28.01.2015 Views

Hobbes - Leviathan.pdf

Hobbes - Leviathan.pdf

Hobbes - Leviathan.pdf

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

ishops), than this of plurality of suffrages, intimated by St. Paul<br />

in the word cheirotonesantes.*(3) Nor was there ever any choosing of<br />

bishops, before the emperors found it necessary to regulate them in<br />

order to the keeping of the peace amongst them, but by the<br />

assemblies of the Christians in every several town.<br />

-<br />

* Acts, 14. 23<br />

*(2) Titus, 1. 5<br />

*(3) Acts, 14. 23<br />

-<br />

The same is also confirmed by the continual practice even to this<br />

day in the election of the bishops of Rome. For if the bishop of any<br />

place had the right of choosing another to the succession of the<br />

pastoral office, in any city, at such time as he went from thence to<br />

plant the same in another place; much more had he had the right to<br />

appoint his successor in that place in which he last resided and died:<br />

and we find not that ever any bishop of Rome appointed his<br />

successor. For they were a long time chosen by the people, as we may<br />

see by the sedition raised about the election between Damasus and<br />

Ursinus; which Ammianus Marcellinus saith was so great that<br />

Juventius the Praefect, unable to keep the peace between them, was<br />

forced to go out of the city; and that there were above a hundred<br />

men found dead upon that occasion in the church itself. And though<br />

they afterwards were chosen, first, by the whole clergy of Rome, and<br />

afterwards by the cardinals; yet never any was appointed to the<br />

succession by his predecessor. If therefore they pretended no right to<br />

appoint their own successors, I think I may reasonably conclude they<br />

had no right to appoint the successors of other bishops without<br />

receiving some new power; which none could take from the Church to<br />

bestow on them, but such as had a lawful authority, not only to teach,<br />

but to command the Church, which none could do but the civil<br />

sovereign.<br />

The word minister in the original, diakonos, signifieth one that<br />

voluntarily doth the business of another man, and differeth from a<br />

servant only in this, that servants are obliged by their condition<br />

to what is commanded them; whereas ministers are obliged only by their<br />

undertaking, and bound therefore to no more than that they have<br />

undertaken: so that both they that teach the word of God and they that<br />

administer the secular affairs of the Church are both ministers, but<br />

they are ministers of different persons. For the pastors of the<br />

Church, called "the ministers of the word,"* are ministers of<br />

Christ, whose word it is: but the ministry of a deacon, which is<br />

called "serving of tables,"*(2) is a service done to the church or<br />

congregation: so that neither any one man nor the whole Church could<br />

ever of their pastor say he was their minister; but of a deacon,<br />

whether the charge he undertook were to serve tables or distribute<br />

maintenance to the Christians when they lived in each city on a common<br />

stock, or upon collections, as in the first times, or to take a care<br />

of the house of prayer, or of the revenue, or other worldly business<br />

of the Church, the whole congregation might properly call him their<br />

minister.<br />

-<br />

* Acts, 6. 4<br />

*(2) Ibid., 6. 2<br />

-<br />

For their employment as deacons was to serve the congregation,<br />

though upon occasion they omitted not to preach the Gospel, and

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!