Books: Leviathan

T >> Thomas Hobbes >> Leviathan

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47

Of Persons Liable To Excommunication
That a man be liable to Excommunication, there be many conditions
requisite; as First, that he be a member of some Commonalty,
that is to say, of some lawfull Assembly, that is to say,
of some Christian Church, that hath power to judge of the cause
for which hee is to bee Excommunicated. For where there is
no community, there can bee no Excommunication; nor where there
is no power to Judge, can there bee any power to give Sentence.
From hence it followeth, that one Church cannot be Excommunicated
by another: For either they have equall power to Excommunicate
each other, in which case Excommunication is not Discipline,
nor an act of Authority, but Schisme, and Dissolution of charity;
or one is so subordinate to the other, as that they both have
but one voice, and then they be but one Church; and the part
Excommunicated, is no more a Church, but a dissolute number
of individuall persons.

And because the sentence of Excommunication, importeth an advice,
not to keep company, nor so much as to eat with him that is Excommunicate,
if a Soveraign Prince, or Assembly bee Excommunicate, the sentence
is of no effect. For all Subjects are bound to be in the company
and presence of their own Soveraign (when he requireth it) by
the law of Nature; nor can they lawfully either expell him from
any place of his own Dominion, whether profane or holy; nor go out
of his Dominion, without his leave; much lesse (if he call them
to that honour,) refuse to eat with him. And as to other Princes
and States, because they are not parts of one and the same congregation,
they need not any other sentence to keep them from keeping company
with the State Excommunicate: for the very Institution, as it uniteth
many men into one Community; so it dissociateth one Community
from another: so that Excommunication is not needfull for keeping
Kings and States asunder; nor has any further effect then is in
the nature of Policy it selfe; unlesse it be to instigate Princes
to warre upon one another.

Nor is the Excommunication of a Christian Subject, that obeyeth the laws
of his own Soveraign, whether Christian, or Heathen, of any effect.
For if he beleeve that "Jesus is the Christ, he hath the Spirit of God"
(1 Joh. 4.1.) "and God dwelleth in him, and he in God," (1 Joh. 4.15.)
But hee that hath the Spirit of God; hee that dwelleth in God;
hee in whom God dwelleth, can receive no harm by the Excommunication
of men. Therefore, he that beleeveth Jesus to be the Christ,
is free from all the dangers threatned to persons Excommunicate.
He that beleeveth it not, is no Christian. Therefore a true and
unfeigned Christian is not liable to Excommunication; Nor he also
that is a professed Christian, till his Hypocrisy appear in his Manners,
that is, till his behaviour bee contrary to the law of his Soveraign,
which is the rule of Manners, and which Christ and his Apostles have
commanded us to be subject to. For the Church cannot judge of Manners
but by externall Actions, which Actions can never bee unlawfull,
but when they are against the Law of the Common-wealth.

If a mans Father, or Mother, or Master bee Excommunicate, yet are not
the Children forbidden to keep them Company, nor to Eat with them;
for that were (for the most part) to oblige them not to eat at all,
for want of means to get food; and to authorise them to disobey
their Parents, and Masters, contrary to the Precept of the Apostles.

In summe, the Power of Excommunication cannot be extended further
than to the end for which the Apostles and Pastors of the Church
have their Commission from our Saviour; which is not to rule by
Command and Coaction, but by Teaching and Direction of men in the
way of Salvation in the world to come. And as a Master in any Science,
may abandon his Scholar, when hee obstinately neglecteth the practise
of his rules; but not accuse him of Injustice, because he was never
bound to obey him: so a Teacher of Christian doctrine may abandon
his Disciples that obstinately continue in an unchristian life;
but he cannot say, they doe him wrong, because they are not obliged
to obey him: For to a Teacher that shall so complain, may be applyed
the Answer of God to Samuel in the like place, (1 Sam. 8.)
"They have not rejected thee, but mee." Excommunication therefore
when it wanteth the assistance of the Civill Power, as it doth,
when a Christian State, or Prince is Excommunicate by a forain Authority,
is without effect; and consequently ought to be without terrour.
The name of Fulmen Excommunicationis (that is, the Thunderbolt
Of Excommunication) proceeded from an imagination of the Bishop of Rome,
which first used it, that he was King of Kings, as the Heathen made
Jupiter King of the Gods; and assigned him in their Poems, and Pictures,
a Thunderbolt, wherewith to subdue, and punish the Giants, that should
dare to deny his power: Which imagination was grounded on two errours;
one, that the Kingdome of Christ is of this world, contrary to our
Saviours owne words, "My Kingdome is not of this world;" the other,
that hee is Christs Vicar, not onely over his owne Subjects,
but over all the Christians of the World; whereof there is no
ground in Scripture, and the contrary shall bee proved in its due place.

Of The Interpreter Of The Scriptures Before
Civill Soveraigns Became Christians
St. Paul coming to Thessalonica, where was a Synagogue of the Jews,
(Acts 17.2, 3.) "As his manner was, went in unto them, and three
Sabbath dayes reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, Opening and
alledging, that Christ must needs have suffered and risen again
from the dead; and that this Jesus whom he preached was the Christ."
The Scriptures here mentioned were the Scriptures of the Jews,
that is, the Old Testament. The men, to whom he was to prove
that Jesus was the Christ, and risen again from the dead,
were also Jews, and did beleeve already, that they were the Word of God.
Hereupon (as it is verse 4.) some of them beleeved, and (as it is
in the 5. ver.) some beleeved not. What was the reason, when they all
beleeved the Scripture, that they did not all beleeve alike;
but that some approved, others disapproved the Interpretation of
St. Paul that cited them; and every one Interpreted them to himself?
It was this; S. Paul came to them without any Legall Commission,
and in the manner of one that would not Command, but Perswade;
which he must needs do, either by Miracles, as Moses did to
the Israelites in Egypt, that they might see his Authority in Gods works;
or by Reasoning from the already received Scripture, that they might see
the truth of his doctrine in Gods Word. But whosoever perswadeth
by reasoning from principles written, maketh him to whom hee
speaketh Judge, both of the meaning of those principles, and also
of the force of his inferences upon them. If these Jews of
Thessalonica were not, who else was the Judge of what S. Paul
alledged out of Scripture? If S. Paul, what needed he to quote
any places to prove his doctrine? It had been enough to have said,
I find it so in Scripture, that is to say, in your Laws, of which
I am Interpreter, as sent by Christ. The Interpreter therefore
of the Scripture, to whose Interpretation the Jews of Thessalonica
were bound to stand, could be none: every one might beleeve,
or not beleeve, according as the Allegations seemed to himselfe
to be agreeable, or not agreeable to the meaning of the places alledged.
And generally in all cases of the world, hee that pretendeth any proofe,
maketh Judge of his proofe him to whom he addresseth his speech.
And as to the case of the Jews in particular, they were bound by
expresse words (Deut. 17.) to receive the determination of all
hard questions, from the Priests and Judges of Israel for the time being.
But this is to bee understood of the Jews that were yet unconverted.

For the Conversion of the Gentiles, there was no use of alledging
the Scriptures, which they beleeved not. The Apostles therefore
laboured by Reason to confute their Idolatry; and that done,
to perswade them to the faith of Christ, by their testimony
of his Life, and Resurrection. So that there could not yet bee
any controversie concerning the authority to Interpret Scripture;
seeing no man was obliged during his infidelity, to follow any mans
Interpretation of any Scripture, except his Soveraigns Interpretation
of the Laws of his countrey.

Let us now consider the Conversion it self, and see what
there was therein, that could be cause of such an obligation.
Men were converted to no other thing then to the Beleef of that
which the Apostles preached: And the Apostles preached nothing,
but that Jesus was the Christ, that is to say, the King that was
to save them, and reign over them eternally in the world to come;
and consequently that hee was not dead, but risen again from the dead,
and gone up into Heaven, and should come again one day to judg the world,
(which also should rise again to be judged,) and reward every man
according to his works. None of them preached that himselfe, or any
other Apostle was such an Interpreter of the Scripture, as all that
became Christians, ought to take their Interpretation for Law.
For to Interpret the Laws, is part of the Administration of a
present Kingdome; which the Apostles had not. They prayed then,
and all other Pastors ever since, "Let thy Kingdome come;" and
exhorted their Converts to obey their then Ethnique Princes.
The New Testament was not yet published in one Body. Every of
the Evangelists was Interpreter of his own Gospel; and every Apostle
of his own Epistle; And of the Old Testament, our Saviour himselfe
saith to the Jews (John 5. 39.) "Search the Scriptures; for in them
yee thinke to have eternall life, and they are they that testifie of me."
If hee had not meant they should Interpret them, hee would not have
bidden them take thence the proof of his being the Christ; he would
either have Interpreted them himselfe, or referred them to the
Interpretation of the Priests.

When a difficulty arose, the Apostles and Elders of the Church
assembled themselves together, and determined what should bee preached,
and taught, and how they should Interpret the Scriptures to the People;
but took not from the People the liberty to read, and Interpret them
to themselves. The Apostles sent divers Letters to the Churches,
and other Writings for their instruction; which had been in vain,
if they had not allowed them to Interpret, that is, to consider
the meaning of them. And as it was in the Apostles time, it must be
till such time as there should be Pastors, that could authorise
an Interpreter, whose Interpretation should generally be stood to:
But that could not be till Kings were Pastors, or Pastors Kings.

Of The Power To Make Scripture Law
There be two senses, wherein a Writing may be said to be Canonicall;
for Canon, signifieth a Rule; and a Rule is a Precept, by which a man
is guided, and directed in any action whatsoever. Such Precepts,
though given by a Teacher to his Disciple, or a Counsellor to his friend,
without power to Compell him to observe them, are neverthelesse Canons;
because they are Rules: But when they are given by one, whom he that
receiveth them is bound to obey, then are those Canons, not onely Rules,
but Laws: The question therefore here, is of the Power to make
the Scriptures (which are the Rules of Christian Faith) Laws.

Of The Ten Commandements
That part of the Scripture, which was first Law, was the Ten
Commandements, written in two Tables of Stone, and delivered by God
himselfe to Moses; and by Moses made known to the people.
Before that time there was no written Law of God, who as yet
having not chosen any people to bee his peculiar Kingdome,
had given no Law to men, but the Law of Nature, that is to say,
the Precepts of Naturall Reason, written in every mans own heart.
Of these two Tables, the first containeth the law of Soveraignty;
1. That they should not obey, nor honour the Gods of other Nations,
in these words, "Non habebis Deos alienos coram me," that is,
"Thou shalt not have for Gods, the Gods that other Nations worship;
but onely me:" whereby they were forbidden to obey, or honor,
as their King and Governour, any other God, than him that spake
unto them then by Moses, and afterwards by the High Priest.
2. That they "should not make any Image to represent him;"
that is to say, they were not to choose to themselves, neither in
heaven, nor in earth, any Representative of their own fancying,
but obey Moses and Aaron, whom he had appointed to that office.
3. That "they should not take the Name of God in vain;" that is,
they should not speak rashly of their King, nor dispute his
Right, nor the commissions of Moses and Aaron, his Lieutenants.
4. That "they should every Seventh day abstain from their ordinary
labour," and employ that time in doing him Publique Honor.
The second Table containeth the Duty of one man towards another,
as "To honor Parents; Not to kill; Not to Commit Adultery;
Not to steale; Not to corrupt Judgment by false witnesse;"
and finally, "Not so much as to designe in their heart the doing
of any injury one to another." The question now is, Who it was
that gave to these written Tables the obligatory force of Lawes.
There is no doubt but that they were made Laws by God himselfe:
But because a Law obliges not, nor is Law to any, but to them that
acknowledge it to be the act of the Soveraign, how could the people
of Israel that were forbidden to approach the Mountain to hear
what God said to Moses, be obliged to obedience to all those laws
which Moses propounded to them? Some of them were indeed the
Laws of Nature, as all the Second Table; and therefore to be
acknowledged for Gods Laws; not to the Israelites alone, but to
all people: But of those that were peculiar to the Israelites,
as those of the first Table, the question remains; saving that they
had obliged themselves, presently after the propounding of them,
to obey Moses, in these words (Exod. 20.19.) "Speak them thou to us,
and we will hear thee; but let not God speak to us, lest we die."
It was therefore onely Moses then, and after him the High Priest,
whom (by Moses) God declared should administer this his peculiar
Kingdome, that had on Earth, the power to make this short Scripture
of the Decalogue to bee Law in the Common-wealth of Israel.
But Moses, and Aaron, and the succeeding High Priests were the
Civill Soveraigns. Therefore hitherto, the Canonizing, or making
of the Scripture Law, belonged to the Civill Soveraigne.

Of The Judicial, And Leviticall Law
The Judiciall Law, that is to say, the Laws that God prescribed
to the Magistrates of Israel, for the rule of their administration
of Justice, and of the Sentences, or Judgments they should pronounce,
in Pleas between man and man; and the Leviticall Law, that is to say,
the rule that God prescribed touching the Rites and Ceremonies of
the Priests and Levites, were all delivered to them by Moses onely;
and therefore also became Lawes, by vertue of the same promise of
obedience to Moses. Whether these laws were then written, or not written,
but dictated to the People by Moses (after his forty dayes being with
God in the Mount) by word of mouth, is not expressed in the Text;
but they were all positive Laws, and equivalent to holy Scripture,
and made Canonicall by Moses the Civill Soveraign.

The Second Law
After the Israelites were come into the Plains of Moab over
against Jericho, and ready to enter into the land of Promise,
Moses to the former Laws added divers others; which therefore
are called Deuteronomy: that is, Second Laws. And are (as it is written,
Deut. 29.1.) "The words of a Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses
to make with the Children of Israel, besides the Covenant which he
made with them in Horeb." For having explained those former Laws,
in the beginning of the Book of Deuteronomy, he addeth others,
that begin at the 12. Cha. and continue to the end of the 26.
of the same Book. This Law (Deut. 27.1.) they were commanded
to write upon great stones playstered over, at their passing over Jordan:
This Law also was written by Moses himself in a Book; and delivered into
the hands of the "Priests, and to the Elders of Israel," (Deut. 31.9.)
and commanded (ve. 26.) "to be put in the side of the Arke;" for in
the Ark it selfe was nothing but the Ten Commandements.
This was the Law, which Moses (Deuteronomy 17.18.) commanded the
Kings of Israel should keep a copie of: And this is the Law, which having
been long time lost, was found again in the Temple in the time of Josiah,
and by his authority received for the Law of God. But both Moses at
the writing, and Josiah at the recovery thereof, had both of them the
Civill Soveraignty. Hitherto therefore the Power of making Scripture
Canonicall, was in the Civill Soveraign.

Besides this Book of the Law, there was no other Book, from the time
of Moses, till after the Captivity, received amongst the Jews
for the Law of God. For the Prophets (except a few) lived in
the time of the Captivity it selfe; and the rest lived but a little
before it; and were so far from having their Prophecies generally
received for Laws, as that their persons were persecuted, partly by
false Prophets, and partly by the Kings which were seduced by them.
And this Book it self, which was confirmed by Josiah for the Law of God,
and with it all the History of the Works of God, was lost
in the Captivity, and sack of the City of Jerusalem, as appears by
that of 2 Esdras 14.21. "Thy Law is burnt; therefor no man knoweth
the things that are done of thee, of the works that shall begin."
And before the Captivity, between the time when the Law was lost,
(which is not mentioned in the Scripture, but may probably be thought
to be the time of Rehoboam, when Shishak King of Egypt took the
spoils of the Temple,(1 Kings 14.26.)) and the time of Josiah,
when it was found againe, they had no written Word of God,
but ruled according to their own discretion, or by the direction of such,
as each of them esteemed Prophets.

The Old Testament, When Made Canonicall
From whence we may inferre, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament,
which we have at this day, were not Canonicall, nor a Law unto the Jews,
till the renovation of their Covenant with God at their return from
the Captivity, and restauration of their Common-wealth under Esdras.
But from that time forward they were accounted the Law of the Jews,
and for such translated into Greek by Seventy Elders of Judaea,
and put into the Library of Ptolemy at Alexandria, and approved
for the Word of God. Now seeing Esdras was the High Priest,
and the High Priest was their Civill Soveraigne, it is manifest,
that the Scriptures were never made Laws, but by the Soveraign
Civill Power.

The New Testament Began To Be Canonicall Under Christian Soveraigns
By the Writings of the Fathers that lived in the time before that
Christian Religion was received, and authorised by Constantine the
Emperour, we may find, that the Books wee now have of the New Testament,
were held by the Christians of that time (except a few, in respect
of whose paucity the rest were called the Catholique Church,
and others Haeretiques) for the dictates of the Holy Ghost;
and consequently for the Canon, or Rule of Faith: such was the
reverence and opinion they had of their Teachers; as generally
the reverence that the Disciples bear to their first Masters,
in all manner of doctrine they receive from them, is not small.
Therefore there is no doubt, but when S. Paul wrote to the Churches
he had converted; or any other Apostle, or Disciple of Christ,
to those which had then embraced Christ, they received those their
Writings for the true Christian Doctrine. But in that time,
when not the Power and Authority of the Teacher, but the Faith
of the Hearer caused them to receive it, it was not the Apostles
that made their own Writings Canonicall, but every Convert
made them so to himself.

But the question here, is not what any Christian made a Law,
or Canon to himself, (which he might again reject, by the same right
he received it;) but what was so made a Canon to them, as without
injustice they could not doe any thing contrary thereunto.
That the New Testament should in this sense be Canonicall,
that is to say, a Law in any place where the Law of the Common-wealth
had not made it so, is contrary to the nature of a Law. For a Law,
(as hath been already shewn) is the Commandement of that Man,
or Assembly, to whom we have given Soveraign Authority, to make
such Rules for the direction of our actions, as hee shall think fit;
and to punish us, when we doe any thing contrary to the same.
When therefore any other man shall offer unto us any other Rules,
which the Soveraign Ruler hath not prescribed, they are but Counsell,
and Advice; which, whether good, or bad, hee that is counselled,
may without injustice refuse to observe, and when contrary to the Laws
already established, without injustice cannot observe, how good soever
he conceiveth it to be. I say, he cannot in this case observe the same
in his actions, nor in his discourse with other men; though he may
without blame beleeve the his private Teachers, and wish he had
the liberty to practise their advice; and that it were publiquely
received for Law. For internall faith is in its own nature invisible,
and consequently exempted from all humane jurisdiction; whereas the words,
and actions that proceed from it, as breaches of our Civil obedience,
are injustice both before God and Man. Seeing then our Saviour hath
denyed his Kingdome to be in this world, seeing he hath said,
he came not to judge, but to save the world, he hath not subjected
us to other Laws than those of the Common-wealth; that is, the Jews
to the Law of Moses, (which he saith (Mat. 5.) he came not to destroy,
but to fulfill,) and other Nations to the Laws of their severall
Soveraigns, and all men to the Laws of Nature; the observing whereof,
both he himselfe, and his Apostles have in their teaching recommended
to us, as a necessary condition of being admitted by him in the
last day into his eternall Kingdome, wherein shall be Protection,
and Life everlasting. Seeing then our Saviour, and his Apostles,
left not new Laws to oblige us in this world, but new Doctrine
to prepare us for the next; the Books of the New Testament,
which containe that Doctrine, untill obedience to them was commanded,
by them that God hath given power to on earth to be Legislators,
were not obligatory Canons, that is, Laws, but onely good,
and safe advice, for the direction of sinners in the way to salvation,
which every man might take, and refuse at his owne perill,
without injustice.

Again, our Saviour Christs Commission to his Apostles, and Disciples,
was to Proclaim his Kingdome (not present, but) to come;
and to Teach all Nations; and to Baptize them that should beleeve;
and to enter into the houses of them that should receive them;
and where they were not received, to shake off the dust of their feet
against them; but not to call for fire from heaven to destroy them,
nor to compell them to obedience by the Sword. In all which there is
nothing of Power, but of Perswasion. He sent them out as Sheep
unto Wolves, not as Kings to their Subjects. They had not
in Commission to make Laws; but to obey, and teach obedience
to Laws made; and consequently they could not make their Writings
obligatory Canons, without the help of the Soveraign Civill Power.
And therefore the Scripture of the New Testament is there only Law,
where the lawfull Civill Power hath made it so. And there also
the King, or Soveraign, maketh it a Law to himself; by which he
subjecteth himselfe, not to the Doctor, or Apostle, that converted him,
but to God himself, and his Son Jesus Christ, as immediately as did
the Apostles themselves.

Of The Power Of Councells To Make The Scripture Law
That which may seem to give the New Testament, in respect of
those that have embraced Christian Doctrine, the force of Laws,
in the times, and places of persecution, is the decrees they made
amongst themselves in their Synods. For we read (Acts 15.28.)
the stile of the Councell of the Apostles, the Elders, and the
whole Church, in this manner, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost,
and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary
things, &C." which is a stile that signifieth a Power to lay a burthen
on them that had received their Doctrine. Now "to lay a burthen on
another," seemeth the same that "to oblige;" and therefore the Acts
of that Councell were Laws to the then Christians. Neverthelesse,
they were no more Laws than are these other Precepts, "Repent,
Be Baptized; Keep the Commandements; Beleeve the Gospel; Come unto me;
Sell all that thou hast; Give it to the poor;" and "Follow me;"
which are not Commands, but Invitations, and Callings of men to
Christianity, like that of Esay 55.1. "Ho, every man that thirsteth,
come yee to the waters, come, and buy wine and milke without money."
For first, the Apostles power was no other than that of our Saviour,
to invite men to embrace the Kingdome of God; which they themselves
acknowledged for a Kingdome (not present, but) to come; and they that
have no Kingdome, can make no Laws. And secondly, if their Acts
of Councell, were Laws, they could not without sin be disobeyed.
But we read not any where, that they who received not the Doctrine
of Christ, did therein sin; but that they died in their sins;
that is, that their sins against the Laws to which they owed obedience,
were not pardoned. And those Laws were the Laws of Nature,
and the Civill Laws of the State, whereto every Christian man had
by pact submitted himself. And therefore by the Burthen, which the
Apostles might lay on such as they had converted, are not to be
understood Laws, but Conditions, proposed to those that sought Salvation;
which they might accept, or refuse at their own perill, without a new sin,
though not without the hazard of being condemned, and excluded out
of the Kingdome of God for their sins past. And therefore of Infidels,
S. John saith not, the wrath of God shall "come" upon them, but
"the wrath of God remaineth upon them;" and not that they shall
be condemned; but that "they are condemned already."(John 3.36, 3.18)
Nor can it be conceived, that the benefit of Faith, "is Remission of sins"
unlesse we conceive withall, that the dammage of Infidelity,
is "the Retention of the same sins."