CHAPTER XVII.

OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD BY THE NEW COVENANT.

1. The prophecies concerning Christ’s dignity. 2. The prophecies

concerning his humility and passion. 3. That Jesus was that

Christ. 4. That the kingdom of God by the new covenant, was not

the kingdom of Christ, as Christ, but as God. 5. That the

kingdom by the new covenant is heavenly, and shall begin from

the day of judgment. 6. That the government of Christ in this

world was not a sovereignty, but counsel, or a government by the

way of doctrine and persuasion. 7. What the promises of the new

covenant are, on both parts. 8. That no laws are added by

Christ, beside the institution of the sacraments. 9. Repent ye,

be baptized, keep the commandments, and the like forms of

speech, are not laws. 10. It pertains to the civil authority, to

define what the sin of injustice is. 11. It pertains to the

civil authority, to define what conduces to the peace and

defence of the city. 12. It pertains to the civil authority, to

judge (when need requires) what definitions and what inferences

are true. 13. It belongs to the office of Christ, to teach

morally, not by the way of speculation, but as a law; to forgive

sins, and to teach all things whereof there is no science,

properly so called. 14. A distinction of things temporal from

spiritual. 15. In how many several sorts the word of God may be

taken. 16. That all which is contained in Holy Scripture,

belongs not to the canon of Christian faith. 17. That the word

of a lawful interpreter of Holy Scriptures, is the word of God.

18. That the authority of interpreting Scriptures, is the same

with that of determining controversies of faith. 19. Divers

significations of a Church. 20. What a Church is, to which we

attribute rights, actions, and the like personal capacities. 21.

A Christian city is the same with a Christian Church. 22. Many

cities do not constitute one Church. 23. Who are ecclesiastical

persons. 24. That the election of ecclesiastical persons belongs

to the Church, their consecration to pastors. 25. That the power

of remitting the sins of the penitent, and retaining those of

the impenitent, belongs to the pastors; but that of judging

concerning repentance belongs to the Church. 26. What

excommunication is, and on whom it cannot pass. 27. That the

interpretation of Scripture depends on the authority of the

city. 28. That a Christian city ought to interpret Scriptures by

ecclesiastical pastors.

[Sidenote: The prophecies concerning Christ’s dignity.]

1. There are many clear prophecies extant in the Old Testament

concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ, who was to restore the kingdom

of _God_ by a new covenant; partly foretelling his regal _dignity_,

partly his _humility and passion_. Among others concerning his

dignity, these. God, blessing Abraham, makes him a promise of his

son Isaac; and adds (Gen. xvii. 16): _And kings of people shall be

of him._ Jacob blessing his son Judah (Gen. xlix. 10): _The

sceptre_, quoth he, _shall not depart from Judah_. God to Moses

(Deut. xviii. 18): _A prophet_, saith he, _will I raise them up from

among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his

mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him;

and it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my

words, which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him_.

Isaiah (Isai. vii. 14): _The Lord himself shall give thee a sign;

Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his

name Emmanuel._ The same prophet (Isaiah ix. 6): _Unto us a child is

born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his

shoulders; and his name shall be called wonderful, counsellor, the

mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace._ And again

(Isaiah xi. 1-5): _There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of

Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots; the spirit of the

Lord shall rest upon him_, &c.; _He shall not judge after the sight

of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears; but with

righteousness shall he judge the poor_, &c.; _And he shall smite the

earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips

shall he slay the wicked_. Furthermore in the same Isaiah (chapters

li. to lxii.), there is almost nothing else contained but a

description of the coming and the works of Christ. Jeremiah (Jerem.

xxxi. 31): _Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a

new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah._

And Baruch (Bar. iii. 35-37): _This is our God_, &c. _Afterward did

he show himself upon earth, and conversed with men._ Ezekiel (Ezek.

xxxiv. 23-25): _I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall

feed them; even my servant David. And I will make with them a

covenant of peace_, &c. Daniel (Dan. vii. 13-14): _I saw in the

night visions; and behold one like the Son of Man came with the

clouds of heaven, and came to the ancient of days; and they brought

him near before him; and there was given him dominion, and glory,

and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve

him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion_, &c. Haggai (Haggai

ii. 6-7): _Yet once it is a little while, and I will shake the

heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will

shake all nations; and the desire of all nations shall come._

Zachariah, under the type of Joshua the high-priest (Zach. iii. 8):

_I will bring forth my servant the branch_, &c. And again (Zach. vi.

12): _Behold the man whose name is the Branch._ And again (Zach. ix.

9): _Rejoice greatly O daughter of Zion, shout O daughter of

Jerusalem; behold thy king cometh to thee; he is just, having

salvation._ The Jews moved by these and other prophecies, expected

Christ their king to be sent from God; who should redeem them, and

furthermore bear rule over all nations. Yea, this prophecy had

spread over the whole Roman empire; which Vespasian too, though

falsely, interpreted in favour of his own enterprises; _that out of

Judea should come he that should have dominion_.

[Sidenote: The prophecies of Christ’s humility and passion.]

2. Now the prophecies of _Christ’s humility and passion_, amongst

others are these: (Isaiah liii. 4): _He hath borne our griefs, and

carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God,

and afflicted_; and by and by (verse 7): _He was oppressed, he was

afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to

the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearer is dumb, so opened

he not his mouth_, &c. And again (verse 8): _He was cut out of the

land of the living; for the transgression of my people was he

stricken_, &c. (Verse 12): _Therefore I will divide him a portion

with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;

because he hath poured out his soul unto death, and he was numbered

with the transgressors, and he bare the sin of many, and made

intercession for the transgressors._ And that of Zachariah (Zach.

ix. 9): _He is lowly, riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal

of an ass._

[Sidenote: That Jesus was the Christ.]

3. In the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, Jesus our Saviour, a Galilean,

began to preach; the son, as was supposed, of Joseph; declaring to

the people of the Jews, that the kingdom of God expected by them was

now come, and that himself was a _king_, that is to say, the Christ;

explaining the _law_, choosing _twelve apostles_ and _seventy

disciples_, after the number of the _princes_ of the tribes, and

seventy elders (according to the pattern of Moses) to the ministry;

_teaching the way of salvation_ by himself and them; purging the

temple, doing great signs, and fulfilling all those things which the

prophets had foretold of Christ to come. That this man, hated of the

Pharisees, whose false doctrine and hypocritical sanctity he had

reproved; and by their means, of the people accused of unlawful

seeking for the kingdom, and crucified; was the true _Christ_ and

_king_ promised by God, and sent from his Father to renew the _new

covenant_ between them and God; both the evangelists do show,

describing his genealogy, nativity, life, doctrine, death, and

resurrection; and by comparing the things which he did with those

which were foretold of him, all Christians do consent to.

[Sidenote: That the kingdom of God by the new covenant, was not the

kingdom of Christ, as Christ, but as God.]

4. Now from this, that _Christ_ was sent from God his Father to make

a _covenant_ between him and the people, it is manifest, that though

Christ were equal to his Father according to his nature, yet was he

inferior according to the right of the kingdom. For this office, to

speak properly, was not that of a king, but of a viceroy; such as

Moses’ government was; for the kingdom was not his, but his

_Father’s_. Which Christ himself signified when he was baptized as a

subject, and openly professed when he taught his disciples to pray,

_Our Father, thy kingdom come_, &c.: and when he said (Matth. xxvi.

29): _I will not drink of the blood of the grape, until that day

when I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father._ And

St. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 22-24): _As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall

all be made alive; but every man in his own order; Christ the first

fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s, who believed in his

coming; then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the

kingdom to God even his Father._ The same notwithstanding is also

called the _kingdom of Christ_: for both the mother of the sons of

Zebedee petitioned Christ, saying (Matth. xx. 21): _Grant that these

my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, the other on thy

left, in thy kingdom_: and the thief on the cross (Luke xxiii. 42):

_Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom_: and St. Paul

(Ephes. v. 5): _For this know ye, that no whoremonger_, &c. _shall

enter into the kingdom of God, and of Christ_: and elsewhere (2 Tim.

iv. 1): _I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who

shall judge the quick and dead at his appearing, and his kingdom_,

&c.: (verse 18): _And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil

work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom_. Nor is it to

be marveled at, that the same kingdom is attributed to them both;

since both the Father and the Son are the same God; and the new

covenant concerning God’s kingdom, is not propounded in the name of

the _Father_; but in the name of the _Father_, of the _Son_, and of

the _Holy Ghost_, as of one God.

[Sidenote: That the kingdom of God by the new covenant is heavenly,

and begins from the day of judgment.]

5. But the kingdom of God, for restitution whereof Christ was sent

from God his Father, takes not its beginning before his second

coming; to wit, from the day of judgment, when he shall come in

majesty accompanied with his angel. For it is promised the apostles,

that in the kingdom of God they shall judge the twelve tribes of

Israel, (Matth. xix. 28): _Ye which have followed me in the

regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his

glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve

tribes of Israel_: which is not to be done till the day of judgment.

Christ therefore is not yet in the throne of his majesty; nor is

that time, when Christ was conversant here in the world, called a

kingdom, but a _regeneration_; that is to say, a renovation or

restitution of the kingdom of God, and a calling of them who were

hereafter to be received into his kingdom. And where it is said

(Matth. xxv. 31-32): _When the Son of man shall come in his glory,

and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne

of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations; and he

shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his

sheep from the goats_: we may manifestly gather that there will be

no local separation of God’s subjects from his enemies, but that

they shall live mixed together until Christ’s second coming. Which

is also confirmed by the comparison of the kingdom of heaven with

wheat mingled with darnell, and with a net containing all sorts of

fish. But a multitude of men, enemies and subjects, living

promiscuously together, cannot properly be termed a kingdom.

Besides, the apostles, when they asked our Saviour, whether he would

at that time when he ascended into heaven, restore the kingdom unto

Israel; did openly testify, that they then, when Christ ascended,

thought the kingdom of God not to be yet come. Furthermore, the

words of Christ, _My kingdom is not of this world_: and, _I will not

drink_, &c. _till the kingdom of God come_: and, _God hath not sent

his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world

through him might be saved_: and, _If any man hear my words, and

keep them not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world,

but to save the world_: and, _Man, who made me a judge or divider

between you?_ and the very appellation of _the kingdom of heaven_

testifies as much. The same thing is gathered out of the words of

the prophet Jeremiah, speaking of the kingdom of God by the new

covenant (Jer. xxxi. 34): _They shall teach no more every man his

neighbour; saying, Know the Lord. For they shall all know me, from

the least of them to the greatest of them, saith the Lord_: which

cannot be understood of a kingdom in this world. The kingdom of God

therefore, for the restoring whereof Christ came into the world; of

which the prophets did prophecy, and of which praying we say, _Thy

kingdom come_; if it is to have subjects locally separated from

enemies, if judicature, if majesty, according as hath been foretold;

shall begin from that time, wherein God shall separate the sheep

from the goats; wherein the apostles shall judge the twelve tribes

of Israel; wherein Christ shall come in majesty and glory; wherein

lastly, all men shall so know God, that they shall not need to be

taught; that is to say, at Christ’s second coming, or the day of

judgment. But if the kingdom of God were now already restored, no

reason could be rendered why Christ, having completed the work for

which he was sent, should come again; or why we should pray, _Thy

kingdom come_.

[Sidenote: The government of Christ in this world was not a

sovereignty, but counsel, or a government by way of

doctrine and persuasion.]

6. Now, although the kingdom _of God_ by Christ to be established

with a _new covenant_, were heavenly; we must not therefore think,

that they, who believing in Christ would make that covenant, were

not so to be governed here on the earth too, as that they should

persevere in their faith and obedience promised by that covenant.

For in vain had the kingdom of heaven been promised, if we were not

to have been led into it; but none can be led, but those who are

directed in the way. Moses, when he had instituted the _priestly

kingdom_, himself though he were no priest, yet ruled and conducted

the people all the time of their peregrination, until their entrance

into the promised land. In the same manner is it our Saviour’s

office, (whom God in this thing would have like unto Moses), as he

was sent from his Father, so to govern the future subjects of his

heavenly kingdom in this life, that they might attain to and enter

into that; although the kingdom were not properly his, but his

Father’s. But the government whereby Christ rules the faithful ones

in this life, is not properly a _kingdom_ or _dominion_, but a

_pastoral charge_, or _the right of teaching_; that is to say, God

the Father gave him not a power to judge of _meum_ and _tuum_, as he

doth to the kings of the earth; nor a _coercive power_, nor

_legislative_; but of showing to the world, and teaching them _the

way and knowledge of salvation_; that is to say, of preaching and

declaring what they were to do, who would enter into the kingdom of

heaven. That Christ had received no power from his Father to judge

in questions of _meum_ and _tuum_, that is to say, in all questions

of right among those who believed not, those words above cited do

sufficiently declare: _Man, who made me a judge or divider between

you?_ And it is confirmed by reason. For seeing Christ was sent to

make _a covenant_ between God and men; and no man is obliged to

perform obedience before the contract be made; if he should have

judged of questions of _right_, no man had been tied to obey his

sentence. But that the discerning of right was not committed to

Christ in this world, neither among the faithful nor among infidels,

is apparent in this; that that right without all controversy belongs

to princes, as long as it is not by God himself derogated from their

authority. But it is not derogated before the day of judgment; as

appears by the words of St. Paul, speaking of the day of judgment (1

Cor. xv. 24): _Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up

the kingdom to God even the Father, when he shall have put down all

rule, and all authority, and power._ Secondly, the words of our

Saviour reproving James and John, when they had said (Luke ix. 54):

_Wilt thou that we call for fire from heaven, that it may consume

them?_ (namely the Samaritans, who had denied to receive him going

up to Jerusalem): and replying (verse 56), _The Son of man is not

come to destroy souls, but to save them_; and those words: _Behold I

send you as sheep among wolves_; _Shake off the dust of your feet_;

and the like; and those words, _God sent not his Son into the world,

to judge the world, but that the world through him might be saved_;

and those: _If any man hear my words, and keep them not, I judge him

not; for I came not to judge the world_, &c.: do all show, that he

had no power given him to condemn or punish any man. We read indeed,

that _the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to

the Son_; but since that both may, and must be understood of the day

of future judgment, it doth not at all repugn what hath been said

before. Lastly, that he was not sent to make new laws, and that

therefore by his office and mission he was no legislator properly so

called, nor Moses neither, but a bringer and publisher of his

Father’s laws, (for God only, and neither Moses nor Christ, was a

king by covenant), is collected hence; that he said, _I came not to

destroy_, (to wit, the laws before given from God by Moses, which he

presently interprets), _but to fulfil_; and, _He that shall break

one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, he

shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven_. Christ therefore

had not a royal or sovereign power committed to him from his Father

in this world, but councillary and doctrinal only; which himself

signifies, as well then when he calls his apostles not hunters, but

fishers of men; as when he compares the kingdom of God to a grain of

mustard-seed, and to a little leaven hid in meal.

[Sidenote: What the promises of the new covenant are on both parts.]

7. God promised unto Abraham, first, a numerous seed, the possession

of the land of Canaan, and a blessing upon all nations in his seed,

on this condition; that he and his seed should serve him: next, unto

the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, _a priestly_ kingdom, a

government most free, in which they were to be subject to no human

power, on this condition; that they should serve the God of Abraham

on that fashion which Moses should teach: lastly, both to them and

to all nations, a heavenly and _eternal_ kingdom, on condition that

they should serve the God of Abraham on that manner which Christ

should teach. For by _the new_, that is to say, _the Christian

covenant_, it is covenanted on men’s part, to serve the God of

Abraham _on that manner which Jesus should teach_: on God’s part,

_to pardon their sins, and bring them into his celestial kingdom_.

We have already spoken of the quality of the _heavenly_ kingdom,

above in art. 5; but it is usually called, sometimes the _kingdom of

heaven_, sometimes the _kingdom of glory_, sometimes the _life

eternal_. What is required on men’s part, namely, to serve God as

Christ should teach, contains two things; _obedience to be performed

to God_, (for this is to serve God); and _faith in Jesus_, to wit,

that we believe _Jesus to be that Christ who was promised by God_;

for that only is the cause why his doctrine is to be followed,

rather than any other’s. Now in holy Scriptures, _repentance_ is

often put instead of _obedience_; because Christ teacheth

everywhere, that with God the will is taken for the deed; but

_repentance_ is an infallible sign of an obedient mind. These things

being understood, it will most evidently appear out of many places

of sacred Scripture, that those are the conditions of _the Christian

covenant_ which we have named; to wit, giving remission of sins and

eternal life on God’s part; and repenting and believing in Jesus

Christ, on men’s part. First, the words, (Mark i. 15): _The kingdom

of God is at hand; Repent ye and believe the gospel_, contain the

whole covenant. In like manner those (Luke xxiv. 46-47): _Thus it is

written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the

dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should

be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem._

And those (Acts iii. 19): _Repent and be converted, that your sins

may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come_, &c. And

sometimes one part is expressly propounded, and the other

understood, as here (John iii. 36): _He that believeth in the Son,

hath everlasting life; He that believeth not the Son, shall not see

life, but the wrath of God abideth on him_: where _faith_ is

expressed, _repentance_ not mentioned; and in Christ’s preaching

(Matth. iv. 17): _Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand_:

where _repentance_ is expressed, _faith_ is understood. But the

parts of this _new contract_ are most manifestly and formally set

down there, where a certain ruler, bargaining as it were for the

kingdom of God, asketh our Saviour (Luke xviii. 18): _Good Master,

what shall I do to inherit eternal life?_ But Christ first propounds

one part of the price, namely, observation of the commandments, or

obedience; which when he answered that he had kept, he adjoins the

other, saying (verse 22): _Yet lackest thou one thing; Sell all that

thou hast, and distribute to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure

in heaven; and come, follow me._ This was matter of _faith_. He

therefore not giving sufficient credit to Christ and his heavenly

treasures, went away sorrowful. The same covenant is contained in

these words (Mark xvi. 16): _He that believeth and is baptized,

shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned_: where

_faith_ is expressed, _repentance_ is supposed in those that are

baptized. And in these words (John iii. 5): _Except a man be born

again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom

of heaven_: where, _to be born of water_, is the same with

regeneration, that is to say, conversion to Christ. Now that

_baptism_ is required in the two places cited just before, and in

divers others, we must understand, that what _circumcision_ was to

the _old covenant_, that _baptism_ is to the _new_. Seeing therefore

that was not of the essence, but served for a memorial of the _old

covenant_, as a ceremony or sign, (and was omitted in the

wilderness); in like manner this also is used, not as pertaining to

the essence, but in memory and for a sign of the _new covenant_

which we make with God. And provided the will be not wanting, the

act through necessity may be omitted; but _repentance_ and _faith_,

which are of the essence of the _covenant_, are always required.

[Sidenote: There are no laws added by Christ, beside the institution

of the sacraments.]

8. In the _kingdom_ of God after this life, there will be _no laws_;

partly, because there is no room for laws, where there is none for

sins; partly, because laws were given us from God, not to direct us

in heaven, but unto heaven. Let us now therefore inquire what laws

Christ established not himself; for he would not take upon him any

legislative authority, as hath been declared above in art. 6; but

propounded to us for his Father’s. We have a place in Scripture,

where he contracts all the laws of God published till that time,

into two precepts. (Matth. xxii. 37, 38, 39, 40): _Thou shalt love

the Lord thy God with all thine heart, with all thy soul, and with

all thy mind; this is the greatest and first commandment. And the

second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On

these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets._ The first

of these was given before by Moses in the same words (Deut. vi. 5);

and the second even before Moses; for it is the natural law, having

its beginning with rational nature itself: and both together is the

sum of all laws. For all the laws of divine natural worship, are

contained in these words, _Thou shalt love God_; and all the laws of

divine worship due by the _old covenant_, in these words, _Thou

shalt love thy God_, that is to say, _God_, as being the peculiar

_King of Abraham_ and his seed; and all the laws natural and civil,

in these words, _Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself._ For he

that loves God and his neighbour, hath a mind to obey all laws, both

divine and human. But God requires no more than a mind to obey. We

have another place where Christ interprets the laws, namely, the

fifth, sixth, and seventh entire chapters of St. Matthew’s Gospel.

But all those laws are set down either in the _decalogue_ or in the

_moral law_, or are contained in _the faith of Abraham_; as that law

of not putting away a wife is contained in _the faith of Abraham_.

For that same, _two shall be one flesh_, was not delivered, either

by Christ first, or by Moses, but by Abraham, who first preached the

creation of the world. The laws therefore which Christ contracts in

one place, and explains in another, are no other than those to which

all mortal men are obliged, who acknowledge the God of Abraham.

Beside these, we read not of any law given by Christ, beside the

institution of the sacraments of _baptism_ and the _eucharist_.

[Sidenote: That these and the like forms, repent, be baptized, keep

the commandments, are not laws.]

9. What may be said then of these kind of precepts, _Repent_, _Be

baptized_, _Keep the Commandments_, _Believe the Gospel_, _Come unto

me_, _Sell all that thou hast_, _Give to the poor_, _Follow me_; and

the like? We must say that they are not _laws_, but a calling of us

to the faith: such as is that of Isaiah (lv. 1): _Come; buy wine and

milk without money and without price._ Neither if they come not, do

they therefore sin against any law, but against prudence only;

neither shall their infidelity be punished, but their former sins.

Wherefore St. John saith of the unbeliever, _The wrath of God

abideth on him_; he saith not, _The wrath of God shall come upon

him_. And, _He that believeth not, is already judged_; he saith not,

_shall be_ judged, but _is already_ judged. Nay, it cannot be well

conceived, that remission of sins should be a benefit arising from

_faith_, unless we understand also on the other side, that the

punishment of sins is an hurt proceeding from _infidelity_.

[Sidenote: It belongs to the civil authority, to define what the sin

of injustice is.]

10. From hence, that our Saviour hath prescribed no distributive

laws to the subjects of princes, and citizens of cities; that is to

say, hath given no rules whereby a subject may know and discern what

is _his own_, what _another man’s_, nor by what forms, words, or

circumstances a thing must be _given_, _delivered_, _invaded_,

_possessed_, that it may be known by right to belong to the

_receiver_, _invader_, or _possessor_: we must necessarily

understand that each single subject (not only with unbelievers,

among whom Christ himself denied himself to be a _judge_ and

_distributor_, but even with Christians) must take those rules from

his city, that is to say, from that man or council which hath the

supreme power. It follows therefore, that by those laws; _Thou shalt

not kill_, _Thou shalt not commit adultery_, _Thou shalt not steal_,

_Honour thy father and mother_; nothing else was commanded, but that

subjects, and citizens, should absolutely obey their princes in all

questions concerning _meum_ and _tuum_, _their own_ and _others’

right_. For by that precept, _Thou shalt not kill_, all slaughter is

not prohibited; for he that said, _Thou shalt not kill_, said also,

(Exod. xxxv. 2): _Whosoever doth work upon the sabbath, shall be put

to death_. No, nor yet all slaughter, the cause not being heard; for

he said, (Exod. xxxii. 27): _Slay every man his brother, and every

man his companion, and every man his neighbour._ (Verse 28): _And

there fell of the people about three thousand men._ Nor yet all

slaughter of an innocent person; for Jephtha vowed (Judges xi. 31):

_Whosoever cometh forth, &c. I will offer him up for a burnt

offering unto the Lord_; and his vow was accepted of God. What then

is forbidden? Only this: that no man kill another, who hath not _a

right_ to kill him; that is to say, that no man kill, unless it

belong to him to do so. The law of Christ therefore concerning

killing, and consequently all manner of hurt done to any man, and

what penalties are to be set, commands us to obey the city only. In

like manner, by that precept, _Thou shalt not commit adultery_, all

manner of copulation is not forbidden; but only that of lying with

_another man’s wife_. But the judgment, which is another man’s wife,

belongs to the city; and is to be determined by the rules which the

city prescribes. This precept therefore commands both male and

female to keep that faith entire, which they have mutually given

according to the statutes of the city. So also by the precept, _thou

shalt not steal_, all manner of invasion or secret surreption is not

forbidden; but of _another man’s only_. The subject therefore is

commanded this only, that he invade not nor take away aught which

the city prohibits to be invaded or taken away; and universally, not

to call anything _murder_, _adultery_, or _theft_, but what is done

contrary to the civil laws. Lastly, seeing Christ hath commanded us

to _honour our parents_, and hath not prescribed with what rites,

what appellations, and what manner of obedience they are to be

honoured; it is to be supposed that they are to be honoured with the

will indeed, and inwardly, as kings and lords over their children,

but outwardly, not beyond the city’s permission, which shall assign

to every man, as all things else, so also _his honour_. But since

the nature of justice consists in this, that every man have his own

given him; it is manifest, that it also belongs to a Christian city

to determine what is justice, what injustice, or a sin against

justice. Now what belongs to a city, that must be judged to belong

to him or them who have the sovereign power of the city.

[Sidenote: It belongs to civil authority, to define what conduces to

the peace and safety of the city.]

11. Moreover, because our Saviour hath not showed subjects any other

laws for the government of a city, beside those of nature, that is

to say, beside the command of obedience; no subject can privately

determine who is a public friend, who an enemy, when war, when

peace, when truce is to be made, nor yet what subjects, what

authority and of what men, are commodious or prejudicial to the

safety of the commonweal. These and all like matters therefore are

to be learned, if need be, from the city, that is to say, from the

sovereign powers.

[Sidenote: It belongs to the civil authority, to judge, when need

requires, what definitions and what inferences are true.]

12. Furthermore, all these things, to build castles, houses,

temples; to move, carry, take away mighty weights; to send securely

over seas; to contrive engines, serving for all manner of uses; to

be well acquainted with the face of the whole world, the courses of

the stars, the seasons of the year, the accounts of the times, and

the nature of all things; to understand perfectly all natural and

civil rights; and all manner of sciences, which, comprehended under

the title of philosophy, are necessary partly to live, partly to

live well; I say, the understanding of these (because Christ hath

not delivered it) is to be learnt from reasoning; that is to say, by

making necessary consequences, having first taken the beginning from

experience. But men’s reasonings are sometimes right, sometimes

wrong; and consequently, that which is concluded and held for a

truth, is sometimes truth, sometimes error. Now errors, even about

these philosophical points, do sometimes public hurt, and give

occasions of great seditions and injuries. It is needful therefore,

as oft as any controversy ariseth in these matters contrary to

public good and common peace, that there be somebody to judge of the

reasoning, that is to say, whether that which is inferred, be

rightly inferred or not; that so the controversy may be ended. But

there are no rules given by Christ to this purpose, neither came he

into the world to teach _logic_. It remains therefore that the

judges of such controversies, be the same with those whom God by

nature had instituted before, namely, those who in each city are

constituted by the sovereign. Moreover, if a controversy be raised

of the accurate and proper signification, that is, the definition of

those names or appellations which are commonly used; insomuch as it

is needful for the peace of the city, or the distribution of right,

to be determined; the determination will belong to the city. For

men, by reasoning, do search out such kind of definitions in their

observation of diverse conceptions, for the signification whereof

those appellations were used at diverse times and for diverse

causes. But the decision of the question, whether a man do reason

rightly, belongs to the city. For example, if a woman bring forth a

child of an unwonted shape, and the law forbid to kill a man; the

question is, whether the child be a man. It is demanded therefore,

what a man is. No man doubts but the city shall judge it, and that

without taking an account of Aristotle’s definition, that man is a

rational creature. And these things, namely, _right_, _policy_, and

_natural sciences_, are subjects concerning which Christ denies that

it belongs to his office to give any precepts, or teach any thing

beside this only; that in all controversies about them, every single

subject should obey the laws and determinations of his city. Yet

must we remember this, that the same Christ, as God, could not only

have taught, but also commanded what he would.

[Sidenote: It belongs to the office of Christ, to teach morality,

not as a speculation, but as a law; to forgive sins, and

to teach all things whereof there is no science properly

so called.]

13. The sum of our Saviour’s office was, to teach the way and all

the means of salvation and eternal life. But justice and civil

obedience, and observation of all the natural laws, is one of the

means to salvation. Now these may be taught two ways; one, as

_theorems_, by the way of natural reason, by drawing right and the

natural laws from human principles and contracts; and this doctrine

thus delivered, is subject to the censure of civil powers. The

other, as laws, by divine authority, in showing the will of God to

be such; and thus to teach, belongs only to him to whom the will of

God is supernaturally known, that is to say, to Christ. Secondly, it

belonged to the office of Christ to forgive sins to the penitent;

for that was necessary for the salvation of men who had already

sinned. Neither could it be done by any other. For remission of sins

follows not repentance naturally, as a debt; but it depends, as a

free gift, on the will of God supernaturally to be revealed.

Thirdly, it belongs to the office of Christ to teach all those

commandments of God, whether concerning his worship, or those points

of faith which cannot be understood by natural reason, but only by

revelation; of which nature are those, _that he was the Christ_;

_that his kingdom was not terrestrial, but celestial_; _that there

are rewards and punishments after this life_; _that the soul is

immortal_; _that there should be such, and so many sacraments_; and

the like.

[Sidenote: A distinction of things temporal from spiritual.]

14. From what hath been said in the foregoing chapter, it is not

hard to distinguish between things _spiritual_ and _temporal_. For

since by _spiritual_, those things are understood, which have their

foundation on the authority and office of Christ, and, unless Christ

had taught them, could not have been known; and all other things are

temporal; it follows, that the definition and determination of what

is _just_ and _unjust_, the cognizance of all controversies about

the _means of peace_ and _public defence_, and the examination of

doctrines and books in all manner of _rational science_, depends

upon _the temporal right_; but those which are _mysteries of faith_,

depending on Christ’s word and authority only, their judgments

belong to _spiritual right_. But it is reason’s inquisition, and

pertains to _temporal right_ to define what is _spiritual_, and what

_temporal_; because our Saviour hath not made that distinction. For

although St. Paul in many places distinguish between _spiritual_

things and _carnal_ things; and call (Rom. viii. 5: 1 Cor. xii.

8-10) those things _spiritual_, which are of the _spirit_, to wit,

the _word of wisdom_, _the word of knowledge_, _faith_, _the gift of

healing_, _the working of miracles_, _prophecy_, _divers kind of

tongues_, _interpretation of tongues_; all supernaturally inspired

by the Holy Ghost, and such as the _carnal_ man understands not, but

he only who hath known the mind of Christ (2 Cor. ii. 14-16); and

those things _carnal_, which belong to worldly wealth (Rom. xv. 27);

and the men _carnal men_ (1 Cor. iii. 1-3): yet hath he not defined,

nor given us any rules whereby we may know what proceeds from

natural reason, what from supernatural inspiration.

[Sidenote: The word of God many ways taken.]

15. Seeing therefore it is plain that our Saviour hath committed to,

or rather not taken away from _princes_, and those who in each city

have obtained the sovereignty, the supreme authority of judging and

determining all manner of controversies about _temporal_ matters; we

must see henceforth to whom he hath left the same authority in

matters _spiritual_. Which because it cannot be known, except it be

out of _the word of God_ and _the tradition of the Church_, we must

enquire in the next place what _the word of God is_, what _to

interpret it_, what a _Church_ is, and what _the will and command of

the Church_. To omit that the _word of God_ is in Scripture taken

sometimes for the _Son of God_, it is used three manner of ways.

First, most properly for that which God hath spoken. Thus,

whatsoever God spake unto Abraham, the patriarchs, Moses, and the

prophets, our Saviour to his disciples, or any others; is _the word

of God_. Secondly, whatsoever hath been uttered by men on the motion

or by command of the Holy Ghost; in which sense we acknowledge the

Scriptures to be the _word of God_. Thirdly, in the New Testament

indeed, the _word of God_ most frequently signifies the doctrine of

the gospel, or the _word concerning God_, or _the word of the

kingdom of God_ by Christ. As where it is said (Matth. iv. 23) that

Christ preached the _gospel of the kingdom_: where the apostles are

said to preach _the word of God_ (Acts xiii. 46): where the _word of

God_ is called _the word of life_ (Acts v. 20): _of the word of the

gospel_ (Acts xv. 7): _the word of faith_ (Rom. x. 8): _the word of

truth_, that is to say, (adding an interpretation) _the gospel of

salvation_, (Eph. i. 13): and where it is called _the word of the

apostles_; for St. Paul says (2 Thess. iii. 14): _If any man obey

not our word_, &c. Which places cannot be otherwise meant than of

_the doctrine evangelical_. In like manner, where the word of God is

said to be _sown_, _to increase_, and _to be multiplied_ (Acts xii.

24: and xiii. 49): it is very hard to conceive this to be spoken of

the _voice of God_ or _of his apostles_; but of their doctrine,

easy. And in this third acception is all that _doctrine of the

Christian faith_, which at this day is preached in pulpits and

contained in the books of divines, _the word of God_.

[Sidenote: All things contained in the Scripture, belong not to the

canon of Christian faith.]

16. Now the sacred Scripture is entirely _the word of God_ in this

second acception, as being that which we acknowledge to be inspired

from God; and innumerable places of it, in the first. And seeing the

greatest part of it is conversant either in the prediction of the

_kingdom of heaven_, or in prefigurations before the incarnation of

Christ, or in evangelization and explication after; the sacred

Scripture is also _the word of God_, and therefore the canon and

rule of all _evangelical doctrine_, in this third signification;

where _the word of God_ is taken for _the word concerning God_, that

is to say, for _the gospel_. But because in the same Scriptures we

read many things political, historical, moral, physical, and others

which nothing at all concern the mysteries of our faith; those

places, although they contain true doctrine, and are the canon of

such kind of doctrines, yet can they not be the canon of the

mysteries of Christian religion.

[Sidenote: The word of a lawful interpreter of Scriptures, is the

word of God.]

17. And truly, it is not the dead voice or letter of _the word of

God_, which is the canon of Christian doctrine; but a true and

genuine determination. For the mind is not governed by Scriptures,

unless they be understood. There is need therefore of an interpreter

to make the Scriptures canon, and hence follows one of these two

things; that either the word of the interpreter is the word of God,

or that the canon of Christian doctrine is not the word of God. The

last of these must necessarily be false; for the rule of that

doctrine which cannot be known by any human reason, but by divine

revelation only, cannot be less than divine; for whom we acknowledge

not to be able to discern whether some doctrine be true or not, it

is impossible to account his opinion for a rule in the same

doctrine. The first therefore is true, _that the word of an

interpreter of Scriptures is the word of God_.

The authority of interpreting Scriptures, is the same with that of

determining controversies of faith.

18. Now that interpreter whose determination hath the honour to be

held for _the word of God_, is not every one that translates the

Scriptures out of the Hebrew and Greek tongue, to his Latin auditors

in Latin, to his French in French, and to other nations in their

mother tongue; for this is not to interpret. For such is the nature

of speech in general, that although it deserve the chief place among

those signs whereby we declare our conceptions to others, yet cannot

it perform that office alone without the help of many circumstances.

For the living voice hath its interpreters present, to wit, time,

place, countenance, gesture, the counsel of the speaker, and himself

unfolding his own meaning in other words as oft as need is. To

recall these aids of interpretation, so much desired in the writings

of old time, is neither the part of an ordinary wit, nor yet of the

quaintest, without great learning and very much skill in antiquity.

It sufficeth not therefore for interpretation of Scriptures, that a

man understand the language wherein they speak. Neither is every one

an authentic interpreter of Scriptures, who writes comments upon

them. For men may err; they may also either bend them to serve their

own ambition; or even resisting, draw them into bondage by their

forestallings; whence it will follow, that an erroneous sentence

must be held for _the word of God_. But although this might not

happen, yet as soon as these commentators are departed, their

commentaries will need explications; and in process of time, those

explications expositions; those expositions new commentaries,

without any end. So as there cannot, in any written interpretation

whatsoever, be a canon or rule of Christian doctrine, whereby the

controversies of religion may be determined. It remains, that there

must be some canonical interpreter, whose legitimate office it is to

end controversies begun, by explaining the word of God in the

judgments themselves; and whose authority therefore must be no less

obeyed, than theirs who first recommended the Scripture itself to us

for a canon of faith; and that one and the same person be _an

interpreter of Scripture_, and a _supreme judge of all manner of

doctrines_.

[Sidenote: Divers significations of a Church.]

19. What concerns the word _ecclesia_, or Church, originally it

signifies the same thing that _concio_ or a congregation does in

Latin; even as _ecclesiastes_ or churchman, the same that

_concionator_ or preacher, that is to say, he who speaks to the

congregation. In which sense we read in the Acts of the Apostles, of

a _Church confused_, and of a _lawful Church_ (Acts xix, 32-39):

that, taken for a concourse of people meeting in way of tumult;

this, for a convocated assembly. But in holy writ by a _Church of

Christians_, is sometimes understood the assembly, and sometimes the

Christians themselves, although not actually assembled, if they be

permitted to enter into the congregation and to communicate with

them. For example, _Tell it to the Church_, (Matth. xviii. 17), is

meant of a Church assembled; for otherwise it is impossible to

_tell_ any thing to the Church. But _He laid waste the Church_,

(Acts viii. 3), is understood of a Church not assembled. Sometimes a

Church is taken for those who are baptized, or for the professors of

the Christian faith, whether they be Christians inwardly or

feignedly; as when we read of somewhat said or written to the

Church, or said, or decreed, or done by the Church. Sometimes for

the elect only, as when it is called _holy and without blemish_

(Ephes. v. 27). But the elect, as they are militant, are not

properly called a Church; for they know not how to assemble; but

they are a _future Church_, namely, in that day when severed from

the reprobate they shall be triumphant. Again, a Church may be

sometimes taken for all Christians collectively; as when Christ is

called _the head of his Church_ (Ephes. v. 23); and _the head of his

body the Church_ (Coloss. i. 18). Sometimes for its parts; as _the

Church of Ephesus_, _the Church which is in his house_, _the seven

Churches_, &c. Lastly, a Church, as it is taken for a company

actually assembled, according to the divers ends of their meeting,

signifies sometimes those who are met together to deliberate and

judge; in which sense it is also called a council and a synod;

sometimes those who meet together in the house of prayer to worship

God, in which signification it is taken in the 1 Cor. xiv. 4, 5, 23,

28, &c.

[Sidenote: What a Church is, to whom we attribute rights, actions,

and the like appellations proper to a person.]

20. Now a _Church_, which hath personal rights and proper actions

attributed to it, and of which that same must necessarily be

understood, _Tell it to the Church_, and _he that obeys not the

Church_, and all such like forms of speech, is to be defined so as

by that word may be understood a multitude of men, who have made a

new covenant with God in Christ, that is to say, a multitude of them

who have taken upon them the sacrament of baptism; which multitude

may both lawfully be called together by some one into one place,

and, he so calling them, are bound to be present either in person or

by others. For a multitude of men, if they cannot meet in assembly

when need requires, is not to be called _a person_. For a Church can

neither speak, nor discern, nor hear, but as it is a congregation.

Whatsoever is spoken by particular men, (to wit, as many opinions

almost as heads), that is the speech of one man, not of the Church.

Furthermore, if an assembly be made, and it be unlawful, it shall be

considered as null. Not any one of these therefore who are present

in a tumult, shall be tied to the decree of the rest; but specially

if he dissent. And therefore neither can such a Church make any

decree; for then a multitude is said to decree somewhat, when every

man is obliged by the decree of the major part. We must therefore

grant to the definition of a Church, to which we attribute _things

belonging to a person_, not only a possibility of assembling, but

also of doing it lawfully. Besides, although there be some one who

may lawfully call the rest together; yet if they who are called, may

lawfully not appear; which may happen among men who are not subject

one to another; that same _Church_ is not _one person_. For by what

right they, who being called to a certain time and place do meet

together, are _one Church_; by the same, others flocking to another

place appointed by them, are _another Church_. And every number of

men of one opinion is a Church; and by consequence, there will be as

many Churches as there are divers opinions; that is to say, the same

multitude of men will at once prove to be _one_, and _many

Churches_. Wherefore a Church is not one, except there be a certain

and known, that is to say, a lawful power, by means whereof every

man may be obliged to be present in the congregation, either himself

in person, or by proxy; and that becomes _one_, and is capable of

_personal_ functions, by the union of a lawful power of convocating

synods and assemblies of Christians; not by uniformity of doctrine;

and otherwise it is a multitude, and _persons_ in the plural,

howsoever agreeing in opinions.

[Sidenote: A Christian city is the same with a Christian Church.]

21. It follows what hath been already said by necessary connexion,

that _a city of Christian men_ and a _Church_ is altogether the same

thing, of the same men, termed by two names, for two causes. For the

_matter of a city_ and a _Church_ is one, to wit, the same Christian

men. And the _form_, which consists in a lawful power of assembling

them, is the same too; for it is manifest that every subject is

obliged to come thither, whither he is summoned by his _city_. Now

that which is called a _city_, as it is made up of _men_, the same,

as it consists of _Christians_, is styled a _Church_.

[Sidenote: Many cities do not constitute one Church.]

22. This too is very coherent with the same points: _if there be

many Christian cities, they are not altogether personally one

Church_. They may indeed by mutual consent become one _Church_, but

no otherwise than as they must also become one city. For they cannot

assemble but at some certain time, and to some place appointed. But

persons, places, and times, belong to civil right; neither can any

subject or stranger lawfully set his foot on any place, but by the

permission of the city, which is lord of the place. But the things

which cannot lawfully be done but by the permission of the city,

those, if they be lawfully done, are done by the city’s authority.

The _universal Church_ is indeed one _mystical body_, whereof Christ

is the head; but in the same manner that all men together,

acknowledging God for the ruler of the world, are one kingdom and

one city; which notwithstanding is neither one _person_, nor hath it

one common action or determination. Furthermore, where it is said

that _Christ is the head of his body the Church_, it manifestly

appears that that was spoken by the Apostle of the elect; who, as

long as they are in this world, are a _Church_ only in _potentia_;

but shall not actually be so before they be separated from the

reprobate, and gathered together among themselves in the day of

judgment. The Church of Rome of old was very great, but she went not

beyond the bounds of her empire, and therefore neither was she

_universal_; unless it were in that sense, wherein it was also said

of the city of Rome, _Orbem jam totum victor Romanus habebat_; when

as yet he had not the twentieth part of it. But after that the civil

empire was divided into parts, the single cities thence arising were

so many Churches: and that power which the Church of Rome had over

them, might perhaps wholly depend on the authority of those

Churches, who having cast off the emperors, were yet content to

admit the doctors of Rome.

[Sidenote: Who are clergymen.]

23. They may be called _churchmen_, who exercise a public office in

the Church. But of offices, there was one a _ministery_, another a

_maistery_. The offices of the _ministers_, was to serve tables, to

take care of the temporal goods of the Church, and to distribute, at

that time when all propriety of riches being abolished they were fed

in common, to each man his portion. The _maisters_, according to

their order, were called some _apostles_, some _bishops_, some

_presbyters_, that is to say, _elders_; yet not so, as that by the

name of _presbyter_, the _age_, but the office might be

distinguished. For Timothy was a _presbyter_, although a young man.

But because for the most part the _elders_ were received into the

_maistership_, the word, denoting age, was used to signify the

office. The same _maisters_, according to the diversity of their

employments, were called some of them _apostles_, some _prophets_,

some _evangelists_, some _pastors_ or _teachers_. And the

_apostolical_ work indeed was universal; the _prophetical_, to

declare their own revelations in the Church; the _evangelical_, to

preach or to be publishers of the gospel among the infidels; that of

the _pastors_, to teach, confirm, and rule the minds of those who

already believed.

[Sidenote: The election of churchmen belongs to the Church; their

consecration to the pastors.]

24. In the election of churchmen two things are to be considered;

the election of the persons, and their _consecration_ or

institution, which also is called _ordination_. The first twelve

apostles Christ himself both elected and ordained. After Christ’s

ascension, Matthias was elected in the room of Judas the traitor;

the Church, which at that time consisted of a congregation of about

one hundred and twenty men, choosing two men: _and they appointed

two_, Joseph and Matthias: but God himself by lot approving of

Matthias. And St. Paul calls these twelve _the first and great

apostles_; also the apostles _of the circumcision_. Afterward were

added two other apostles, Paul and Barnabas; ordained indeed by the

doctors and prophets of the Church of Antioch (which was _a

particular Church_) by the imposition of hands; but elected by the

command of the Holy Ghost. That they were both apostles, is manifest

in Acts xiii. 2, 3. That they received their apostleship from hence,

namely, because they were separated, by command of the spirit, for

the work of God from the rest of the prophets and doctors of the

Church of Antioch, St. Paul himself shows; who calls himself, for

distinction sake (Rom. i. 1), _an apostle separated unto the Gospel

of God_. But if it be demanded further, _by what authority_ it came

to pass, that that was received for the command of the Holy Ghost,

which those prophets and doctors did say proceeded from him; it must

necessarily be answered, _by the authority of the Church of

Antioch_. For the prophets and doctors must be examined by the

Church, before they be admitted. For St. John (1 Epist. iv. 1)

saith: _Believe not every spirit; but try the spirits, whether they

are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the

world_. But by what Church, but that to which that epistle was

written? In like manner St. Paul (Gal. ii. 14) reproves the Churches

of Galatia, because they Judaized; although they seemed to do so by

the authority of Peter. For when he had told them, that he had

reprehended Peter himself in these words: _If thou being a Jew,

livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews; why

compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews_: not long after

he questions them, saying (Gal. iii. 2): _This only would I learn of

you: received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the

hearing of faith?_ Where it is evident, that it was Judaism which he

reprehended the Galatians for, notwithstanding that the apostle

Peter compelled them to Judaize. Seeing therefore it belonged to the

Church, and not to Peter, and therefore also not to any man, to

determine what doctors they should follow; it also pertained to the

authority of the Church of Antioch, to elect their prophets and

doctors. Now, because the Holy Ghost separated to himself the

apostles Paul and Barnabas by the imposition of hands from doctors

thus elected, it is manifest, _that imposition of hands and

consecration_ of the prime doctors in each Church, belongs to the

doctors of the same Church. But _bishops_, who were also called

_presbyters_, although all presbyters were not bishops, were

ordained sometimes by _apostles_; for Paul and Barnabas, when they

had taught in Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium, ordained _elders_ in every

Church (Acts xiv. 23): sometimes by other bishops; for Titus was by

Paul left in Crete, that he should ordain _elders_ in every city

(Tit. i. 5). And Timothy was advised (1 Tim. iv. 14) _Not to neglect

the gift that was in him, which was given him by prophecy with the

laying on of the hands of the presbytery_. And he had rules given

him concerning the election of _presbyters_. But that cannot be

understood otherwise, than of the ordination of those who were

elected by the Church; for no man can constitute a doctor in the

Church, but by the Church’s permission. For the duty of the apostles

themselves was not to command, but to teach. And although they who

were recommended by the apostles or presbyters, were not rejected,

for the esteem that was had of the recommenders; yet seeing they

could not be elected without the _will_ of the Church, they were

also supposed elected by the _authority_ of the Church. In like

manner ministers, who are called _deacons_, were _ordained_ by the

apostles; yet _elected_ by the Church. For when the seven deacons

were to be elected and ordained, the apostles elected them not: but,

_look ye out_, say they (Acts vi. 3, 5, 6), _among you, brethren,

seven men of honest report, &c.: and they chose Stephen, &c.: and

they set them before the apostles_. It is apparent therefore by the

custom of the primitive Church under the apostles, that the

_ordination_ or _consecration_ of all churchmen, which is done by

_prayer_ and _imposition of hands_, belonged to the _apostles_ and

_doctors_; but the _election_ of those who were to be consecrated,

_to the Church_.

[Sidenote: The power of remitting sins to the penitent, and

retaining those of the impenitent, belongs to the

pastors; but judgment of the repentance, to the Church.]

25. Concerning the power of _binding_ and _loosing_, that is to say,

of _remitting_ and _retaining of sins_; there is no doubt but it was

given by Christ to the pastors then yet for to come, in the same

manner as it was to the present apostles. Now the apostles had all

the power _of remitting of sins_ given them, which Christ himself

had. _As the Father hath sent me_, says Christ, (John xx. 21), _so

send I you_; and he adds (verse 23): _Whose soever_ _sins ye remit,

they are remitted; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are

retained_. But what _binding_ and _loosing_, or _remitting_ and

_retaining of sins_, is, admits of some scruple. For first, to

_retain_ his sins, who being baptized into remission of sins, is

truly penitent, seems to be against the very covenant itself of the

New Testament; and therefore could not be done by Christ himself,

much less by his pastors. And to _remit_ the impenitent, seems to be

against the will of God the Father, from whom Christ was sent to

convert the world and to reduce men unto obedience. Furthermore, if

each pastor had an authority granted him to _remit_ and _retain_

sins in this manner, all awe of princes and civil magistrates,

together with all kind of civil government would be utterly

destroyed. For Christ hath said it, nay even nature itself dictates,

that _we should not fear them who slay the body, but cannot kill the

soul; but rather fear him, who can cast both soul and body into

hell_ (Matth. x. 28). Neither is any man so mad, as not to choose to

yield obedience rather to them who can remit and retain their sins,

than to the powerfulest kings. Nor yet on the other side is it to be

imagined, that _remission of sins_ is nothing else but an exemption

from ecclesiastical punishments. For what evil hath excommunication

in it, beside the eternal pains which are consequent to it? Or what

benefit is to be received into the Church, if there were salvation

out of it? We must therefore hold, _that pastors have power truly

and absolutely to forgive sins; but to the penitent: and to retain

them; but of the impenitent_. But while men think that to repent, is

nothing else, but that every one condemn his actions and change

those counsels which to himself seem sinful and blameable; there is

an opinion risen, that there may be repentance before any confession

of sins to men, and that repentance is not an effect, but a cause of

confession. And thence the difficulty of those, who say that the

sins of the penitent are already forgiven in baptism, and theirs who

repent not, cannot be forgiven at all, is against Scripture, and

contrary to the words of Christ, _whose soever sins ye remit_, &c.

We must therefore, to resolve this difficulty, know in the first

place, that a true acknowledgment of sin is repentance. For he that

knows he hath sinned, knows he hath erred; but to will an error, is

impossible; therefore he that knows he hath sinned, wishes he had

not done it; which is to repent. Further, where it may be doubtful

whether that which is done be a sin or not, we must consider, that

repentance doth not precede confession of sins, but is subsequent to

it: for there is no repentance but of sins acknowledged. The

penitent therefore must both acknowledge the fact, and know it to be

a sin, that is to say, against the law. If a man therefore think,

that what he hath done is not against the law, it is impossible he

should repent of it. Before repentance therefore, it is necessary

there be an application of the facts unto the law. But it is in vain

to apply the facts unto the law without an interpreter: for not the

words of the law, but the sentence of the law-giver is the rule of

men’s actions. But surely either one man, or some men are the

interpreters of the law; for every man is not judge of his own fact,

whether it be a sin or not. Wherefore the fact, of which we doubt

whether it be a sin or not, must be unfolded before some man or men;

and the doing of this is confession. Now when the interpreter of the

law hath judged the fact to be a sin, if the sinner submit to his

judgment and resolve with himself not to do so any more, it is

repentance; and thus, either it is not true repentance, or else it

is not antecedent, but subsequent to confession. These things being

thus explained, it is not hard to understand what kind of power that

of _binding_ and _loosing_ is. For seeing in remission of sins there

are two things considerable; one, the _judgment_ or _condemnation_

whereby the fact is judged to be a sin; the other, when the party

condemned does acquiesce and obey the sentence, that is to say,

repents, _the remission of the sin_; or, if he repent not, _the

retention_: the first of these, that is to say, the judging whether

it be a sin or not, belongs _to the interpreter of the law_, that

is, the _sovereign judge_; the second, namely, remission or

retention of the sin, _to the pastor_; and it is that, concerning

which the power _of binding_ and _loosing_ is conversant. And that

this was the true meaning of our Saviour Christ in the institution

of the same power, is apparent in Matth. xviii. 15-18, thus. He

there speaking to his disciples, says: _If thy brother sin against

thee, go and tell him his fault between him and thee alone_. Where

we must observe by the way, that _if thy brother sin against thee_,

is the same with, _if he do thee injury_; and therefore Christ spake

of those matters which belonged to the civil tribunal. He adds; _if

he hear thee not_, (that is to say, if he deny that he hath done it,

or if having confessed the fact, he denies it to be unjustly done),

_take with thee yet one or two; and if he refuse to hear them, tell

it to the Church_. But why to the Church, except that she might

judge whether it were a sin or not? But if _he refuse to hear the

Church_; that is, if he do not submit to the Church’s sentence, but

shall maintain that to be no sin, which she judges to be a sin; that

is to say, if he repent not; (for certain it is, that no man repents

himself of the action which he conceives not to be a sin); he saith

not, _Tell it to the apostles_; that we might know that the

definitive sentence in the question, whether it were a sin or not,

was not left unto them; but to the Church. _But let him be unto

thee_, says he, _as an heathen, or publican_; that is, as one out of

the Church, as one that is not baptized, that is to say, as one

whose _sins are retained_. For all Christians were baptized into

remission of sins. But because it might have been demanded, who it

was that had so great a power, as that of withholding the benefit of

baptism from the impenitent; Christ shows that the same persons, to

whom he had given authority to baptize the penitent into the

remission of sins, and to make them of heathen men Christians, had

also authority to retain their sins who by the Church should be

adjudged to be impenitent, and to make them of Christian men

heathens: and therefore presently subjoins: _Verily I say unto you,

whose soever sins ye shall bind upon earth, they shall be bound also

in heaven; and whose soever sins ye shall loose upon earth, they

shall be loosed also in heaven_. Whence we may understand, that the

power of binding and loosing, or of remitting and retaining of sins,

which is called in another place the power of the keys, is not

different from the power given in another place in these words

(Matth. xxviii. 19): _Go, and teach all nations, baptizing them in

the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost_. And

even as the pastors cannot refuse to baptize him whom the Church

judges worthy, so neither can they retain his sins whom the Church

holds fitting to be absolved, nor yet remit his sins whom the Church

pronounceth disobedient. And it is the Church’s part to judge of the

sin, the pastor’s to cast out or to receive into the Church those

that are judged. Thus St. Paul to the Church of Corinth (1 Cor. v.

12): _Do not ye judge_, saith he, _of those that are within?_ Yet he

himself pronounced the sentence of excommunication against the

incestuous person. _I indeed_, saith he (verse 3), _as absent in

body, but present in Spirit_, &c.

[Sidenote: What excommunication is, and on whom it cannot pass.]

26. The act of retaining sins is that which is called by the Church

_excommunication_, and by St. Paul _delivering over to Satan_. The

word _excommunication_ sounding the same with ἀποσυάγωγον poiein],

_casting out of the synagogue_, seems to be borrowed from the

Mosaical law; wherein they who were by the priest adjudged leprous,

were commanded (Levit. xiii. 46) to be kept apart out of the camp,

until by the judgment of the priest they were again pronounced

clean, and by certain rites, among which the washing of the body was

one, were purified. From hence in process of time it become a custom

of the Jews, not to receive those who passed from Gentilism to

Judaism, supposing them to be unclean, unless they were first

_washed_; and those who dissented from the doctrine of the

synagogue, they cast out of the synagogue. By resemblance of this

custom, those that came to Christianity, whether they were Jews or

Gentiles, were not received into the Church without baptism; and

those that dissented from the Church, were deprived of the Church’s

communion. Now, they were therefore said _to be delivered over to

Satan_, because all that was out of the Church, was comprehended

within his kingdom. The end of this kind of discipline was, that

being destitute for a time of the grace and spiritual privileges of

the Church, they might be humbled to salvation; but the effect in

regard of secular matters, that _being excommunicated_, they should

not only be prohibited all congregations or churches, and the

participation of the mysteries, but as being contagious they should

be avoided by all other Christians, even more than heathen. For the

apostle allowed to accompany with heathen; but with these, _not so

much as to eat_ (1 Cor. v. 10-11). Seeing then the effect of

_excommunication_ is such, it is manifest, in the first place, that

_a Christian city cannot be excommunicated_. For a Christian city is

a Christian Church, (as hath been declared above, in art. 21), and

of the same extension; but a Church cannot be excommunicated. For

either she must excommunicate herself, which is impossible; or she

must be excommunicated by some other Church; and this, either

_universal_ or _particular_. But seeing _an universal Church_ is no

_person_, (as hath been proved in art. 22), and therefore neither

acts nor does any thing, it cannot _excommunicate_ any man; and a

particular Church by excommunicating another Church, doth nothing.

For where there is not one common congregation, there cannot be any

excommunication. Neither if some one Church (suppose that of

Jerusalem), should have excommunicated another, (suppose that of

Rome), would it any more have excommunicated this, than herself: for

he that deprives another of his communion, deprives himself also of

the communion of that other. Secondly, _no man can excommunicate the

subjects of any absolute government all at once, or forbid them the

use of their temples or their public worship of God_. For they

cannot be excommunicated by a Church, which themselves do

constitute. For if they could, there would not only not remain a

Church, but not so much as a _commonweal_, and they would be

dissolved of themselves; and this were not _to be excommunicated_ or

_prohibited_. But if they be excommunicated by some other Church,

that Church is to esteem them as heathen. But no _Christian Church_,

by the doctrine of Christ, can forbid the heathen to gather together

and communicate among themselves, as it shall seem good to their

cities; especially if they meet to worship Christ, although it be

done in a singular custom and manner: therefore also not the

_excommunicated_, who are to be dealt with as heathen. Thirdly, _a

prince who hath the sovereign power, cannot be excommunicated_. For

by the doctrine of Christ, neither one nor many subjects together

can interdict their prince any public or private places, or deny him

entrance into any assembly whatsoever, or prohibit him the doing of

what he will with his own jurisdiction. For it is treason among all

cities, for any one or many subjects jointly to arrogate to

themselves any authority over the whole city. But they who arrogate

to themselves an authority over him who hath the supreme power of

the city, do arrogate the same authority over the city itself.

Besides, a sovereign prince, if he be a Christian, hath this further

advantage; that the city whose will is contained in his, is that

very thing which we call a Church. The _Church_ therefore

excommunicates no man, but whom it excommunicates by the authority

of the prince. But the prince excommunicates not himself; his

subjects therefore cannot do it. It may be indeed, that an assembly

of rebellious citizens or traitors may pronounce the sentence of

excommunication against their prince; but not _by right_. Much less

can one prince be excommunicated by another; for this would prove

not an excommunication, but a provocation to war by the way of

affront. For since that is not one Church, which is made up of

citizens belonging to two absolute cities, for want of power of

lawfully assembling them, (as hath been declared before, in art.

22); they who are of one Church are not bound to obey another, and

therefore cannot be excommunicated for their disobedience. Now, what

some may say, that princes, seeing they are members of the universal

Church, may also by the authority of the universal Church be

excommunicated, signifies nothing: because _the universal Church_,

(as hath been showed in art. 22), is not _one person_, of whom it

may be said that _she acted, decreed, determined, excommunicated,

absolved_, and the like personal attributes; neither hath she any

governor upon earth, at whose command she may assemble and

deliberate. For to be guide of the universal Church, and to have the

power of assembling her, is the same thing as to be governor and

lord over all the Christians in the world; which is granted to none,

but God only.

[Sidenote: The interpretation of Scripture depends on the authority

of the city.]

27. It hath been showed above in art. 18, that the authority of

_interpreting the Holy Scriptures_ consisted not in this, that the

interpreter might without punishment expound and explicate his

sentence and opinion taken thence unto others, either by writing or

by his own voice; but that others have not a right to do or teach

aught contrary to his sentence; insomuch as _the interpretation_ we

speak of, is the same with _the power of defining_ in all manner of

controversies to be determined by sacred Scriptures. Now we must

show that that power belongs to each Church; and depends on his or

their authority who have the supreme command, provided that they be

Christians. For if it depend not on the civil authority, it must

either depend on the opinion of each private subject, or some

foreign authority. But among other reasons, the inconveniences that

must follow private opinions, cannot suffer its dependance on them.

Of which this is the chief; that not only all civil obedience would

be taken away (contrary to Christ’s precept); but all human society

and peace would be dissolved (contrary to the laws of nature). For

seeing every man is his own interpreter of Scripture, that is to

say, since every man makes himself judge of what is pleasing and

displeasing unto God; they cannot obey their princes, before that

they have judged whether their commands be conformable to the word

of God, or not. And thus either they obey not, or they obey for

their own opinion’s sake; that is to say, they obey themselves, not

their sovereign; civil obedience therefore is lost. Again, when

every man follows his own opinion, it is necessary that the

controversies which rise among them, should become innumerable and

indeterminable; whence there will breed among men, who by their own

natural inclinations do account all dissensions an affront, first

hatred, then brawls and wars; and thus all manner of peace and

society would vanish. We have furthermore for an example, that which

God under the old law required to be observed concerning the book of

the law; namely, that it should be transcribed and publicly used;

and he would have it to be the canon of divine doctrine, but the

controversies about it not to be determined by private persons, but

only by the priests. Lastly, it is our Saviour’s precept, that if

there be any matter of offence between private persons, they should

_hear the Church_. Wherefore it is the Church’s duty to define

controversies; it therefore belongs not to private men, but to the

Church to interpret Scriptures. But that we may know that the

authority of _interpreting God’s Word_, that is to say, of

determining all questions concerning God and religion, belongs not

to any foreign person whatsoever; we must consider, first, what

weight such a power has in the minds of the citizens, and their

actions. For no man can be ignorant that the voluntary actions of

men, by a natural necessity, do follow those opinions which they

have concerning good and evil, reward and punishment. Whence it

happens, that necessarily they would choose rather to obey those, by

whose judgment they believe that they shall be eternally happy or

miserable. Now, by whose judgment it is appointed what doctrines are

necessary to salvation, by their judgment do men expect their

eternal bliss or perdition; they will therefore yield them obedience

in all things. Which being thus, most manifest it is, that those

subjects, who believe themselves bound to acquiesce to a foreign

authority in those doctrines which are necessary to salvation, do

not _per se_ constitute a city, but are the subjects of that foreign

power. Nor therefore, although some sovereign prince should by

writing grant such an authority to any other, yet so as he would be

understood to have retained the civil power in his own hands, shall

such a writing be valid, or transfer aught necessary for the

retaining or good administration of his command. For by chap. II.

art. 4, no man is said _to transfer his right, unless he give some

proper sign, declaring his will to transfer it_. But he who hath

openly declared his will to keep his sovereignty, cannot have given

a sufficient sign of transferring the means necessary for the

keeping it. This kind of writing therefore will not be a sign of

will, but of ignorance in the contractors. We must consider next,

how absurd it is for a city or sovereign to commit the ruling of his

subjects’ consciences to an enemy; for they are, as hath been showed

above in chap. V. art. 6, in an hostile state, whosoever have not

joined themselves into the unity of one person. Nor contradicts it

this truth, that they do not always fight: for truces are made

between enemies. It is sufficient for an hostile mind, that there is

suspicion; that the frontiers of cities, kingdoms, empires,

strengthened with garrisons, do with a fighting posture and

countenance, though they strike not, yet as enemies mutually behold

each other. Lastly, how unequal is it to demand that, which by the

very reason of your demand you confess to be the right of another. I

am the interpreter of Scriptures to you, who are the subject of

another state. Why? By what covenants passed between you and me? By

divine authority. Whence known? Out of holy Scripture: behold the

book, read it. In vain, unless I may also interpret the same for

myself. That interpretation therefore doth by right belong to me,

and the rest of my private fellow-subjects; which we both deny. It

remains therefore that in all _Christian Churches_, that is to say,

in all _Christian cities_, the _interpretation_ of sacred Scripture,

that is to say, the right of determining all controversies, depends

on and derives from the authority of that man or council, which hath

the sovereign power of the city.

[Sidenote: A Christian city must interpret Scriptures by clergymen.]

28. Now because there are two kinds of controversies: the one about

spiritual matters, that is to say, questions of faith, the truth

whereof cannot be searched into by natural reason; such are the

questions concerning _the nature and office of Christ_, _of rewards

and punishments to come_, _of the sacraments_, _of outward worship_,

and the like: the other, about questions of human science, whose

truth is sought out by natural reason and syllogisms, drawn from the

covenants of men, and definitions, that is to say, significations

received by use and common consent of words; such as are all

questions of right and philosophy; for example, when in matter of

right it is questioned, whether there be _a promise_ and _covenant_,

or not, that is nothing else but to demand whether such words,

spoken in such a manner, be by common use and consent of the

subjects _a promise_ or _covenant_; which if they be so called, then

it is true that a contract is made; if not, then it is false: that

truth therefore depends on the compacts and consents of men. In like

manner, when it is demanded in philosophy, whether the same thing

may entirely be in divers places at once; the determination of the

question depends on the knowledge of the common consent of men,

about the signification of the word _entire_. For if men, when they

say a thing is entirely somewhere, do signify by common consent that

they understand nothing of the same to be elsewhere; it is false

that the same thing is in divers places at once. That truth

therefore depends on the consents of men, and by the same reason, in

all other questions concerning _right_ and _philosophy_. And they

who do judge that anything can be determined, contrary to this

common consent of men concerning the appellations of things, out of

obscure places of Scripture; do also judge that the use of speech,

and at once all human society, is to be taken away. For he who hath

sold a whole field, will say he meant one whole ridge; and will

retain the rest as unsold. Nay, they take away reason itself; which

is nothing else but a searching out of the truth made by such

consent. This kind of questions, therefore, need not be determined

by the city by way of interpretation of Scriptures; for they belong

not to God’s _Word_, in that sense wherein _the Word of God_ is

taken for the _Word concerning God_; that is to say, for the

_doctrine of the gospel_. Neither is he who hath the sovereign power

in the Church, obliged to employ any _ecclesiastical doctors_ for

the judging of any such kind of matters as these. But for the

deciding of questions of faith, that is to say, _concerning God_,

which transcend human capacity, we stand in need of a divine

blessing, (that we may not be deceived at least in necessary

points), to be derived from Christ himself by the imposition of

hands. For, seeing to the end we may attain to eternal salvation we

are obliged to a supernatural doctrine, and which therefore it is

impossible for us to understand; to be left so destitute as that we

can be deceived in necessary points, is repugnant to equity. This

infallibility our Saviour Christ promised (in those things which are

necessary to salvation) to his apostles until the day of judgment;

that is to say, to the apostles, and pastors succeeding the

apostles, who were to be consecrated _by the imposition of hands_.

He therefore, who hath the sovereign power in the city, is obliged

as a Christian, where there is any question concerning _the

mysteries of faith_, to interpret the Holy Scriptures by _clergymen_

lawfully ordained. And thus in Christian cities, the judgment both

of _spiritual_ and _temporal matters_ belongs unto the civil

authority. And that man or council who hath the supreme power, is

head both of _the city_ and _of the Church_; for a _Church_ and _a

Christian city_ is but one thing.

-------