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

Hitherto hath been shewn what the Pastors of the Church are;
what are the points of their Commission (as that they were to Preach,
to Teach, to Baptize, to be Presidents in their severall Congregations;)
what is Ecclesiasticall Censure, viz. Excommunication, that is to say,
in those places where Christianity was forbidden by the Civill Laws,
a putting of themselves out of the company of the Excommunicate,
and where Christianity was by the Civill Law commanded, a putting the
Excommunicate out of the Congregations of Christians; who elected
the Pastors and Ministers of the Church, (that it was, the Congregation);
who consecrated and blessed them, (that it was the Pastor);
what was their due revenue, (that it was none but their own possessions,
and their own labour, and the voluntary contributions of devout
and gratefull Christians). We are to consider now, what Office
those persons have, who being Civill Soveraignes, have embraced also
the Christian Faith.

That The Civill Soveraign Being A Christian
Hath The Right Of Appointing Pastors
And first, we are to remember, that the Right of Judging what Doctrines
are fit for Peace, and to be taught the Subjects, is in all
Common-wealths inseparably annexed (as hath been already proved cha. 18.)
to the Soveraign Power Civill, whether it be in one Man, or in one
Assembly of men. For it is evident to the meanest capacity,
that mens actions are derived from the opinions they have of the Good,
or Evill, which from those actions redound unto themselves;
and consequently, men that are once possessed of an opinion,
that their obedience to the Soveraign Power, will bee more hurtfull
to them, than their disobedience, will disobey the Laws, and thereby
overthrow the Common-wealth, and introduce confusion, and Civill war;
for the avoiding whereof, all Civill Government was ordained.
And therefore in all Common-wealths of the Heathen, the Soveraigns have
had the name of Pastors of the People, because there was no Subject that
could lawfully Teach the people, but by their permission and authority.

This Right of the Heathen Kings, cannot bee thought taken from them
by their conversion to the Faith of Christ; who never ordained,
that Kings for beleeving in him, should be deposed, that is,
subjected to any but himself, or (which is all one) be deprived
of the power necessary for the conservation of Peace amongst
their Subjects, and for their defence against foraign Enemies.
And therefore Christian Kings are still the Supreme Pastors of their
people, and have power to ordain what Pastors they please, to teach
the Church, that is, to teach the People committed to their charge.

Again, let the right of choosing them be (as before the conversion
of Kings) in the Church, for so it was in the time of the Apostles
themselves (as hath been shewn already in this chapter);
even so also the Right will be in the Civill Soveraign, Christian.
For in that he is a Christian, he allowes the Teaching; and in that
he is the Soveraign (which is as much as to say, the Church
by Representation,) the Teachers hee elects, are elected by the Church.
And when an Assembly of Christians choose their Pastor in a
Christian Common-wealth, it is the Soveraign that electeth him,
because tis done by his Authority; In the same manner, as when a Town
choose their Maior, it is the act of him that hath the Soveraign Power:
For every act done, is the act of him, without whose consent it is invalid.
And therefore whatsoever examples may be drawn out of History,
concerning the Election of Pastors, by the People, or by the Clergy,
they are no arguments against the Right of any Civill Soveraign,
because they that elected them did it by his Authority.

Seeing then in every Christian Common-wealth, the Civill Soveraign
is the Supreme Pastor, to whose charge the whole flock of his Subjects
is committed, and consequently that it is by his authority,
that all other Pastors are made, and have power to teach,
and performe all other Pastorall offices; it followeth also,
that it is from the Civill Soveraign, that all other Pastors
derive their right of Teaching, Preaching, and other functions
pertaining to that Office; and that they are but his Ministers;
in the same manner as the Magistrates of Towns, Judges in
Courts of Justice, and Commanders of Armies, are all but Ministers
of him that is the Magistrate of the whole Common-wealth,
Judge of all Causes, and Commander of the whole Militia,
which is alwayes the Civill Soveraign. And the reason hereof,
is not because they that Teach, but because they that are to Learn,
are his Subjects. For let it be supposed, that a Christian King
commit the Authority of Ordaining Pastors in his Dominions
to another King, (as divers Christian Kings allow that power
to the Pope;) he doth not thereby constitute a Pastor over himself,
nor a Soveraign Pastor over his People; for that were to deprive
himself of the Civill Power; which depending on the opinion men have
of their Duty to him, and the fear they have of Punishment in
another world, would depend also on the skill, and loyalty of Doctors,
who are no lesse subject, not only to Ambition, but also to Ignorance,
than any other sort of men. So that where a stranger hath authority
to appoint Teachers, it is given him by the Soveraign in whose
Dominions he teacheth. Christian Doctors are our Schoolmasters
to Christianity; But Kings are Fathers of Families, and may receive
Schoolmasters for their Subjects from the recommendation of a stranger,
but not from the command; especially when the ill teaching them
shall redound to the great and manifest profit of him that
recommends them: nor can they be obliged to retain them,
longer than it is for the Publique good; the care of which they
stand so long charged withall, as they retain any other essentiall
Right of the Soveraignty.

The Pastorall Authority Of Soveraigns Only
Is De Jure Divino, That Of Other Pastors
Is Jure Civili
If a man therefore should ask a Pastor, in the execution of his Office,
as the chief Priests and Elders of the people (Mat. 21.23.)
asked our Saviour, "By what authority dost thou these things,
and who gave thee this authority:" he can make no other just Answer,
but that he doth it by the Authority of the Common-wealth,
given him by the King, or Assembly that representeth it.
All Pastors, except the Supreme, execute their charges in the Right,
that is by the Authority of the Civill Soveraign, that is, Jure Civili.
But the King, and every other Soveraign executeth his Office
of Supreme Pastor, by immediate Authority from God, that is to say,
In Gods Right, or Jure Divino. And therefore none but Kings can put
into their Titles (a mark of their submission to God onely )
Dei Gratia Rex, &c. Bishops ought to say in the beginning
of their Mandates, "By the favour of the Kings Majesty, Bishop of
such a Diocesse;" or as Civill Ministers, "In his Majesties Name."
For in saying, Divina Providentia, which is the same with Dei Gratia,
though disguised, they deny to have received their authority
from the Civill State; and sliely slip off the Collar of their
Civill Subjection, contrary to the unity and defence of the Common-wealth.

Christian Kings Have Power To Execute
All Manner Of Pastoral Function
But if every Christian Soveraign be the Supreme Pastor of his
own Subjects, it seemeth that he hath also the Authority,
not only to Preach (which perhaps no man will deny;) but also
to Baptize, and to Administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper;
and to Consecrate both Temples, and Pastors to Gods service;
which most men deny; partly because they use not to do it;
and partly because the Administration of Sacraments, and Consecration
of Persons, and Places to holy uses, requireth the Imposition
of such mens hands, as by the like Imposition successively
from the time of the Apostles have been ordained to the like Ministery.
For proof therefore that Christian Kings have power to Baptize,
and to Consecrate, I am to render a reason, both why they use not
to doe it, and how, without the ordinary ceremony of Imposition of hands,
they are made capable of doing it, when they will.

There is no doubt but any King, in case he were skilfull in the Sciences,
might by the same Right of his Office, read Lectures of them himself,
by which he authorizeth others to read them in the Universities.
Neverthelesse, because the care of the summe of the businesse of
the Common-wealth taketh up his whole time, it were not convenient for him
to apply himself in Person to that particular. A King may also if
he please, sit in Judgment, to hear and determine all manner of Causes,
as well as give others authority to doe it in his name; but that
the charge that lyeth upon him of Command and Government,
constrain him to bee continually at the Helm, and to commit
the Ministeriall Offices to others under him. In the like manner
our Saviour (who surely had power to Baptize) Baptized none himselfe,
but sent his Apostles and Disciples to Baptize. (John 4.2.)
So also S. Paul, by the necessity of Preaching in divers and
far distant places, Baptized few: Amongst all the Corinthians
he Baptized only Crispus, Cajus, and Stephanus; (1 Cor.1.14,16.)
and the reason was, because his principall Charge was to Preach.
(1 Cor. 1.17.) Whereby it is manifest, that the greater Charge,
(such as is the Government of the Church,) is a dispensation
for the lesse. The reason therefore why Christian Kings use not
to Baptize, is evident, and the same, for which at this day
there are few Baptized by Bishops, and by the Pope fewer.

And as concerning Imposition of Hands, whether it be needfull,
for the authorizing of a King to Baptize, and Consecrate,
we may consider thus.

Imposition of Hands, was a most ancient publique ceremony amongst
the Jews, by which was designed, and made certain, the person,
or other thing intended in a mans prayer, blessing, sacrifice,
consecration, condemnation, or other speech. So Jacob in blessing
the children of Joseph (Gen. 48.14.) "Laid his right Hand on
Ephraim the younger, and his left Hand on Manasseh the first born;"
and this he did Wittingly (though they were so presented to him
by Joseph, as he was forced in doing it to stretch out his arms acrosse)
to design to whom he intended the greater blessing. So also in the
sacrificing of the Burnt offering, Aaron is commanded (Exod. 29.10.)
"to Lay his Hands on the head of the bullock;" and (ver. 15.)
"to Lay his Hand on the head of the ramme." The same is also
said again, Levit. 1.4. & 8.14. Likewise Moses when he ordained
Joshua to be Captain of the Israelites, that is, consecrated him
to Gods service, (Numb. 27.23.) "Laid his hands upon him,
and gave him his Charge," designing and rendring certain,
who it was they were to obey in war. And in the consecration
of the Levites (Numb. 8.10.) God commanded that "the Children of Israel
should Put their Hands upon the Levites." And in the condemnation
of him that had blasphemed the Lord (Levit. 24.14.) God commanded that
"all that heard him should Lay their Hands on his head, and that all
the Congregation should stone him." And why should they only
that heard him, Lay their Hands upon him, and not rather a Priest,
Levite, or other Minister of Justice, but that none else were able
to design, and demonstrate to the eyes of the Congregation,
who it was that had blasphemed, and ought to die? And to design a man,
or any other thing, by the Hand to the Eye is lesse subject to mistake,
than when it is done to the Eare by a Name.

And so much was this ceremony observed, that in blessing the whole
Congregation at once, which cannot be done by Laying on of Hands,
yet "Aaron (Levit. 9.22.) did lift up his Hand towards the people
when he blessed them." And we read also of the like ceremony
of Consecration of Temples amongst the Heathen, as that the Priest
laid his Hands on some post of the Temple, all the while he was
uttering the words of Consecration. So naturall it is to design
any individuall thing, rather by the Hand, to assure the Eyes,
than by Words to inform the Eare in matters of Gods Publique service.

This ceremony was not therefore new in our Saviours time.
For Jairus (Mark 5.23.) whose daughter was sick, besought our Saviour
(not to heal her, but) "to Lay his Hands upon her, that shee
might bee healed." And (Matth. 19.13.) "they brought unto him
little children, that hee should Put his Hands on them, and Pray."

According to this ancient Rite, the Apostles, and Presbyters,
and the Presbytery it self, Laid Hands on them whom they ordained Pastors,
and withall prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost;
and that not only once, but sometimes oftner, when a new occasion
was presented: but the end was still the same, namely a punctuall,
and religious designation of the person, ordained either to the
Pastorall Charge in general, or to a particular Mission: so (Act. 6.6.)
"The Apostles Prayed, and Laid their Hands" on the seven Deacons;
which was done, not to give them the Holy Ghost, (for they were
full of the Holy Ghost before thy were chosen, as appeareth
immediately before, verse 3.) but to design them to that Office.
And after Philip the Deacon had converted certain persons in Samaria,
Peter and John went down (Act. 8.17.)" and laid their Hands on them,
and they received the Holy Ghost." And not only an Apostle,
but a Presbyter had this power: For S. Paul adviseth Timothy
(1 Tim. 5.22.) "Lay Hands suddenly on no man;" that is, designe no man
rashly to the Office of a Pastor. The whole Presbytery Laid their Hands
on Timothy, as we read 1 Tim. 4.14. but this is to be understood,
as that some did it by the appointment of the Presbytery,
and most likely their Proestos, or Prolocutor, which it may be
was St. Paul himself. For in his 2 Epist. to Tim. ver. 6. he saith
to him, "Stirre up the gift of God which is in thee, by the Laying
on of my Hands:" where note by the way, that by the Holy ghost,
is not meant the third Person in the Trinity, but the Gifts
necessary to the Pastorall Office. We read also, that St. Paul
had Imposition of Hands twice; once from Ananias at Damascus
(Acts 9.17,18.) at the time of his Baptisme; and again (Acts 13.3.)
at Antioch, when he was first sent out to Preach. The use then of this
ceremony considered in the Ordination of Pastors, was to design
the Person to whom they gave such Power. But if there had been
then any Christian, that had had the Power of Teaching before;
the Baptizing of him, that is the making of him a Christian,
had given him no new Power, but had onely caused him to preach
true Doctrine, that is, to use his Power aright; and therefore
the Imposition of Hands had been unnecessary; Baptisme it selfe
had been sufficient. But every Soveraign, before Christianity,
had the power of Teaching, and Ordaining Teachers; and therefore
Christianity gave them no new Right, but only directed them in the way
of teaching truth; and consequently they needed no Imposition of Hands
(besides that which is done in Baptisme) to authorize them
to exercise any part of the Pastorall Function, as namely,
to Baptize, and Consecrate. And in the Old Testament, though
the Priest only had right to Consecrate, during the time that
the Soveraignty was in the High Priest; yet it was not so when
the Soveraignty was in the King: For we read (1 Kings 8.)
That Solomon Blessed the People, Consecrated the Temple,
and pronounced that Publique Prayer, which is the pattern now
for Consecration of all Christian Churches, and Chappels:
whereby it appears, he had not only the right of Ecclesiasticall
Government; but also of exercising Ecclesiasticall Functions.

The Civill Soveraigne If A Christian,
Is Head Of The Church In His Own Dominions
From this consolidation of the Right Politique, and Ecclesiastique
in Christian Soveraigns, it is evident, they have all manner of Power
over their Subjects, that can be given to man, for the government
of mens externall actions, both in Policy, and Religion; and may make
such Laws, as themselves shall judge fittest, for the government
of their own Subjects, both as they are the Common-wealth,
and as they are the Church: for both State, and Church are the same men.

If they please therefore, they may (as many Christian Kings now doe)
commit the government of their Subjects in matters of Religion
to the Pope; but then the Pope is in that point Subordinate to them,
and exerciseth that Charge in anothers Dominion Jure Civili,
in the Right of the Civill Soveraign; not Jure Divino, in Gods Right;
and may therefore be discharged of that Office, when the Soveraign
for the good of his Subjects shall think it necessary. They may also
if they please, commit the care of Religion to one Supreme Pastor,
or to an Assembly of Pastors; and give them what power over the Church,
or one over another, they think most convenient; and what titles of honor,
as of Bishops, Archbishops, Priests, or Presbyters, they will;
and make such Laws for their maintenance, either by Tithes,
or otherwise, as they please, so they doe it out of a sincere conscience,
of which God onely is the Judge. It is the Civill Soveraign,
that is to appoint Judges, and Interpreters of the Canonicall Scriptures;
for it is he that maketh them Laws. It is he also that giveth strength
to Excommunications; which but for such Laws and Punishments,
as may humble obstinate Libertines, and reduce them to union
with the rest of the Church, would bee contemned. In summe,
he hath the Supreme Power in all causes, as well Ecclesiasticall,
as Civill, as far as concerneth actions, and words, for these onely
are known, and may be accused; and of that which cannot be accused,
there is no Judg at all, but God, that knoweth the heart.
And these Rights are incident to all Soveraigns, whether Monarchs,
or Assemblies: for they that are the Representants of a Christian People,
are Representants of the Church: for a Church, and a Common-wealth
of Christian People, are the same thing.

Cardinal Bellarmines Books
De Summo Pontifice Considered
Though this that I have here said, and in other places of this Book,
seem cleer enough for the asserting of the Supreme Ecclesiasticall
Power to Christian Soveraigns; yet because the Pope of Romes challenge
to that Power universally, hath been maintained chiefly, and I think
as strongly as is possible, by Cardinall Bellarmine, in his Controversie
De Summo Pontifice; I have thought it necessary, as briefly as I can,
to examine the grounds, and strength of his Discourse.

The First Book
Of five Books he hath written of this subject, the first containeth
three Questions: One, Which is simply the best government, Monarchy,
Aristocracy, or Democracy; and concludeth for neither, but for
a government mixt of all there: Another, which of these is
the best Government of the Church; and concludeth for the mixt,
but which should most participate of Monarchy: the third,
whether in this mixt Monarchy, St. Peter had the place of Monarch.
Concerning his first Conclusion, I have already sufficiently proved
(chapt. 18.) that all Governments which men are bound to obey,
are Simple, and Absolute. In Monarchy there is but One Man Supreme;
and all other men that have any kind of Power in the State,
have it by his Commission, during his pleasure; and execute it
in his name: And in Aristocracy, and Democracy, but One Supreme
Assembly, with the same Power that in Monarchy belongeth to
the Monarch, which is not a Mixt, but an Absolute Soveraignty.
And of the three sorts, which is the best, is not to be disputed,
where any one of them is already established; but the present
ought alwaies to be preferred, maintained, and accounted best;
because it is against both the Law of Nature, and the Divine
positive Law, to doe any thing tending to the subversion thereof.
Besides, it maketh nothing to the Power of any Pastor, (unlesse he
have the Civill Soveraignty,) what kind of Government is the best;
because their Calling is not to govern men by Commandement,
but to teach them, and perswade them by Arguments, and leave it to them
to consider, whether they shall embrace, or reject the Doctrine taught.
For Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, do mark out unto us
three sorts of Soveraigns, not of Pastors; or, as we may say,
three sorts of Masters of Families, not three sorts of Schoolmasters
for their children.

And therefore the second Conclusion, concerning the best form
of Government of the Church, is nothing to the question of
the Popes Power without his own Dominions: For in all other
Common-wealths his Power (if hee have any at all) is that of
the Schoolmaster onely, and not of the Master of the Family.

For the third Conclusion, which is, that St. Peter was Monarch
of the Church, he bringeth for his chiefe argument the place
of S. Matth. (chap. 16.18, 19.) "Thou art Peter, And upon this rock
I will build my Church, &c. And I will give thee the keyes of Heaven;
whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven,
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven."
Which place well considered, proveth no more, but that the
Church of Christ hath for foundation one onely Article; namely,
that which Peter in the name of all the Apostles professing,
gave occasion to our Saviour to speak the words here cited;
which that wee may cleerly understand, we are to consider,
that our Saviour preached by himself, by John Baptist, and by
his Apostles, nothing but this Article of Faith, "that he was the Christ;"
all other Articles requiring faith no otherwise, than as founded on that.
John began first, (Mat. 3.2.) preaching only this, "The Kingdome of God
is at hand." Then our Saviour himself (Mat. 4.17.) preached the same:
And to his Twelve Apostles, when he gave them their Commission
(Mat. 10.7.) there is no mention of preaching any other Article but that.
This was the fundamentall Article, that is the Foundation of the
Churches Faith. Afterwards the Apostles being returned to him,
he asketh them all, (Mat. 16.13) not Peter onely, "Who men said he was;"
and they answered, that "some said he was John the Baptist, some Elias,
and others Jeremias, or one of the Prophets:" Then (ver. 15.)
he asked them all again, (not Peter onely) "Whom say yee that I am?"
Therefore Peter answered (for them all) "Thou art Christ,
the Son of the Living God;" which I said is the Foundation of the Faith
of the whole Church; from which our Saviour takes the occasion of saying,
"Upon this stone I will build my Church;" By which it is manifest,
that by the Foundation-Stone of the Church, was meant the
Fundamentall Article of the Churches Faith. But why then
(will some object) doth our Saviour interpose these words,
"Thou art Peter"? If the originall of this text had been rigidly
translated, the reason would easily have appeared: We are therefore
to consider, that the Apostle Simon, was surnamed Stone, (which is the
signification of the Syriacke word Cephas, and of the Greek word Petrus).
Our Saviour therefore after the confession of that Fundamentall Article,
alluding to his name, said (as if it were in English) thus,
Thou art "Stone," and upon this Stone I will build my Church:
which is as much as to say, this Article, that "I am the Christ,"
is the Foundation of all the Faith I require in those that are to bee
members of my Church: Neither is this allusion to a name,
an unusuall thing in common speech: But it had been a strange,
and obscure speech, if our Saviour intending to build his Church
on the Person of St. Peter, had said, "thou art a Stone, and upon
this Stone I will build my Church," when it was so obvious without
ambiguity to have said, "I will build my Church on thee; and yet
there had been still the same allusion to his name.

And for the following words, "I will give thee the Keyes of Heaven, &c."
it is no more than what our Saviour gave also to all the rest
of his Disciples (Matth. 18.18.) "Whatsoever yee shall bind on Earth,
shall be bound in Heaven. And whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth,
shall be loosed in Heaven." But howsoever this be interpreted,
there is no doubt but the Power here granted belongs to all
Supreme Pastors; such as are all Christian Civill Soveraignes
in their own Dominions. In so much, as if St. Peter, or our
Saviour himself had converted any of them to beleeve him,
and to acknowledge his Kingdome; yet because his Kingdome
is not of this world, he had left the supreme care of converting
his subjects to none but him; or else hee must have deprived him of
the Soveraignty, to which the Right of Teaching is inseparably annexed.
And thus much in refutation of his first Book, wherein hee would prove
St. Peter to have been the Monarch Universall of the Church,
that is to say, of all the Christians in the world.

The Second Book
The second Book hath two Conclusions: One, that S. Peter was
Bishop of Rome, and there dyed: The other, that the Popes of Rome
are his Successors. Both which have been disputed by others.
But supposing them to be true; yet if by Bishop of Rome bee understood
either the Monarch of the Church, or the Supreme Pastor of it;
not Silvester, but Constantine (who was the first Christian Emperour)
was that Bishop; and as Constantine, so all other Christian Emperors
were of Right supreme Bishops of the Roman Empire; I say of the
Roman Empire, not of all Christendome: For other Christian Soveraigns
had the same Right in their severall Territories, as to an Office
essentially adhaerent to their Soveraignty. Which shall serve
for answer to his second Book.