense for the expiation of sin upon satisfaction made by Christ unto his heavenly Father as supreme Judge who accepted his death as a sufficient penalty to avert his wrath and procure his mercy for all such as should believe on him In this Chapter he hath imposed upon many places of Scripture a sense never intended and this may be evident to any that can and will examine the places according to the originals and the context And he drives at this to deprive Christ of his regal power which at the right hand of God he now doth exercise and to invest civil powers with it till such time as he hath brought Christ from heaven that he may here on earth begin his personal raign Sr. Thomas Mores Vtopia is somewhat rational this discourse is void of reason and so much the more unsufferable as the matter is so sublime and this sacred Book of God so much profaned by him CAP. VIII Of the third Part And the 39. of the Book Of the significations of the word Church in Scripture IN the former Chapter he turned heaven and hell into the earth and in this he hath transformed the Church which is a spiritual politie into a civil State and that will easily appear from his definition of this excellent and divine Society T. H. A Church is a company of men professing Christian Religion united in the person of one Soveraign at whose command they ought to assemble and without whose authority they ought not to assemble G. L. Many are the significations of the word Ecclesia in the Scriptures of the New Testament as it is applyed to Christians which he hath in part yet not fully observed Yet amongst them all from the beginning to the end of the New Testament its never found to be taken in this sense for as he hath not so he cannot alledge one place where it so signifies This definition is such as never any gave before you can read it in no Author neither can you prove it out of Scripture Only the first words seem to have something of a description but it s no perfect explication of the quiddity and nature of the Church Christian For that is a society or community of persons who believe in Jesus Christ and subject themselves unto him as their Lord and King A bare profession will not make a man a subject of this spiritual Kingdom A sincere profession of that faith which is seated and rooted in the heart comes up higher and is more fit to express the being of a Member of this Church This Church as Catholick or Universal subject unto Christ is like a similar body and therefore the parts may bear the name of the whole as the Church of Corinth the Church of Ephesus and the Church in such an house Some part of this Church is under a form of discipline to be exercised in foro exteriori as the School-men and Casuists use to speak some parts are not so happy For this is not of the Essence of a Church It s not of the being though it tends to the well-being of the same Some of these are subject unto a civil Soveraign who is a Christian some are not For as a Christian State may have Heathen or Mahumetan subjects so Christians may be under the civil power of an Heathen or Mahumetan Prince Both these therefore to be under a form of discipline and subject to a Christian civil power are but accidental and these accidents are separable and often actually separated and therefore I know no reason why they should be part of a perfect desiâ—â—tion or so much as mentioned in it This may be sufficient for to discover the vanity of the man and the absurdity of the definition Yet notwithstanding his definition be faulty I for my part do grant that Jus religionis ordinandae doth belong to all Civil Governors and powers But with limitation 1. That no Soveraign hath power to order maintain and promote any Religion but that which is instituted from heaven 2. That they must not intermeddle with it for to order it further then its ordinable by the sword which cannot reach Religion and
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
good to deliver concerning the Nature of a Common-wealth civil The Distribution followeth Mr. Hobbs A Common-wealth is either by institution or acquisition G. L. This is not the distribution of a Common-wealth either into the integral parts which are two 1. The soveraign 2. The subject not into the kinds for those are usually taken from the several manners of disposing the supreme power in one or more to make it Monarchical or Polycratical but it s a distinction of the manner of acquiring supreme power And the ordinary way or rather means whereby it is acquired is either by force or consent Yet this distinction is imperfect for there be other means besides these neither when supreme Power is obtained either by force or consent is a Common-wealth framed The Power is alwayes derived from God as before and he takes it from one and gives to another either in an extraordinary or an ordinary way of Providence as by giving a finall victory or inclining mens hearts and that upon several reasons to submit and sometimes so that if they had liberty and power they would not consent at all And though men may be unjust in desiring and seeking yet he is just in giving it And by the way it s to be observed 1. That a Power acquired and held by force cannot govern without a tacit consent at least so that all Common-wealths are by consent 2. No man or men can govern any people long by force except it be the Will of God to punish and oppress them with an iron rod for their transgressions CAP. II. Of the Second Part and the Eighteenth of the Book Of the Rights of Soveraigns by Institution THis Chapter informs us what the rights of Soveraigns once constituted are In every Common-wealth there must be a supreme Power fixed in some certain Subject this is essential to it yet though this be a principal thing to be done yet it is not all neither being done doth it make a compleat Common-wealth His Covenant of every one with every one for to design a Soveraign is but an Utopian fancy For by the best Histories we may understand that many States have attained to a setled form of Regular Government by degrees in a long tract of time and that by several alterations intervening so that the Laws of their constitution are rather customs then any written Charter Some Communities come under a form of Government more suddenly and by a way fortuitous unto man though not so to God And in this point the practise of former times not the fancies and speculations of men must instruct us T. H. The first of the twelve Rights of the Soveraign is That Subjects cannot change the form of Government G. L. That Community which hath Power and Liberty to alter the form of Government to the better do not their duty or are not wise if they do it not And it were wisdom in any people to reserve the Power to the whole body to be used as occasion opportunity and necessity shall require As they are bound to reform the State when it is corrupted so they are bound to alter the form when without an alteration reformation cannot be obtained That the Subjects have no power to alter the form of Government may be granted for Subjects as Subjects must submit unto the Power established not take upon them the highest and most transcendent Prerogative of all others yet this is no right of the Soveraign nor to be reckoned inter Jura Majestatis For the Soveraign himself hath no right of himself to change the fundamental constitution Before this can be done the People must return unto the original State of Liberty and to a Community which in England is not a Parliament but the fourty Counties Upon this ground some have said that a Parliament cannot alter the Government what men may do upon a Dissolution and in a case of real not pretended necessity is another matter But let us hear his reasons T. H. The first upon supposition of no former Obligation is That it is a breach of that Covenant whereby they made themselves authours of every act the soveraign doth or shall judge fit to be done 2. If they depose the Soveraign that which is his own and they had formerly given him they take away unjustly 3. If any attempting to depose his Soveraign be killed or punished he is Author of his own punishment 4. A new Covenant pretended to be made with God cannot free them from offence and injustice in their disobedience unto their Soveraign because they can make no Covenant with God without his Leiutenant which is the Prince G. L. 1. I grant as formerly that a Subject as such cannot act to change the Government or depose his lawful Soveraign 2. They who set up a Soveraign and by Covenant advance him to the Throne must and ought to be free from all former superiour obligations which cannot stand with this But what is this to purpose The question is whether Subjects cannot change the form of Government in any case and whether the Subjects may not be freed and that lawfully from their allegiance and cease to be in the State of Subjects That it many times fals out so to be is evident For by civil wars by forraign invasions transmigrations and other wayes it comes to pass that Subjects are free from their Soveraigns who cannot protect them and in such cases if God give them Power they may alter the form of Government if it may be for the best But to come more close unto his first reason let us suppose as he affirmeth That a people by Covenant have set up a particular person to be a Monarch and so made themselves authors of all his acts whether is it lawful for you by a new Covenant to obey another or cast off Monarchy or transfer his person upon another without injustice He saith ye cannot without breach of Covenant do it But 1. He here presupposeth his former Utopian fancy of a Covenant of every man with every man whereas its plain few States of the world now in power were thus constituted 2. Soveraigns are of two sorts 1. Such as in whom the supreme power doth constantly and immediately abide 2. Such as are such only for execution and administration To these latter the subjects bind themselves to be faithful so far as they shall be faithful to the Kingdom and the Crown which is theirs not jurc dominii by absolute right with a power to alienate them or destroy them For every subject is first bound to be faithful to their Countrey then unto their King who swears to maintain the Laws Liberty and Religion by Law established These cannot bind us to do any thing against the Laws of God of Nature nor against our Countrey But with this Author every Monarch is absolute and in particular the Kings of England amongst the rest 3. Suppose a Covenant with a Soveraign absolute or limited be against the Laws of God
of 600. years was alone called Soveraign had the title of Majesty from every one of his subjects and was unquestionably taken by them for their King was notwithstanding never considered as their Representative that name without contradiction passing for the title of those men which at his command were sent up by the people to carry their petitions and give him if he permitted their advice G. L. This man deserves to be a perpetual slave his intention is to make men believe that the Kings of England were absolute Monarchs their subjects slaves without propriety of goods or liberty of person the Parliaments of England meerly nothing but shadows and the members thereof but so many carriers of letters and petitions between home and the Court What he means by subordinate Representatives I know not I think his intention is to oppose those who affirmed King Peers and Commons to be co-ordinate not subordinate powers and all of them joyntly to make up one supreme Subordinate Representatives or powers he may safely and must grant in all States The word Representative he either doth not understand or if he do he intolerably abuseth his unwary and unlearned Reader by that term A Representative in the Civil Law called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one who by his presence supplies the place of another that is absent for some certain end as to act that which another should do but in his own person doth not yet with the consent of the person represented so far as that the thing is judged to be done by him And in this sense the person representing is Judged to be one with the person represented by fiction of Law And one may represent another as a Superiour who may represent another in any act so far as that other is in his power or as an inferiour by a power derived from his superiour or as an equal by consent so far as the person will undertake to act for him In all these representations the Representeé and the Representer are judged one person In a free-State a Parliament is a Representative of the whole body of the people this we call a general Representative The reason of this representation is because the whole body of a people cannot well act personally What kind of Representative the Parliament of England was is hard to know except we knew certainly the first institution which by tract of time and many abuses of that excellent Assembly is now unknown It was certainly trusted with the highest acts of Legislation Judgement Execution The whole body consisted of several orders and ranks of men as of King Peers Commons the Clergy Whether they might meddle with the constitution or no is not so clear it s conceived they could not alter it though they might declare it what it was Their power was great without all doubt yet not so great but that it was bounded and a later Parliament might alter and reform what a former had established which argues That the 40. Counties and the whole body of the people whence all Parliaments have their original and being as they are Parliaments were above them In this great assembly the Knights and Burgesses did represent the Connties and the Burroughs the Convocation the whole body of the Clergy the Peers by antient tenure their Families Vassals and Dependants But whom the King should represent is hard to determine If the Law did consider him as an infant and this according to the constitution he could represent no other person or persons And if this be so then there is plain reason why he never should have the title of Representative yet evident reason there is why the rest should be called a Representative and the people are not Representers as he fondly imagines but the persons represented It s affirmed by the Author 1. That our Government is a Monarchy 2. The King had the Soveraignty from a descent of 600. years 3. Was alone called Soveraign 4. Had the title of Majesty from every one of his Subjects 5. Was unquestionably taken by them for their King 1. Our Government is called a Monarchy is true and he himself in this Chapter confesseth that Elective limited Kings are called Monarchs and their Kingdoms Monarchies yet he saith they are not so Again Monarchy is Regal over free-men Despotical over slaves and servants not by a Legal but an Arbitrary power If he say its Regal then the King is no absolute Monarch as he would have him to be If he say its Despotical its false and we know it so to be false And the Doctrine of Dr. Sibthorp and Mannering or Martin affirming this was condemned by a whole Parliament and that by men who have been as great Zealots for the King in these civil wars as any other 2. The King of England had Soveraignty by a descent of 600. years But first what doth he mean by Soveraignty If he understand an absolute supreme power it s not true the Kings of England have no such thing It s true that many of them did challenge so much power as they could acquire and keep and as their sword was longer or shorter so their power in possession was more or less Yet by the constitution of Law and the best custom it was alwaies determined within certain bounds Secondly Whence will he commence the date of 600. years and how will he derive the Soveraignty If from the Conqueror the date of so many years is not yet expired the Succession is interrupted if not cut off by the sword upon a civil war If he derive this power from the Conqueror as Conqueror all free English men will deny it the Kings themselves durst not challenge it upon those terms and by consent they never had it Therefore the Soveraignty the time of the commencement the title it self doth vanish He saith something proves nothing that he was called Soveraign doth neither prove that he was really such nor that he was absolute and that by his own confession 3. The King had the title of Majesty from every one of his subjects The title or name doth not prove the thing for we know very well that the title is constantly given to divers Princes who have not the thing no more then our Kings had the Kingdom of France though they had the title of the Kings of France France was so civil as to grant the title and the word but never part with the thing The Dukes of Venice as Contarene tells us had insignia sed non potestatem regis Majestas is sometimes maxima dignitas and this no subject denyed to the King He had his Scepter and his Throne his Robe and Diadem but all these are far short of supreme power Majestas is Personalis aut Realis Real he had not Personal he might have Yet personal Majesty might be his either in respect of dignity as it was or in respect of power and that also two waies either in respect of the whole power and all the
the first Scripture alledged by him we read it in Exod. 20.19 To understand these words we must consider 1. That cap. 19.8 That all the people answered together and said All that the Lord hath said that will we do This was an absolute subjection of themselves to God and a promise to obey him 2. That the Lord said unto Moses Lo I come unto thee in a thick cloud that the people may hear when I speak with thee and believe thee for ever Verse 9. This was to procure authority and credit unto Moses as a Messenger between God and Israel 3. That the words of Exod. 20.19 quoted by the Author are expounded Deut. 5.27 For thus there we read Go thou near and hear all that the Lord our God shall say and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak to thee and we will hear it and do it From all which it is apparent 1. That the people had formerly before they spake these words subjected themselves to God and he was their Soveraign not Moses 2. That they promise to obey the words of God declared by Moses not as they were the words and Laws of Moses but of God they will do them 3. That they promise to believe Moses as a Messenger between God and them not obey him as their supreme Lord. It s one thing to believe Moses as a Prophet from God and to yield him absolute obedience as a King Believe him as a Prophet they might obey him as their King they must not God was their King and Moses his Messenger and servant How grosly therefore doth he abuse the place how absurdly and falsly doth he thence infer the peoples promise of absolute obedience to Moses which was only due and promised unto God T. H. Concerning the right of Kings God himself by the mouth of Samuel saith This shall be the right of the King you will have to raign over you he shall take your sons c. 1 Sam. 8.11 12 c. G. L. 1. The translation which he confessed is allowed by his Soveraign and the Church of England is perverted For instead of This will be the manner of the King he turns it This shall be the right of the King There is a great difference between right which is alwaies just and manner or custom which is many times unjust 2. If this be a prerogative of Soveraigns then its a very great misery to be subject to a King and that in two respects 1. Because he will take away from his subjects unjustly that which justly is their own even the best things 2. Because by doing thus he will oppress them so grievously that having no remedy or redress from man they will cry unto God for deliverance from a King as a great and intolerable mischief 3. If it be the right of a King yet it is but the right of heathen Despotical Princes and not of the Kings of Israel But how can it be the right of heathen Kings seeing they had no power to oppress and do wrong 4. It could not be the right of the Kings of Israel for they were bound to act and judge according to the Laws God had made yet these acts here mentioned are directly contrary to those Laws and Rules of Regal Government delivered by God himself For he must have a copy of the Laws and read in it all his life that he may fear God keep his Laws not exalt himself above his Brethren c. Deut. 17.18 19 20. Neither did the Kings of Judah or Israel no not wicked Ahab practise or make use of this power as is evident in the case of Naboths Vineyard 5. To do according to this power pretended in this place is directly contrary to the very end of all Government civil which is to do justice and judgement to preserve to every one his own to protect the good and punish the bad How shall he punish the Oppressor when he is the great Oppressor himself How can he do justice upon thieves when he is the greatest thief in his Kingdom 6. If this should be the right of the Kings of Israel and of all Soveraigns then though the people of Israel were a free people yet if a King was once set over them they were meer slaves neither their Lands nor their goods nor their children nor their servants were their own and also by this reason there can be no subjects in any state under heaven that can have propriety or liberty but all are meer and absolute servants and slaves Kings may have potentiam but not potestatem force and fraud but no just power to oppress their subjects and do such things as are here mentioned Whereas some say That God in this place teacheth us what Kings may do and in Deut. 17.18 19 20. what they ought to do is to little purpose as being more acute then solid For id quisque potest quod jure potest And no man no not the greatest Princes in the world have any power to do that which is unjust 7. It s a question whether they had such a King as they desired For they desired a King which would offend God and oppress them but God gave them such a King as had no power to make Laws but such as were bound to Judge according to the civil or judicial Laws made by himself and even in the time of Kings he reserved the Soveraign Rights in his own hand It seems they understood not well what kind of King they had desired for to maintain the state and pomp of a great Court and an army in constant pay was a vast charge and required such a revenue as could no waies be raised without the great oppression of the people And this they did not consider neither would understand till it was too late and the yoak was upon their necks and the burden pressed them very sore When Princes are trusted with an absolute power to raise men and moneys at their will and pleasure they will not be content with the ordinary Revenue of their Crowns but what they cannot obtain justly by the Laws and the constitution of the State they will force by the sword and so the Government proves military and in the end meerly arbitrary Whereas Mr. Hobbs conceives That to go in and out before them and Judge the people contains as absolute a power of the Militia and Judicature as one man can possibly transfer unto another he is much deceived For both these may be had in a despotical or a Regal way or by Commission The first is absolute the two latter are not so The Kings of Sparta Poland Arraegon might have both these and yet be no absolute Soveraigns T. H. Solomon prayed that God would give him understanding to judge his people and discern between good and evil 1 Kings 3.8 therefore he had the Judicial and Legislative power supreme and absolute G. L. This is his meaning and thus he understands these words
of England to be Soveraigns And 3. in that respect to have a power to raise subsidies and moneys without a Parliament And 4. hath made that a mortal disease of our State which is a great preservative of our liberty For the people alwaies bear the purse and could not by the King be charged with the least without their consent by their Representative in the Parliament This did poise and limit the regal power prevented much riot and excess in the Court made the Prince frugal and hindred unnecessary wars Yet good Princes and frugal never wanted money were freely supplyed by their subjects whilest they required in their need any thing extraordinary above the publick revenue in a right way by Parliament T. H. There is a sixth Doctrine plainly and directly against the essence of a Common-wealth and its this That the Soveraign power may be divided G. L. The supreme power as supreme must needs be one and cannot be divided For as in a Natural so in a Political body there must be of necessity one only principle of motion One supreme will directed by one judgement and strengthened with one force of the sword must command judge execute Otherwise there can be no order or regular motion Yet this supreme power may be in many persons several and distinct physically but morally reduced to one by the major part agreeing in one suffrage That some have made in this State of England three Co-ordinate powers with their several Negatives and their several distinct rights of Soveraign power can very hardly be made good by any reason as I have hinted before Yet even these do place all the jura Majestatis in all joyntly Our form of Government is confounded by the different opinions of common Lawyers Civilians and Divines who neither agree one with another nor amongst themselves It hath been declared That the fundamental Government of this Kingdom hath been by King Peers and Commons yet this can satisfie no man because there is no certainty what the power of Commons what the power of Lords what the power of the King is Neither whether the house of Commons and of Lords be two distinct houses or no Or if they be distinct wherein they are so distinct For some affirm that in Legislation they ought to be but one though in Judicial acts two Yet suppose the Lords to have the Judicial power alone nevertheless it s a question what kind of Lords and Barons these should be We read first of the forty Lords of the forty Counties in the Saxons time after the Conquest we find three sorts of Barons in the higher house and they were Feudarii rescriptitii diplomatici Barons by Tenure by Writ by Patent Lords by tenure were the first but afterwards when any were called by the Kings Writ to Parliament they by that very Writ were made Barons with suffrage amongst the former the last were Lords by Patent and such were most yea almost all our Lords in latter times And to multiply the last was a policy in the King For by that means after the supremacy of the Pope was cast off the Bishops did wholly depend upon the King and the Barons by Patent were his creatures and by them he might carry any cause or at least hinder and cross the desires of the Knights and Burgesses And herein few of our ordinary Histories can help us because they relate only unto us matter of fact how sometimes the King sometimes the Barons sometimes the Commons were ascendant and predominant as now they all seem to be descendant Yet for all this a free Parliament of just wise and good men might rectifie all this and unite the supreme power so miserably divided to the hazard of the State T. H. And as false Doctrine so also often-times the example of different Government in a neighbouring Nation disposeth men to alteration of the sorm already setled G. L. That this may be a cause of the alteration and also of ruine too it s very possible and there seems to be some colour of reason in it because we are bound to follow the best examples And this may be powerful and prevalent with such as are given to Change and affect novelty Yet with wise and understanding men its of no force because they know full well that some form of Government which may be good to one may prove not to be so to another and that changes in this kind are dangerous For to unsettle that which is firm for to introduce that whereof we have had no experience may prove the ruine of a State T. H. And as to rebellion in particular against Monarchy one of the most frequent causes is the reading of the Books of Policy and Histories of the antient Greeks and Romans c. G. L. This hath been formerly examined The reading of these Books cannot do so much hurt as this Leviathan may do For it is far more dangerous and destructive of good government then any of their Histories which can do no hurt to any but such as are ignorant and ill-disposed In those Books they may read of Kings and Emperours and of Monarchies as well as free-States and few are so void of understanding but that they well know they are bound to their own form of Government and are not to covet every model they read of Such men as he do shamefully debase free-States as forms unlawful in themselves and so flatter limited Princes as though they were absolute Lords and advance Monarchy so high as though it were the only form of Government so instituted by God and commanded that all Nations were bound unto it and whosoever doth not bow unto it is a rebel against God Yet he never instituted immediately any Common-wealth but one and that was a free-State and when a King was desired he was offended and under a regal government it came to ruine Whereas he thinks these Books do teach Regicide and killing of Kings he is much mistaken For subjects to murther their lawful Soveraigns is an horrid crime and so much the more to be detested if done under the name of Tyrannicide To plead for Tyrants really such as such is to be abhorred They pervert the very end of all government abuse their power act contrary to the Laws of God and men to the ruine of the State are enemies of mankind the chiefest agents for the Devil The Question is Whether a people having power in their hands may not restrain or remove or put to death such men as being guilty of many crimes which the Laws of God have made universally capital so that no man in the world can plead exemption Some think that they are to be left to God and subjects must seek deliverance by prayers and tears and the truth is Christians as Christians have no other remedy others conceive they may be restrained and that by force and their own subjects do it Others give this power only unto Magistrates or to such as share with
to obey his Lord and Maker This no irrational being hath or can have So that Gods Dominion over man ariseth from Gods propriety in man as a rational being and from the voluntary submission of man as a rational creature unto his God who made him such Gods propriety in man is derived from creation and preservation and both these were not onely from Gods power as Mr. Hobs imagineth but also from his Understanding and Will For God by his wisdom made the world as well as by his power and worketh all things according to the Counsel of his Will Dominion of government is not onely from power nor by power alone for understanding will and power must all concur to Government Therefore how absurd is that assertion of his which followeth If there had been any man of irresistible power there had been no reason why by that power he should not have ruled If this were true a Leviathan a Dragon an Elephant hath more power then man and why should not brutes being stronger rule over men who are weaker By this rule the strongest man in a Kingdom should be King and he that hath the strength of Goliah or Sampson should rule over others though they have strength without wisdom and integrity T. H. The Kingdom over men and the right of afflicting them at his pleasure belongeth naturally to God Almighty not as Creatour and gracious but as omnipotent G. L. Obedience is due to God not meerly as gratitude to a benefactor but as a duty unto him as a Law-giver For as a Creatour he may have a right to command because by Creation he hath an absolute propriety in his being which is such as he is capable of a Law And Creation is not to be considered as any kind of benefit but such a benefit as his rational being was wholly derived from it and also wholly and perpetually depends upon his preservation and his eternal happiness upon his legislation and judgement And though he may afflict at pleasure as omnipotent because as such he can do it yet he never afflicted any but as a legislatour and Judge according to his just Laws Because God is omnipotent he can afflict but it doth not hence follow that he will afflict But he instanceth in Job and the man born blind both afflicted by God as omnipotent yet Job was upright indeed but not altogether innocent and though God did manifest unto him his glorious Majesty and Almighty power in his great works yet this was not done to shew him the cause why God did afflict Job but to humble him And being humbled he did not plead his integrity but repented of his infirmity in dust and ashes For though he was no hypocrite yet he was a sinner Job 42.6 And though the blind man John 9. was born blind as we might justly be yet he was conceived and born in sin as we are But neither he nor his parents were guilty of any such notorious crime as God doth usually recompence with exemplary punishment even in this life T. H. Honour consisteth in the inward thought and opinion of the power and goodness of another and therefore to honour God is to think as highly of his power and goodness as is possible And of that opinion the external signs in words and actions of men are called worship G. L. This is the first Law of Gods Kingdom by nature in respect of God that he is to be worshipped Worship is sometimes an act of the soul terminated upon his Divine excellency and dignity it s called Reverence and sometimes Adoration Sometimes it s an act terminated upon his supreme and universal Power And so it is submission to him as Supreme Lord and Law-giver Sometime for obedience and in this respect even the performance of our duty to our neighbours as done in obedience to him as our supreme Lord is an act of worship And all acts of the soul terminated upon the Deity immediately are called worship The worship of Reverence and Adoration is given unto God as most glorious and excellent in himself yet so manifested and apprehended The worship of submission and obedience is given and ascribed to him as Supreme Lord and the object of worship is some excellency apprehended in the party worshipped And because the excellency of the Deity is Infinite and Eternal therefore the highest degree of worship is due unto him even to the annihilation of our selves the resigning of our very being wholly unto him and the emptying of our selves into the Ocean of his most blessed Being God deserves and is worthy of all honour glory and worship as excellent in himself They may justly be required of the creature as depending solely and wholly upon him as Lord Creator Preserver And the creature is bound to worship him by vertue of his Law and Covenant By performance of this dutie we are capable of Eternal bliss in and from him and by his promise we come to have a right unto Eternal life The Excellency of God is his most perfect and blessed Essence which cannot be known by man as it is in it self yet it s manifested to us by several distinct attributes whereof some may be known by the light of Reason in some measure but more perfectly by the Revelation of the Scriptures These Attributes are many and distinct and so given to God by himself because by one act of Reason we cannot conceive of or understand his Essence which is but one in it self but represented to us as different and many and so apprehended And by our faith we believe the Divine perfections to be far greater then our Reason can apprehend them to be They are in himself one infinite being manifested by his works and more fully by his Word And our worship must ascend above our Reason and must be performed according to our faith which is a divine and supernatural light For the distinct knowledge of this worship with the several acts thereof and the several names we must not follow the Schoolmen but search into the Scripture diligently observe the use of the words as they are there applied to signifie the same How far Mr. Hobs is from the true understanding of worship in general and of the worship of God in particular may easily appear from this that he makes worship to be nothing else but the outward signification by words and actions of internal honour which with him is nothing else but the inward thought and opinion of the power and goodness of another But neither is worship nor honour any such thing as he hath defined them And his discourse of worship with the distinctions will be found very poor upon examination except we allow him a soveraign power over words to impose what signification upon them he pleaseth and the same different from that wherein they are used in Classical Authors Thus he hath finished his Politicks set forth under the name of Leviathan in the Frontispiece And though many have in
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
Chrstianity but per accidens so far as the persons who are Christians are subject to the civil power And this care of the Magistrate may do much good not only in preventing all tumults and seditions about Religion as prejudicial to the peace of the State and suppress them but also protect the servants of Christ and promote Christianity very much And in this respect only I conceive Soveraigns to be in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil supreme Governors From the definition formerly given he concludes T. H. That because in all Common-wealths that assembly which is without warrant from the civil Soveraign is unlawful that Church also which is assembled in any Common-wealth that hath forbidden them to assemble is an unlawful assembly G. L. There is a diffecence between warrant permission and prohibition Acts 15. we read of a Church-assembly at Jerusalem yet without any warrant from the Roman Emperour and the same did debate determine engross and publish certain binding Canons yet I hope he dare not dictate it to be unlawful though it had been forbidden Permission perhaps they had warrant they had none There are actions and such as God commands and civil Governors forbid yet the prohibition of man cannot make void the command of God For we must obey God rather then man But he tells us T. H. That temporal and spiritual Government are but words brought into the world to make men see double and mistake their lawful Soveraign G. L. As Government the thing signified by the word is a real act so spiritual and temporal Government are two not words but things really different For there is a temporal Government which is not spiritual and spiritual which is not temporal And though he will not give us leave yet we will take it to distinguish between Church and State temporal and spiritual man and Christian For he knows and that certainly there be men who yet are no Christians States which are not Churches and temporal things which are not spiritual And those things which not only may be but actually are separated in existence must needs be really distinct The rule is infallible as its evident And he that will confound these may build a Babel but no orderly society And it s a fault to make that which is double to seem single as well as make that which is single appear to be double CAP. IX Of the third Part. The 40. of the Book Of the rights of the Kingdom of God in Abraham Moses the high Priests and the Kings of Judah HItherto Mr. Hobbs hath abused his Reader in the explication of certain words and terms used in Scripture and hath bewrayed his gross ignorance and abominable errours And as though he had laid a sure foundation whereon to ground his following discourse or at least made way for it he proceeds to prove out of the said holy writings of the Old Testament the absolute power of Christian Soveraigns and States both in matters of Religion and Civil Government And this is so done that there is little fear least any intelligent Reader should he deceived or perswaded by him because there is so great a distance between his premises and the conclusion that no wit of man is able to see the connexion or the illative force of them For he argues That because Abraham in his family Moses in Israel the high Priests after Moses in the times of Judges and the Kings from Saul to the captivity had the supreme power Civil and Ecclesiastical therefore all Christian Governors supreme have the same For this is the substance of this Chapter Yet 1. Abraham was but the Master of a family Moses a Mediator between Israel and God retaining the supreme power both temporal and spiritual in his own hands not only in his time but in the raign of Judges and the Kings The high Priests did only ask counsel of God by the Vrim and Thummim and declared it to the Rulers The Kings had no power Legislative at all but only executive according to the Laws of God they had no right unto the Sacerdotal power For Vzziah usurping that of offering Incense was smitten with leprosie Therefore his Assumption is notoriously false 2. Abraham Moses and some of the Kings were extraordinary Prophets and immediately inspired Such are not Christian Soveraigns Neither can they from God in difficult and perplexed cases receive counsel of God by Vrim and Thummim 3. Suppose all these had been invested with supreme power Civil and Ecclesiastical as they were not yet it doth not follow that therefore Christian Soveraigns are so His consequence therefore is no consequence but false 4. Here it s to be observed That no example can be drawn from the Government of Israel either under Moses or Judges or Kings because that Government all along was extraordinary And as no State Christian is bound to follow it so no State can parallel it And its in vain for Divines or any other writers to argue from that particular form of politie to any other in the world Some general Rules and practises therein may be made use of for the reproof or reformation of Government in other States His innovations and particular false glosses upon several texts are not worthy confutation CAP. X. Of the third part the 41 of his Book Of the office of our blessed Saviour THey who desire to obtain eternal salvation by Christ Jesus must know both who he is and what he hath both suffered and done for them Jesus Christ as Saviour and Redeemer for person is the eternal Son of God for Natures he is God and Man yet so that these two Natures remain distinct one from the other yet personally united For Office he is Prophet Priest and King and such he is made as man by Commission from his Heavenly Father He was Initiated at his Baptism after which time he began to exercise his three-fold power And 1. Of a Prophet to manifest that he was their Saviour and to perswade men to believe in him 2. He performed some acts of a King in making Laws and Officers 3. He acted as a Priest at his death by offering up himself that great sacrifice first by inffering and dying on earth secondly by entring the Holy place of Heaven and presenting himself as slain and so obtained eternal Redemption After his consecration finished upon the Resurrection he was made a compleat Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedeck Upon his Resurrection he was more selemnly setled in his Throne as universal and eternal King And then in a more glorious manner began to act 1. As Prophet to teach not onely Jews but Gentiles and that not onely by his word but by his Spirit powred down from Heaven upon all flesh 2. As a Priest interceding by vertue of his blood 3. Of a King in all the acts of government in his Universal Kingdom By his sacrifice offered on earth and presented in Heaven he satisfied Gods justice offended by the
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
are made publick officers of the Church and separated to their function of publick preaching praying administration of the Sacraments Neither is there any place in all the New Testament where it can be proved that either Christ or his Apostles who had this power did ever derive it to the State or Civil Soveraign whether Christian or no Christian That every civil Soveraign hath power to preach baptize ordain and perform all Ministerial acts and that as a publick Officer is an impudent assertion and contrary to the Book of God is evident from that reason given by him why they use not to do these things which is because the business of the Common-wealth takes up their whole time Yet he that will be a Minister must watch over his flock be as souldiers who going to war must not entangle themselves with the affairs of this life 2 Timothy 2.4 As he must have sufficient knowledge in those things which belong unto his calling and integrity of life so he must engage himself to Christ and his Church to lay aside all other employments to feed Christs flock and this must take up his whole time To entangle himself with other business and so neglect his charge is to be unfaithful and in effect renounce his calling From this false principle it is that so many who have a little more knowledge in Scripture then ordinary Christians of the lowest form a bold face and voluble tongue take upon them to preach and presume to perform other Ministerial duties although they be souldiers or civil Magistrates or Tradesmen or all together These will be Elders and Ministers although they entangle themselves with the affairs of this life as though the Holy-Ghost had made them Over-seers to feed his Church purchased by his blood But wo unto them when they shall appear before the tribunal of Christ to give their last account But consider a Minister as he hath a temporal right unto some temporal revenue dignity jurisdiction the Church hath nothing to do with him The Church looks after his spiritual qualification and capacity After that Emperours and civil powers endowed the Church with a certain revenue and annexed unto Bishopricks civil jurisdictions and temporal dignities there was some reason why the presentation and investiture should belong unto them but there was no such thing from the beginning The maintenance of the Ministers of the Gospel is determined by this Author to be benevolence yet at length convinced by the arguments of the Apostle 1 Cor. 9. He confesseth that it was such a benevolence as was due and that the Flock was bound to maintain their Pastor By which confession he hath answered his own allegation Freely give because you have freely received Mat 10.8 which place is abused by him as it is by the enemies of the Church at this day For as by him so by them it s understood and applyed as though our Saviours meaning had been That because they gave nothing for their gifts and authority so they must neither demand nor receive any thing for the use of them And by this means they make our Saviour to contradict himself for afterwards he saith That the workman and such is every Minister is worthy of his meat ver 10. of his hire Luk. 10.7 From whence Paul informs us That Christ ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel 1 Cor. 9.14 And therefore according unto this Ordinance of Christ he commands That he who is taught in the Word communicate to him who teacheth in all good things Gal. 6.6 From all which its very evident that maintenance is due to Ministers and that by a Law and the same divine and far more obliging then any civilact in the world And if Christian people had a propriety in their goods as of this there can be no doubt this might easily make this maintenance competent comfortable and certain and that without any Law of the civil power and they were bound so to do When Christian Princes endowed the Church with titles they did but their duty and they conceived that no better way of provision could be devised by the wit of man Neither can any Antidecimarian to this day inform us of a better Yet if we be once Ministers we are bound to preach the Gospel though we beg our bread But woe unto them who shall deny it or take it out of our mouths CAP. XII Of the third Part. And the 43. of the Book Of what is necessary for a mans reception into the Kingdom of heaven IT is evident from our Saviours commission unto his Apostles Mat. 28.19 20. That profession of faith and promise of obedience to him gave any person right unto Baptism by which we are solemnly admitted into the Church which is Gods spiritual Kingdom And faith with obedience and obedience from faith makes us capable of eternal life And because we can neither believe nor obey sincerely without regeneration from heaven therefore our Saviour saith That except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God John 3.3 If Mr. Hobbs had said no more but that faith and obedience are necessary for reception into Gods Kingdom he had done well but he returns unto his vomit and resumes some of his former errors formerly confuted I wish him more knowledge and more modesty FINIS