There was no prophet in the time of Moses, nor pretender to the spirit

of God, but such as Moses had approved and authorized. For there were in

his time but seventy men, that are said to prophecy by the spirit of

God, and these were all of Moses his election; concerning whom God said

to Moses, (_Numb._ xi. 16) _Gather to me seventy of the elders of

Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people_. To these God

imparted his spirit; but it was not a different spirit from that of

Moses; for it is said (verse 25) _God came down in a cloud, and took of

the spirit that was upon Moses, and gave it to the seventy elders_. But

as I have shown before (chap. XXXVI.) by _spirit_, is understood the

_mind_; so that the sense of the place is no other than this, that God

endued them with a mind conformable and subordinate to that of Moses,

that they might prophecy, that is to say, speak to the people in God’s

name, in such manner, as to set forward, as ministers of Moses and by

his authority, such doctrine as was agreeable to Moses his doctrine. For

they were but ministers; and when two of them prophecied in the camp, it

was thought a new and unlawful thing; and as it is in verses 27 and 28

of the same chapter, they were accused of it, and Joshua advised Moses

to forbid them, as not knowing that it was by Moses his spirit that they

prophecied. By which it is manifest, that no subject ought to pretend to

prophecy, or to the spirit, in opposition to the doctrine established by

him whom God hath set in the place of Moses.

[Sidenote: After Moses the sovereignty was in the high priest.]

Aaron being dead, and after him also Moses, the kingdom, as being a

sacerdotal kingdom, descended by virtue of the covenant, to Aaron’s son

Eleazar the high-priest: and God declared him, next under himself, for

sovereign, at the same time that he appointed Joshua for the General of

their army. For thus God saith expressly (_Numb._ xxvii. 21) concerning

Joshua: _He shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel

for him before the Lord; at his word shall they go out, and at his word

they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him_.

Therefore the supreme power of making war and peace, was in the priest.

The supreme power of judicature belonged also to the high-priest: for

the book of the law was in their keeping; and the priests and Levites

only were the subordinate judges in causes civil, as appears in _Deut._

xvii. 8, 9, 10. And for the manner of God’s worship, there was never

doubt made, but that the high-priest till the time of Saul, had the

supreme authority. Therefore the civil and ecclesiastical power were

both joined together in one and the same person, the high-priest; and

ought to be so, in whosoever governeth by divine right, that is, by

authority immediate from God.

[Sidenote: Of the sovereign power between the time of Joshua and of

Saul.]

After the death of Joshua, till the time of Saul, the time between is

noted frequently in the Book of _Judges_, _That there was in those days

no king in Israel_; and sometimes with this addition, that _every man

did that which was right in his own eyes_. By which is to be understood,

that where it is said, _there was no king_, is meant, _there was no

sovereign power_ in Israel. And so it was, if we consider the act and

exercise of such power. For after the death of Joshua and Eleazar,

_there arose another generation_ (_Judges_ ii. 10, 11) _that knew not

the Lord, nor the works which he had done for Israel, but did evil in

the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim_. And the Jews had that quality

which St. Paul noteth, _to look for a sign_, not only before they would

submit themselves to the government of Moses, but also after they had

obliged themselves by their submission. Whereas signs and miracles had

for end to procure faith, not to keep men from violating it, when they

have once given it; for to that men are obliged by the law of nature.

But if we consider not the exercise, but the right of governing, the

sovereign power was still in the high-priest. Therefore whatsoever

obedience was yielded to any of the judges, who were men chosen by God

extraordinarily to save his rebellious subjects out of the hands of the

enemy, it cannot be drawn into argument against the right the

high-priest had to the sovereign power, in all matters both of policy

and religion. And neither the judges nor Samuel himself had an ordinary,

but an extraordinary calling to the government; and were obeyed by the

Israelites, not out of duty, but out of reverence to their favour with

God, appearing in their wisdom, courage, or felicity. Hitherto therefore

the right of regulating both the policy, and the religion, were

inseparable.

[Sidenote: Of the rights of the kings of Israel.]

To the judges succeeded kings: and whereas before, all authority, both

in religion and policy, was in the high-priest; so now it was all in the

king. For the sovereignty over the people, which was before, not only by

virtue of the divine power, but also by a particular pact of the

Israelites, in God, and next under him, in the high-priest, as his

vicegerent on earth, was cast off by the people, with the consent of God

himself. For when they said to Samuel (_1 Sam._ viii. 5) _Make us a king

to judge us like all the nations_, they signified that they would no

more be governed by the commands that should be laid upon them by the

priest, in the name of God; but by one that should command them in the

same manner that all other nations were commanded; and consequently in

deposing the high-priest of royal authority, they deposed that peculiar

government of God. And yet God consented to it, saying to Samuel (_1

Sam._ viii. 7) _Hearken unto the voice of the people, in all that they

shall say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have

rejected me, that I should not reign over them_. Having therefore

rejected God, in whose right the priests governed, there was no

authority left to the priests, but such as the king was pleased to allow

them; which was more or less, according as the kings were good or evil.

And for the government of civil affairs, it is manifest, it was all in

the hands of the king. For in the same chapter, (verse 20), they say

_they will be like all the nations; that their king shall be their

judge, and go before them, and fight their battles_; that is, he shall

have the whole authority, both in peace and war. In which is contained

also the ordering of religion: for there was no other word of God in

that time, by which to regulate religion, but the law of Moses, which

was their civil law. Besides, we read (_1 Kings_ ii. 27) that _Solomon

thrust out Abiathar from being priest before the Lord_: he had therefore

authority over the high-priest, as over any other subject; which is a

great mark of supremacy in religion. And we read also, (_1 Kings_ viii.)

that he dedicated the Temple; that he blessed the people; and that he

himself in person made that excellent prayer, used in the consecration

of all churches and houses of prayer; which is another great mark of

supremacy in religion. Again, we read (_2 Kings_ xxii.) that when there

was question concerning the Book of the Law found in the Temple, the

same was not decided by the high-priest, but Josiah sent both him and

others to enquire concerning it, of Huldah, the prophetess; which is

another mark of supremacy in religion. Lastly, we read (_1 Chron._ xxvi.

30) that David made Hashabiah and his brethren, Hebronites, officers of

Israel among them westward, _in all their business of the Lord, and in

the service of the king_. Likewise (verse 32) that he made other

Hebronites, _rulers over the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe

of Manasseh_ (these were the rest of Israel that dwelt beyond Jordan)

_for every matter pertaining to God, and affairs of the king_. Is not

this full power, both _temporal_ and _spiritual_, as they call it that

would divide it? To conclude; from the first institution of God’s

kingdom, to the captivity, the supremacy of religion was in the same

hand with that of the civil sovereignty; and the priest’s office after

the election of Saul, was not magisterial, but ministerial.

[Sidenote: The practice of supremacy in religion was not, in the time of

the kings, according to the right thereof.]

Notwithstanding the government both in policy and religion, were joined,

first in the high-priests, and afterwards in the kings, so far forth as

concerned the right; yet it appeareth by the same holy history, that the

people understood it not: but there being amongst them a great part, and

probably the greatest part, that no longer than they saw great miracles,

or, what is equivalent to a miracle, great abilities, or great felicity

in the enterprises of their governors, gave sufficient credit either to

the fame of Moses or to the colloquies between God and the priests; they

took occasion, as oft as their governors displeased them, by blaming

sometimes the policy, sometimes the religion, to change the government

or revolt from their obedience at their pleasure: and from thence

proceeded from time to time the civil troubles, divisions, and

calamities of the nation. As for example, after the death of Eleazar and

Joshua, the next generation which had not seen the wonders of God, but

were left to their own weak reason, not knowing themselves obliged by

the covenant of a sacerdotal kingdom, regarded no more the commandment

of the priest nor any law of Moses, but did every man that which was

right in his own eyes, and obeyed in civil affairs such men, as from

time to time they thought able to deliver them from the neighbour

nations that oppressed them; and consulted not with God, as they ought

to do, but with such men or women, as they guessed to be prophets by

their predictions of things to come; and though they had an idol in

their chapel, yet if they had a Levite for their chaplain, they made

account they worshipped the God of Israel.

And afterwards when they demanded a king after the manner of the

nations; yet it was not with a design to depart from the worship of God

their king; but despairing of the justice of the sons of Samuel, they

would have a king to judge them in civil actions; but not that they

would allow their king to change the religion which they thought was

recommended to them by Moses. So that they always kept in store a

pretext, either of justice or religion, to discharge themselves of their

obedience, whensoever they had hope to prevail. Samuel was displeased

with the people, for that they desired a king; for God was their king

already, and Samuel had but an authority under him; yet did Samuel, when

Saul observed not his counsel, in destroying Agag as God had commanded,

anoint another king, namely David, to take the succession from his

heirs. Rehoboam was no idolater; but when the people thought him an

oppressor, that civil pretence carried from him ten tribes to Jeroboam

an idolater. And generally through the whole history of the kings, as

well of Judah as of Israel, there were prophets that always controlled

the kings, for transgressing the religion; and sometimes also for errors

of state; as Jehosaphat was reproved (_2 Chron._ xix. 2) by the prophet

Jehu, for aiding the king of Israel against the Syrians; and Hezekiah,

by Isaiah, (xxxix. 3-7) for shewing his treasures to the ambassadors of

Babylon. By all which it appeareth, that though the power both of state

and religion were in the kings; yet none of them were uncontrolled in

the use of it, but such as were gracious for their own natural abilities

or felicities. So that from the practise of those times, there can no

argument be drawn, that the right of supremacy in religion was not in

the kings, unless we place it in the prophets, and conclude, that

because Hezekiah praying to the Lord before the cherubims, was not

answered from thence, nor then, but afterwards by the prophet Isaiah,

therefore Isaiah was supreme head of the church; or because Josiah

consulted Huldah the prophetess, concerning the Book of the Law, that

therefore neither he nor the high-priest, but Huldah the prophetess, had

the supreme authority in matter of religion; which I think is not the

opinion of any doctor.

[Sidenote: After the captivity, the Jews had no settled commonwealth.]

During the captivity, the Jews had no commonwealth at all: and after

their return, though they renewed their covenant with God, yet there was

no promise made of obedience, neither to Esdras, nor to any other: and

presently after, they became subjects to the Greeks, from whose customs

and demonology, and from the doctrine of the Cabalists, their religion

became much corrupted: in such sort as nothing can be gathered from

their confusion, both in state and religion, concerning the supremacy in

either. And therefore so far forth as concerneth the Old Testament, we

may conclude, that whosoever had the sovereignty of the commonwealth

amongst the Jews, the same had also the supreme authority in matter of

God’s external worship, and represented God’s person; that is, the

person of God the Father; though he were not called by the name of

Father, till such time as he sent into the world his son Jesus Christ,

to redeem mankind from their sins, and bring them into his everlasting

kingdom, to be saved for evermore. Of which we are to speak in the

chapter following.

-------

CHAPTER XLI.

OF THE OFFICE OF OUR BLESSED SAVIOUR.

[Sidenote: Three parts of the office of Christ.]

We find in Holy Scripture three parts of the office of the Messiah: the

first of a _Redeemer_ or _Saviour_; the second of a _pastor_,

_counsellor_, or _teacher_, that is, of a prophet sent from God to

convert such as God hath elected to salvation: the third of a _king_, an

_eternal king_, but under his Father, as Moses and the high-priests were

in their several times. And to these three parts are correspondent three

times. For our redemption he wrought at his first coming, by the

sacrifice wherein he offered up himself for our sins upon the cross: our

conversion he wrought partly then in his own person, and partly worketh

now by his ministers, and will continue to work till his coming again.

And after his coming again, shall begin that his glorious reign over his

elect, which is to last eternally.

[Sidenote: His office as a Redeemer.]

To the office of a Redeemer, that is, of one that payeth the ransom of

sin, which ransom is death, it appertaineth, that he was sacrificed, and

thereby bare upon his own head and carried away from us our iniquities,

in such sort as God had required. Not that the death of one man, though

without sin, can satisfy for the offences of all men, in the rigour of

justice, but in the mercy of God, that ordained such sacrifices for sin,

as he was pleased in his mercy to accept. In the old law (as we may

read, _Levit._ xvi.) the Lord required that there should, every year

once, be made an atonement for the sins of all Israel, both priests and

others; for the doing whereof, Aaron alone was to sacrifice for himself

and the priests a young bullock; and for the rest of the people, he was

to receive from them two young goats, of which he was to _sacrifice_

one; but as for the other, which was the _scape-goat_, he was to lay his

hands on the head thereof, and by a confession of the iniquities of the

people, to lay them all on that head, and then by some opportune man, to

cause the goat to be led into the wilderness, and there to _escape_, and

carry away with him the iniquities of the people. As the sacrifice of

the one goat was a sufficient, because an acceptable, price for the

ransom of all Israel; so the death of the Messiah, is a sufficient price

for the sins of all mankind, because there was no more required. Our

Saviour Christ’s sufferings seem to be here figured, as clearly as in

the oblation of Isaac, or in any other type of him in the Old Testament.

He was both the sacrificed goat, and the scapegoat; _he was oppressed,

and he was afflicted_ (_Isaiah_ liii. 7); _he opened not his mouth; he

is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep is dumb before the

shearer, so he opened not his mouth_: here he is the _sacrificed goat_.

_He hath borne our griefs_ (verse 4), _and carried our sorrows_: and

again, (verse 6), _the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us

all_: and so he is the _scape-goat_. _He was cut off from the land of

the living_ (ver. 8) _for the transgression of my people_: there again

he is the _sacrificed goat_. And again, (verse 11) _he shall bear their

sins_: he is the _scape goat_. Thus is the lamb of God equivalent to

both those goats; sacrificed, in that he died; and escaping, in his

resurrection; being raised opportunely by his Father, and removed from

the habitation of men in his ascension.

[Sidenote: Christ’s kingdom not of this world.]

For as much therefore, as he that _redeemeth_ hath no title to the

_thing redeemed_, before _the redemption_, and ransom paid; and this

ransom was the death of the Redeemer; it is manifest, that our Saviour,

as man, was not king of those that he redeemed, before he suffered

death; that is, during that time he conversed bodily on the earth. I

say, he was not then king in present, by virtue of the pact, which the

faithful make with him in baptism. Nevertheless, by the renewing of

their pact with God in baptism, they were obliged to obey him for king,

under his Father, whensoever he should be pleased to take the kingdom

upon him. According whereunto, our Saviour himself expressly saith,

(_John_ xviii. 36) _My kingdom is not of this world_. Now seeing the

Scripture maketh mention but of two worlds; this that is now, and shall

remain unto the day of judgment, which is therefore also called the

_last day_; and that which shall be after the day of judgment, when

there shall be a new heaven, and a new earth: the kingdom of Christ is

not to begin till the general resurrection. And that is it which our

Saviour saith, (_Matth._ xvi. 27) _The Son of man shall come in the

glory of his Father, with his angels; and then he shall reward every man

according to his works_. To reward every man according to his works, is

to execute the office of a king; and this is not to be till he come in

the glory of his Father, with his angels. When our Saviour saith,

(_Matth._ xxiii. 2, 3) _The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat;

all therefore whatsoever they bid you do, that observe and do_; he

declared plainly, that he ascribed kingly power, for that time, not to

himself, but to them. And so he doth also, where he saith (_Luke_ xii.

14) _Who made me a judge or divider over you?_ And (_John_ xii. 47) _I

came not to judge the world, but to save the world_. And yet our Saviour

came into this world that he might be a king and a judge in the world to

come: for he was the Messiah, that is, the Christ, that is, the anointed

priest, and the sovereign prophet of God; that is to say, he was to have

all the power that was in Moses the prophet, in the high-priests that

succeeded Moses, and in the kings that succeeded the priests. And St.

John says expressly (chap. v. verse 22) _the Father judgeth no man, but

hath committed all judgment to the Son_. And this is not repugnant to

that other place, _I came not to judge the world_: for this is spoken of

the world present, the other of the world to come; as also where it is

said, that at the second coming of Christ, (_Matth._ xix. 28) _Ye that

have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in

the throne of his glory, ye shall also sit on twelve thrones, judging

the twelve tribes of Israel_.

[Sidenote: The end of Christ’s coming was to renew the covenant of the

kingdom of God, and to persuade the elect to embrace it,

which was the second part of his office.]

If then Christ, whilst he was on earth, had no kingdom in this world, to

what end was his first coming? It was to restore unto God, by a new

covenant, the kingdom, which being his by the old covenant, had been cut

off by the rebellion of the Israelites in the election of Saul. Which to

do, he was to preach unto them, that he was the _Messiah_, that is, the

king promised to them by the prophets; and to offer himself in sacrifice

for the sins of them that should by faith submit themselves thereto; and

in case the nation generally should refuse him, to call to his obedience

such as should believe in him amongst the Gentiles. So that there are

two parts of our Saviour’s office during his abode upon the earth: one

to proclaim himself the Christ; and another by teaching, and by working

of miracles, to persuade and prepare men to live so, as to be worthy of

the immortality believers were to enjoy, at such time as he should come

in majesty to take possession of his Father’s kingdom. And therefore it

is, that the time of his preaching is often by himself called the

_regeneration_; which is not properly a kingdom, and thereby a warrant

to deny obedience to the magistrates that then were; for he commanded to

obey those that sat then in Moses’ chair, and to pay tribute to Cæsar;

but only an earnest of the kingdom of God that was to come, to those to

whom God had given the grace to be his disciples, and to believe in him;

for which cause the godly are said to be already in the _kingdom of

grace_, as naturalized in that heavenly kingdom.

[Sidenote: The preaching of Christ not contrary to the then law of the

Jews, nor of Cæsar.]

Hitherto, therefore, there is nothing done or taught by Christ, that

tendeth to the diminution of the civil right of the Jews or of Cæsar.

For as touching the commonwealth which then was amongst the Jews, both

they that bare rule amongst them, and they that were governed, did all

expect the Messiah and kingdom of God; which they could not have done,

if their laws had forbidden him, when he came, to manifest and declare

himself. Seeing therefore he did nothing, but by preaching and miracles

go about to prove himself to be that Messiah, he did therein nothing

against their laws. The kingdom he claimed was to be in another world:

he taught all men to obey in the mean time them that sat in Moses’ seat:

he allowed them to give Cæsar his tribute, and refused to take upon

himself to be a judge. How then could his words or actions be seditious,

or tend to the overthrow of their then civil government? But God having

determined his sacrifice for the reduction of his elect to their former

covenanted obedience, for the means, whereby he would bring the same to

effect, made use of their malice and ingratitude. Nor was it contrary to

the laws of Cæsar. For though Pilate himself, to gratify the Jews,

delivered him to be crucified; yet before he did so, he pronounced

openly, that he found no fault in him: and put for title of his

condemnation, not as the Jews required, _that he pretended to be king_;

but simply, _that he was king of the Jews_; and notwithstanding their

clamour, refused to alter it; saying, _What I have written, I have

written_.

[Sidenote: The third part of his office was to be king, under his

Father, of the elect.]

As for the third part of his office, which was to be _king_, I have

already shewn that his kingdom was not to begin till the resurrection.

But then he shall be king, not only as God, in which sense he is king

already, and ever shall be, of all the earth, in virtue of his

omnipotence; but also peculiarly of his own elect, by virtue of the pact

they make with him in their baptism. And therefore it is, that our

Saviour saith (_Matth._ xix. 28) that his apostles should sit upon

twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, _When the Son of

Man shall sit in the throne of his glory_: whereby he signified that he

should reign then in his human nature; and (_Matth._ xvi. 27) _The Son

of Man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels, and then

he shall reward every man according to his works_. The same we may read,

_Mark_ xiii. 26, and xiv. 62; and more expressly for the time, _Luke_

xxii. 29, 30, _I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed

to me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on

thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel_. By which it is manifest,

that the kingdom of Christ appointed to him by his Father, is not to be

before the Son of Man shall come in glory, and make his apostles judges

of the twelve tribes of Israel. But a man may here ask, seeing there is

no marriage in the kingdom of heaven, whether men shall then eat and

drink? What eating therefore is meant in this place? This is expounded

by our Saviour (_John_ vi. 27), where he saith, _Labour not for the meat

which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life,

which the Son of Man shall give you_. So that by eating at Christ’s

table, is meant the eating of the tree of life; that is to say, the

enjoying of immortality, in the kingdom of the Son of Man. By which

places and many more, it is evident that our Saviour’s kingdom is to be

exercised by him in his human nature.

[Sidenote: Christ’s authority in the kingdom of God, subordinate to that

of his Father.]

Again, he is to be king then, no otherwise than as subordinate or

vicegerent of God the Father, as Moses was in the wilderness; and as the

high-priests were before the reign of Saul; and as the kings were after

it. For it is one of the prophecies concerning Christ, that he should be

like, in office, to Moses: _I will raise them up a prophet_, saith the

Lord (_Deut._ xviii. 18) _from amongst their brethren, like unto thee,

and will put my words into his mouth_; and this similitude with Moses,

is also apparent in the actions of our Saviour himself, whilst he was

conversant on earth. For as Moses chose twelve princes of the tribes, to

govern under him; so did our Saviour choose twelve apostles, who shall

sit on twelve thrones, and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. And as

Moses authorized seventy elders, to receive the Spirit of God, and to

prophecy to the people, that is, as I have said before, to speak unto

them in the name of God; so our Saviour also ordained seventy disciples,

to preach his kingdom and salvation to all nations. And as when a

complaint was made to Moses, against those of the seventy that

prophecied in the camp of Israel, he justified them in it, as being

subservient therein to his government; so also our Saviour, when St.

John complained to him of a certain man that cast out devils in his

name, justified him therein, saying, (_Luke_ ix. 50) _Forbid him not,

for he that is not against us, is on our part_.

[Sidenote: Christ’s authority in the kingdom of God, subordinate to that

of his Father.]

Again, our Saviour resembled Moses in the institution of _sacraments_,

both of _admission_ into the kingdom of God, and of _commemoration_ of

his deliverance of his elect from their miserable condition. As the

children of Israel had for sacrament of their reception into the kingdom

of God, before the time of Moses, the rite of _circumcision_, which rite

having been omitted in the wilderness, was again restored as soon as

they came into the Land of Promise; so also the Jews, before the coming

of our Saviour, had a rite of _baptizing_, that is, of washing with

water, all those that being Gentiles embraced the God of Israel. This

rite St. John the Baptist used in the reception of all them that gave

their names to the Christ, whom he preached to be already come into the

world; and our Saviour instituted the same for a sacrament to be taken

by all that believed in him. From what cause the rite of baptism first

proceeded, is not expressed formally in the Scripture; but it may be

probably thought to be an imitation of the law of Moses, concerning

leprosy; wherein the leprous man was commanded to be kept out of the

camp of Israel for a certain time; after which time being judged by the

priest to be clean, he was admitted into the camp after a solemn

washing. And this may therefore be a type of the washing in baptism;

wherein such men as are cleansed of the leprosy of sin by faith, are

received into the Church with the solemnity of baptism. There is another

conjecture, drawn from the ceremonies of the Gentiles, in a certain case

that rarely happens: and that is, when a man that was thought dead

chanced to recover, other men made scruple to converse with him, as they

would do to converse with a ghost, unless he were received again into

the number of men by washing, as children new-born were washed from the

uncleanness of their nativity; which was a kind of new birth. This

ceremony of the Greeks, in the time that Judea was under the dominion of

Alexander and the Greeks his successors, may probably enough have crept

into the religion of the Jews. But seeing it is not likely our Saviour

would countenance a heathen rite, it is most likely it proceeded from

the legal ceremony of washing after leprosy. And for the other sacrament

of eating the _Paschal lamb_, it is manifestly imitated in the sacrament

of the _Lord’s Supper_; in which the breaking of the bread, and the

pouring out of the wine, do keep in memory our deliverance from the

misery of sin, by Christ’s passion, as the eating of the Paschal lamb

kept in memory the deliverance of the Jews out of the bondage of Egypt.

Seeing therefore the authority of Moses was but subordinate, and he but

a lieutenant of God; it followeth that Christ, whose authority, as man,

was to be like that of Moses, was no more but subordinate to the

authority of his Father. The same is more expressly signified, by that

that he teacheth us to pray, _Our Father, let thy kingdom come_; and,

_For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory_; and by that it is

said, that _He shall come in the glory of his Father_; and by that which

St. Paul saith, (_1 Cor._ xv. 24) _then cometh the end, when he shall

have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father_; and by many

other most express places.

[Sidenote: One and the same God is the person represented by Moses and

Christ.]

Our Saviour, therefore, both in teaching and reigning, representeth, as

Moses did, the person of God; which God from that time forward, but not

before, is called the Father; and being still one and the same

substance, is one person as represented by Moses, and another person as

represented by his son the Christ. For _person_ being a relative to a

_representer_, it is consequent to plurality of representers, that there

be a plurality of persons, though of one and the same substance.

-------

CHAPTER XLII.

OF POWER ECCLESIASTICAL.

For the understanding of POWER ECCLESIASTICAL, what, and in whom it is,

we are to distinguish the time from the ascension of our Saviour, into

two parts; one before the conversion of kings, and men endued with

sovereign civil power; the other after their conversion. For it was long

after the ascension, before any king or civil sovereign embraced and

publicly allowed the teaching of Christian religion.

[Sidenote: Of the holy spirit that fell on the apostles.]

And for the time between, it is manifest, that the _power

ecclesiastical_ was in the apostles; and after them in such as were by

them ordained to preach the gospel, and to convert men to Christianity,

and to direct them that were converted in the way of salvation; and

after these, the power was delivered again to others by these ordained,

and this was done by imposition of hands upon such as were ordained; by

which was signified the giving of the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, to

those whom they ordained ministers of God, to advance his kingdom. So

that imposition of hands was nothing else but the seal of their

commission to preach Christ, and teach his doctrine; and the giving of

the Holy Ghost by that ceremony of imposition of hands, was an imitation

of that which Moses did. For Moses used the same ceremony to his

minister Joshua, as we read (_Deut._ xxxiv. 9) _And Joshua the son of

Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon

him_. Our Saviour therefore, between his resurrection and ascension,

gave his spirit to the apostles; first, by _breathing on them, and

saying_, (_John_ xx. 22) _Receive ye the Holy Spirit_; and after his

ascension (_Acts_ ii. 2, 3) by sending down upon them _a mighty wind,

and cloven tongues of fire_; and not by imposition of hands; as neither

did God lay his hands on Moses: and his apostles afterward transmitted

the same spirit by imposition of hands, as Moses did to Joshua. So that

it is manifest hereby, in whom the power ecclesiastical continually

remained, in those first times where there was not any Christian

commonwealth; namely, in them that received the same from the apostles,

by successive laying on of hands.

[Sidenote: Of the Trinity.]

Here we have the person of God born now the third time. For as Moses,

and the high-priests, were God’s representative in the Old Testament;

and our Saviour himself, as man, during his abode on earth: so the Holy

Ghost, that is to say the apostles and their successors, in the office

of preaching and teaching, that had received the holy Spirit, have

represented him ever since. But a person, as I have shown before, (chap.

XIII.) is he that is represented, as often as he is represented; and

therefore God, who has been represented, that is personated, thrice, may

properly enough be said to be three persons; though neither the word

_Person_, nor _Trinity_, be ascribed to him in the Bible. _St. John_,

indeed (_1 Epist._ v. 7) saith, _There be three that bear witness in

heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are

One_. But this disagreeth not, but accordeth fitly with three persons in

the proper signification of persons; which is, that which is represented

by another. For so God the Father, as represented by Moses, is one

person; and as represented by his Son, another person; and as

represented by the apostles, and by the doctors that taught by authority

from them derived, is a third person; and yet every person here, is the

person of one and the same God. But a man may here ask, what it was

whereof these three bear witness. _St. John_ therefore tells us (verse

11) that they bear witness, that _God hath given us eternal life in his

Son_. Again, if it should be asked, wherein that testimony appeareth,

the answer is easy; for he hath testified the same by the miracles he

wrought, first by Moses; secondly, by his Son himself; and lastly by his

apostles, that had received the Holy Spirit; all which in their times

represented the person of God, and either prophecied or preached Jesus

Christ. And as for the apostles, it was the character of the

apostleship, in the twelve first and great apostles, to bear witness of

his resurrection; as appeareth expressly (_Acts_ i. 21, 22), where St.

Peter, when a new apostle was to be chosen in the place of Judas

Iscariot, useth these words, _Of these men which have companied with us

all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst us, beginning

at the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us,

must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection_: which

words interpret the _bearing of witness_, mentioned by St. John. There

is in the same place mentioned another Trinity of witnesses in earth.

For (_1 John_ v. 8) he saith, _there are three that bear witness in

earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree

in one_: that is to say, the graces of God’s spirit, and the two

sacraments, baptism, and the Lord’s supper, which all agree in one

testimony to assure the consciences of believers, of eternal life; of

which testimony he saith (verse 10) _He that believeth on the Son of man

hath the witness in himself_. In this Trinity on earth, the unity is not

of the thing; for the spirit, the water, and the blood, are not the same

substance, though they give the same testimony: but in the Trinity of

heaven, the persons are the persons of one and the same God, though

represented in three different times and occasions. To conclude, the

doctrine of the Trinity, as far as can be gathered directly from the

Scripture, is in substance this, that the God who is always one and the

same, was the person represented by Moses; the person represented by his

Son incarnate; and the person represented by the apostles. As

represented by the apostles, the Holy Spirit, by which they spake, is

God; as represented by his Son, that was God and man, the Son is that

God; as represented by Moses and the high-priests, the Father, that is

to say, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is that God. From whence we

may gather the reason why those names _Father_, _Son_, and _Holy

Spirit_, in the signification of the Godhead, are never used in the Old

Testament: for they are persons, that is, they have their names from

representing; which could not be, till divers men had represented God’s

person in ruling or in directing under him.

Thus we see how the power ecclesiastical was left by our Saviour to the

apostles; and how they were, to the end they might the better exercise

that power, endued with the Holy Spirit, which is therefore called

sometimes in the New Testament _paracletus_, which signifieth an

_assister_, or one called to for help, though it be commonly translated

a _comforter_. Let us now consider the power itself, what it was, and

over whom.

[Sidenote: The power ecclesiastical is but the power to teach.]

Cardinal Bellarmine, in his third general controversy, hath handled a

great many questions concerning the ecclesiastical power of the pope of

Rome; and begins with this, whether it ought to be monarchical,

aristocratical, or democratical: all which sorts of power are sovereign

and coercive. If now it should appear, that there is no coercive power

left them by our Saviour, but only a power to proclaim the kingdom of

Christ, and to persuade men to submit themselves thereunto; and by

precepts and good counsel, to teach them that have submitted, what they

are to do, that they may be received into the kingdom of God when it

comes; and that the apostles, and other ministers of the Gospel, are our

schoolmasters, and not our commanders, and their precepts not laws, but

wholesome counsels: then were all that dispute in vain.

[Sidenote: An argument thereof, the power of Christ himself.]

I have shown already, in the last chapter, that the kingdom of Christ is

not of this world: therefore neither can his ministers, unless they be

kings, require obedience in his name. For if the supreme king have not

his regal power in this world; by what authority can obedience be

required to his officers? _As my Father sent me_, so saith our Saviour,

(_John_ xx. 21) _I send you_. But our Saviour was sent to persuade the

Jews to return to, and to invite the Gentiles to receive, the kingdom of

his Father, and not to reign in majesty, no not as his Father’s

lieutenant, till the day of judgment.

[Sidenote: From the name of regeneration.]

The time between the ascension and the general resurrection, is called,

not a reigning, but a regeneration; that is, a preparation of men for

the second and glorious coming of Christ, at the day of judgment; as

appeareth by the words of our Saviour, (_Matth._ xix. 28,) _You that

have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in

the throne of his glory, you shall also sit upon twelve thrones_; and of

St. Paul (_Ephes._ vi. 15) _Having your feet shod with the preparation

of the gospel of peace_.

[Sidenote: From the comparison of it, with fishing, leaven, seed.]

And is compared by our Saviour, to fishing, that is, to winning men to

obedience, not by coercion and punishing, but by persuasion: and

therefore he said not to his apostles, he would make them so many

Nimrods, _hunters of men; but fishers of men_. It is compared also to

leaven, to sowing of seed, and to the multiplication of a grain of

mustard-seed; by all which compulsion is excluded; and consequently

there can in that time be no actual reigning. The work of Christ’s

ministers, is evangelization; that is, a proclamation of Christ, and a

preparation for his second coming, as the evangelization of John the

Baptist was a preparation to his first coming.

[Sidenote: From the nature of faith.]

Again, the office of Christ’s ministers in this world, is to make men

believe and have faith in Christ; but faith hath no relation to, nor

dependance at all upon compulsion or commandment; but only upon

certainty or probability of arguments drawn from reason, or from

something men believe already. Therefore the ministers of Christ in this

world, have no power, by that title, to punish any man for not believing

or for contradicting what they say; they have I say no power by that

title of Christ’s ministers, to punish such; but if they have sovereign

civil power, by politic institution, then they may indeed lawfully

punish any contradiction to their laws whatsoever: and St. Paul, of

himself and other the then preachers of the gospel, saith in express

words (_2 Cor._ i. 24), _We have no dominion over your faith, but are

helpers of your joy_.

[Sidenote: From the authority Christ hath left to civil princes.]

Another argument, that the ministers of Christ in this present world

have no right of commanding, may be drawn from the lawful authority

which Christ hath left to all princes, as well Christians as infidels.

St. Paul saith (_Col._ iii. 20) _Children obey your parents in all

things; for this is well pleasing to the Lord_: and (verse 22)

_Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not

with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, as

fearing the Lord_; this is spoken to them whose masters were infidels;

and yet they are bidden to obey them _in all things_. And again,

concerning obedience to princes (_Rom._ xiii. the first six verses),

exhorting _to be subject to the higher powers_, he saith, _that all

power is ordained of God_; and _that we ought to be subject to them, not

only for fear of incurring their wrath, but also for conscience sake_.

And _St. Peter_ (1 Epistle ii. 13, 14, 15), _Submit yourselves to every

ordinance of man, for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king, as

supreme; or unto governors, as to them that be sent by him for the

punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well; for

so is the will of God_. And again St. Paul (_Titus_ iii. 1), _Put men in

mind to be subject to principalities and powers, and to obey

magistrates_. These princes and powers, whereof St. Peter and St. Paul

here speak, were all infidels: much more therefore we are to observe

those Christians, whom God hath ordained to have sovereign power over

us. How then can we be obliged to obey any minister of Christ, if he

should command us to do anything contrary to the command of the king, or

other sovereign representant of the commonwealth whereof we are members,

and by whom we look to be protected? It is therefore manifest, that

Christ hath not left to his ministers in this world, unless they be also

endued with civil authority, any authority to command other men.

[Sidenote: What Christians may do to avoid persecution.]

But what, may some object, if a king, or a senate, or other sovereign

person forbid us to believe in Christ? To this I answer, that such

forbidding is of no effect; because belief and unbelief never follow

men’s commands. Faith is a gift of God, which man can neither give, nor

take away by promise of rewards, or menaces of torture. And if it be

further asked, what if we be commanded by our lawful prince to say with

our tongue, we believe not; must we obey such command? Profession with

the tongue is but an external thing, and no more than any other gesture

whereby we signify our obedience; and wherein a Christian, holding

firmly in his heart the faith of Christ, hath the same liberty which the

prophet Elisha allowed to Naaman the Syrian. Naaman was converted in his

heart to the God of Israel; for he saith (_2 Kings_ v. 17, 18) _Thy

servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto

other gods, but unto the Lord. In this thing the Lord pardon thy

servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship

there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of

Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon

thy servant in this thing._ This the prophet approved, and bid him _Go

in peace_. Here Naaman believed in his heart; but by bowing before the

idol Rimmon, he denied the true God in effect, as much as if he had done

it with his lips. But then what shall we answer to our Saviour’s saying,

(_Matth._ x. 33) _Whosoever denieth me before men, I will deny him

before my Father which is in heaven_. This we may say, that whatsoever a

subject, as Naaman was, is compelled to do in obedience to his

sovereign, and doth it not in order to his own mind, but in order to the

laws of his country, that action is not his, but his sovereign’s; nor is

it he that in this case denieth Christ before men, but his governor, and

the law of his country. If any man shall accuse this doctrine, as

repugnant to true and unfeigned Christianity; I ask him, in case there

should be a subject in any Christian commonwealth, that should be

inwardly in his heart of the Mahomedan religion, whether if his

sovereign command him to be present at the divine service of the

Christian church, and that on pain of death, he think that Mahomedan

obliged in conscience to suffer death for that cause, rather than obey

that command of his lawful prince. If he say, he ought rather to suffer

death, then he authorizeth all private men to disobey their princes in

maintenance of their religion, true or false: if he say, he ought to be

obedient, then he alloweth to himself that which he denieth to another,

contrary to the words of our Saviour, (_Luke_ vi. 31) _Whatsoever you

would that men should do unto you, that do ye unto them_; and contrary

to the law of nature, which is the indubitable everlasting law of God,

_Do not to another, that which thou wouldest not he should do unto

thee_.

[Sidenote: Of martyrs.]

But what then shall we say of all those martyrs we read of in the

history of the Church, that they have needlessly cast away their lives?

For answer hereunto, we are to distinguish the persons that have been

for that cause put to death: whereof some have received a calling to

preach, and profess the kingdom of Christ openly; others have had no

such calling, nor more has been required of them than their own faith.

The former sort, if they have been put to death, for bearing witness to

this point, that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, were true martyrs;

for a _martyr_ is, (to give the true definition of the word) a witness

of the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah; which none can be but those

that conversed with him on earth, and saw him after he was risen: for a

witness must have seen what he testifieth, or else his testimony is not

good. And that none but such can properly be called martyrs of Christ,

is manifest out of the words of St. Peter, (_Acts_ i. 21, 22) _Wherefore

of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord

Jesus went in and out amongst us, beginning from the baptism of John

unto that same day he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a

martyr_ (that is a witness) _with us of his resurrection_: where we may

observe, that he which is to be a witness of the truth of the

resurrection of Christ, that is to say, of the truth of this fundamental

article of Christian religion, that Jesus was the Christ, must be some

disciple that conversed with him, and saw him before and after his

resurrection; and consequently must be one of his original disciples:

whereas they which were not so, can witness no more but that their

antecessors said it, and are therefore but witnesses of other men’s

testimony; and are but second martyrs, or martyrs of Christ’s witnesses.

He, that to maintain every doctrine which he himself draweth out of the

history of our Saviour’s life, and of the Acts or Epistles of the

apostles, or which he believeth upon the authority of a private man,

will oppose the laws and authority of the civil state, is very far from

being a martyr of Christ, or a martyr of his martyrs. It is one article

only, which to die for, meriteth so honourable a name; and that article

is this, that _Jesus is the Christ_; that is to say, He that hath

redeemed us, and shall come again to give us salvation, and eternal life

in his glorious kingdom. To die for every tenet that serveth the

ambition or profit of the clergy, is not required; nor is it the death

of the witness, but the testimony itself that makes the martyr: for the

word signifieth nothing else, but the man that beareth witness, whether

he be put to death for his testimony, or not.

Also he that is not sent to preach this fundamental article, but taketh

it upon him of his private authority, though he be a witness, and

consequently a martyr, either primary of Christ, or secondary of his

apostles, disciples, or their successors; yet is he not obliged to

suffer death for that cause; because being not called thereto, it is not

required at his hands; nor ought he to complain, if he loseth the reward

he expecteth from those that never set him on work. None therefore can

be a martyr, neither of the first nor second degree, that have not a

warrant to preach Christ come in the flesh; that is to say, none, but

such as are sent to the conversion of infidels. For no man is a witness

to him that already believeth, and therefore needs no witness; but to

them that deny, or doubt, or have not heard it. Christ sent his

apostles, and his seventy disciples, with authority to preach; he sent

not all that believed. And he sent them to unbelievers; _I send you_,

saith he, (_Matth._ x. 16) _as sheep amongst wolves_; not as sheep to

other sheep.

[Sidenote: Argument from the points of their commission.]

Lastly, the points of their commission, as they are expressly set down

in the gospel, contain, none of them, any authority over the

congregation.

[Sidenote: To preach;]

We have first (_Matth._ x. 6, 7), that the twelve apostles were sent _to

the lost sheep of the house of Israel_, and commanded to preach _that

the kingdom of God was at hand_. Now preaching, in the original, is that

act, which a crier, herald, or other officer useth to do publicly in

proclaiming of a king. But a crier hath not right to command any man.

And (_Luke_ x. 2) the seventy disciples are sent out as _Labourers, not

as Lords of the harvest_; and are bidden (verse 9) to say, _The kingdom

of God is come nigh unto you_; and by kingdom here is meant, not the

kingdom of grace, but the kingdom of glory; for they are bidden (verse

11, 12) to denounce it to those cities which shall not receive them, as

a threatening _that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom,

than for such a city_. And (_Matth._ xx. 28) our Saviour telleth his

disciples, that sought priority of place, their office was to minister,

_even as the son of man came, not to be ministered unto, but to

minister_. Preachers therefore have not magisterial, but ministerial

power: _Be not called masters_, saith our Saviour, (_Matth._ xxiii. 10)

_for one is your master, even Christ_.

[Sidenote: And teach;]

Another point of their commission, is, to _Teach all nations_; as it is

in _St. Matth._ xxviii. 19, or as in _St. Mark_, xvi. 15; _Go into all

the world, and preach the gospel to every creature_. Teaching therefore,

and preaching, is the same thing. For they that proclaim the coming of a

king, must withal make known by what right he cometh, if they mean men

shall submit themselves unto him: as St. Paul did to the Jews of

Thessalonica, when (_Acts_ xvii. 2, 3) _three Sabbath days he reasoned

with them out of the Scriptures, opening, and alleging that Christ must

needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead, and that this Jesus

is Christ_. But to teach out of the Old Testament that Jesus was Christ,

that is to say, king, and risen from the dead, is not to say that men

are bound, after they believe it, to obey those that tell them so,

against the laws and commands of their sovereigns; but that they shall

do wisely, to expect the coming of Christ hereafter, in patience and

faith, with obedience to their present magistrates.

[Sidenote: To baptize;]

Another point of their commission, is to _baptize, in the name of the

Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost_. What is baptism? Dipping

into water. But what is it to dip a man into the water in the name of

anything? The meaning of these words of baptism is this. He that is

baptized, is dipped or washed, as a sign of becoming a new man, and a

loyal subject to that God, whose person was represented in old time by

Moses, and the high-priests, when he reigned over the Jews; and to Jesus

Christ his Son, God and Man, that hath redeemed us, and shall in his

human nature represent his Father’s person in his eternal kingdom after

the resurrection; and to acknowledge the doctrine of the apostles, who,

assisted by the spirit of the Father and of the Son, were left for

guides to bring us into that kingdom, to be the only and assured way

thereunto. This being our promise in baptism; and the authority of

earthly sovereigns being not to be put down till the day of judgment;

for that is expressly affirmed by St. Paul (_1 Cor._ xv. 22, 23, 24)

where he saith, _As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made

alive. But every man in his own order, Christ the first fruits,

afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming; 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_: it

is manifest, that we do not in baptism constitute over us another

authority, by which our external actions are to be governed in this

life; but promise to take the doctrine of the apostles for our direction

in the way to life eternal.

[Sidenote: And to forgive, and retain sins.]

The power of _remission and retention of sins_, called also the power of

_loosing_ and _binding_, and sometimes the _keys of the kingdom of

heaven_, is a consequence of the authority to baptize, or refuse to

baptize. For baptism is the sacrament of allegiance of them that are to

be received into the kingdom of God; that is to say, into eternal life;

that is to say, to remission of sin: for as eternal life was lost by the

committing, so it is recovered by the remitting of men’s sins. The end

of baptism is remission of sins: and therefore St. Peter, when they that

were converted by his sermon on the day of Pentecost, asked what they

were to do, advised them (_Acts_ ii. 38) to _repent, and be baptized in

the name of Jesus, for the remission of sins_. And therefore, seeing to

baptize is to declare the reception of men into God’s kingdom; and to

refuse to baptize is to declare their exclusion; it followeth, that the

power to declare them cast out, or retained in it, was given to the same

apostles, and their substitutes and successors. And therefore after our

Saviour had breathed upon them, saying (_John_ xx. 22) _Receive the Holy

Ghost_, he addeth in the next verse, _Whosesoever sins ye remit, they

are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are

retained_. By which words, is not granted an authority to forgive or

retain sins, simply and absolutely, as God forgiveth or retaineth them,

who knoweth the heart of man, and truth of his penitence and conversion;

but conditionally, to the penitent: and this forgiveness, or absolution,

in case the absolved have but a feigned repentance, is thereby, without

other act, or sentence of the absolved, made void, and hath no effect at

all to salvation, but on the contrary to the aggravation of his sin.

Therefore the apostles, and their successors, are to follow but the

outward marks of repentance; which appearing, they have no authority to

deny absolution; and if they appear not, they have no authority to

absolve. The same also is to be observed in baptism: for to a converted

Jew, or Gentile, the apostles had not the power to deny baptism; nor to

grant it to the unpenitent. But seeing no man is able to discern the

truth of another man’s repentance, further than by external marks, taken

from his words and actions, which are subject to hypocrisy; another

question will arise, who it is that is constituted judge of those marks?

And this question is decided by our Saviour himself; _If thy brother_,

saith he, (_Matth._ xviii. 15, 16, 17) _shall trespass against thee, go

and tell him his fault, between thee and him alone; if he shall hear

thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then

take with thee one or two more. And if he shall neglect to hear them,

tell it unto the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him

be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican._ By which it is manifest,

that the judgment concerning the truth of repentance, belonged not to

any one man, but to the Church, that is, to the assembly of the

faithful, or to them that have authority to be their representant. But

besides the judgment, there is necessary also the pronouncing of

sentence. And this belonged always to the apostle, or some pastor of the

Church, as prolocutor; and of this our Saviour speaketh in the 18th

verse, _Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and

whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven_. And

conformable hereunto was the practise of St. Paul, (_1 Cor._ v. 3, 4, 5)

where he saith, _For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit,

have determined already, as though I were present, concerning him that

hath so done this deed; in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye

are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus

Christ, to deliver such a one to Satan_; that is to say, to cast him out

of the Church, as a man whose sins are not forgiven. Paul here

pronounceth the sentence; but the assembly was first to hear the cause,

for St. Paul was absent, and by consequence to condemn him. But in the

same chapter (verses 11, 12), the judgment in such a case is more

expressly attributed to the assembly: _But now I have written unto you,

not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a

fornicator, &c. with such a one, no not to eat. For what have I to do to

judge them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within?_ The

sentence therefore by which a man was put out of the Church, was

pronounced by the apostle, or pastor; but the judgment concerning the

merit of the cause, was in the Church; that is to say, as the times were

before the conversion of kings, and men that had sovereign authority in

the commonwealth, the assembly of the Christians dwelling in the same

city: as in Corinth, in the assembly of the Christians of Corinth.

[Sidenote: Of excommunication.]

This part of the power of the keys, by which men were thrust out from

the kingdom of God, is that which is called _excommunication_; and to

_excommunicate_, is in the original, ἀποσυνάγωγον ποιεῖν, _to cast out

of the synagogue_; that is, out of the place of divine service; a word

drawn from the custom of the Jews, to cast out of their synagogues such

as they thought, in manners or doctrine, contagious, as lepers were by

the law of Moses separated from the congregation of Israel, till such

time as they should be by the priest pronounced clean.

[Sidenote: The use of excommunication without civil power.]

The use and effect of excommunication, whilst it was not yet

strengthened with the civil power, was no more than that they, who were

not excommunicate, were to avoid the company of them that were. It was

not enough to repute them as heathen, that never had been Christians;

for with such they might eat and drink; which with excommunicate persons

they might not do; as appeareth by the words of St. Paul, (_1 Cor._ v.

9, 10, &c.) where he telleth them, he had formerly forbidden them to

_company with fornicators_; but, because that could not be without going

out of the world, he restraineth it to such fornicators, and otherwise

vicious persons, as were of the brethren; _with such a one_, he saith,

they ought not to keep company, _no not to eat_. And this is no more

than our Saviour saith (_Matth._ xviii. 17), _Let him be to thee as a

heathen, and as a publican_. For publicans, which signifieth farmers and

receivers of the revenue of the commonwealth, were so hated and detested

by the Jews that were to pay it, as that _publican_ and _sinner_ were

taken amongst them for the same thing: insomuch, as when our Saviour

accepted the invitation of Zacchæus a publican; though it were to

convert him, yet it was objected to him as a crime. And therefore, when

our Saviour to _heathen_ added _publican_, he did forbid them to eat

with a man excommunicate.

As for keeping them out of their synagogues, or places of assembly, they

had no power to do it, but that of the owner of the place, whether he

were Christian, or heathen. And because all places are by right in the

dominion of the commonwealth; as well he that was excommunicated, as he

that never was baptized, might enter into them by commission from the

civil magistrate; as Paul before his conversion entered into their

synagogues at Damascus, (_Acts_ ix. 2) to apprehend Christians, men and

women, and to carry them bound to Jerusalem, by commission from the

high-priest.

[Sidenote: Of no effect upon an apostate;]

By which it appears, that upon a Christian, that should become an

apostate, in a place where the civil power did persecute, or not assist

the Church, the effect of excommunication had nothing in it, neither of

damage in this world, nor of terror: not of terror, because of their

unbelief; nor of damage, because they are returned thereby into the

favour of the world; and in the world to come were to be in no worse

estate, than they which never had believed. The damage redounded rather

to the Church, by provocation of them they cast out, to a freer

execution of their malice.

[Sidenote: But upon the faithful only.]

Excommunication therefore had its effect only upon those, that believed

that Jesus Christ was to come again in glory, to reign over and to judge

both the quick and the dead, and should therefore refuse entrance into

his kingdom to those whose sins were retained, that is, to those that

were excommunicated by the Church. And thence it is, that St. Paul

calleth excommunication, a delivery of the excommunicate person to

Satan. For without the kingdom of Christ, all other kingdoms, after

judgment, are comprehended in the kingdom of Satan. This is it that the

faithful stood in fear of, as long as they stood excommunicate, that is

to say, in an estate wherein their sins were not forgiven. Whereby we

may understand, that excommunication, in the time that Christian

religion was not authorized by the civil power, was used only for a

correction of manners, not of errors in opinion: for it is a punishment,

whereof none could be sensible but such as believed, and expected the

coming again of our Saviour to judge the world; and they who so

believed, needed no other opinion, but only uprightness of life, to be

saved.

[Sidenote: For what fault lieth excommunication.]

There lieth excommunication for injustice; as (_Matth._ xviii.), If thy

brother offend thee, tell it him privately; then with witnesses; lastly,

tell the Church; and then if he obey not, _Let him be to thee as an

heathen man and a publican_. And there lieth excommunication for a

scandalous life, as (_1 Cor._ v. 11) _If any man that is called a

brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a drunkard, or

an extortioner, with such a one ye are not to eat_. But to excommunicate

a man that held this foundation, that _Jesus was the Christ_, for

difference of opinion in other points, by which that foundation was not

destroyed, there appeareth no authority in the Scripture, nor example in

the apostles. There is indeed in St. Paul (_Titus_ iii. 10) a text that

seemeth to be to the contrary; _A man that is an heretic, after the

first and second admonition, reject_. For an _heretic_, is he, that

being a member of the Church, teacheth nevertheless some private

opinion, which the Church has forbidden: and such a one, St. Paul

adviseth Titus, after the first and second admonition, to _reject_. But

to _reject_, in this place, is not to _excommunicate_ the man; but to

_give over admonishing him, to let him alone, to set by disputing with

him_, as one that is to be convinced only by himself. The same apostle

saith (_2 Tim._ ii. 23) _Foolish and unlearned questions avoid_: the

word _avoid_ in this place, and _reject_ in the former, is the same in

the original, παραιτοῦ: but foolish questions may be set by without

excommunication. And again, (_Titus_ iii. 9) _Avoid foolish questions_,

where the original περιΐστασο (_set them by_) is equivalent to the

former word _reject_. There is no other place that can so much as

colourably be drawn, to countenance the casting out of the Church

faithful men, such as believed the foundation, only for a singular

superstructure of their own, proceeding perhaps from a good and pious

conscience. But on the contrary, all such places as command avoiding

such disputes, are written for a lesson to pastors, such as Timothy and

Titus were, not to make new articles of faith, by determining every

small controversy, which oblige men to a needless burthen of conscience,

or provoke them to break the union of the Church. Which lesson the

apostles themselves observed well. St. Peter and St. Paul, though their

controversy were great, as we may read in _Gal._ ii. 11, yet they did

not cast one another out of the Church. Nevertheless, during the

apostles’ times, there were other pastors that observed it not; as

Diotrephes (_3 John_, 9, &c.) who cast out of the Church such as St.

John himself thought fit to be received into it, out of a pride he took

in preeminence. So early it was, that vain glory and ambition had found

entrance into the Church of Christ.

[Sidenote: Of persons liable to excommunication.]

That a man be liable to excommunication, there be many conditions

requisite; as first, that he be a member of some commonalty, that is to

say, of some lawful assembly, that is to say, of some Christian Church,

that hath power to judge of the cause for which he is to be

excommunicated. For where there is no community, there can be no

excommunication; nor where there is no power to judge, can there be any

power to give sentence.

From hence it followeth, that one Church cannot be excommunicated by

another: for either they have equal power to excommunicate each other,

in which case excommunication is not discipline, nor an act of

authority, but schism, and dissolution of charity; or one is so

subordinate to the other, as that they both have but one voice; and then

they be but one Church; and the part excommunicated is no more a Church,

but a dissolute number of individual persons.

And because the sentence of excommunication, importeth an advice, not to

keep company nor so much as to eat with him that is excommunicate, if a

sovereign prince or assembly be excommunicate, the sentence is of no

effect. For all subjects are bound to be in the company and presence of

their own sovereign, when he requireth it, by the law of nature; nor can

they lawfully either expel him from any place of his own dominion,

whether profane or holy; nor go out of his dominion without his leave;

much less, if he call them to that honour, refuse to eat with him. And

as to other princes and states, because they are not parts of one and

the same congregation, they need not any other sentence to keep them

from keeping company with the state excommunicate: for the very

institution, as it uniteth many men into one community, so it

dissociateth one community from another: so that excommunication is not

needful for keeping kings and states asunder; nor has any further effect

than is in the nature of policy itself, unless it be to instigate

princes to war upon one another.

Nor is the excommunication of a Christian subject, that obeyeth the laws

of his own sovereign, whether Christian or heathen, of any effect. For

if he believe that _Jesus is the Christ, he hath the Spirit of God_ (_1

John_ v. 1): _and God dwelleth in him, and he in God_ (_1 John_ iv. 15.)

But he that hath the spirit of God; he that dwelleth in God; he in whom

God dwelleth, can receive no harm by the excommunication of men.

Therefore, he that believeth Jesus to be the Christ, is free from all

the dangers threatened to persons excommunicate. He that believeth it

not, is no Christian. Therefore a true and unfeigned Christian is not

liable to excommunication: nor he also that is a professed Christian,

till his hypocrisy appear in his manners, that is, till his behaviour be

contrary to the law of his sovereign, which is the rule of manners, and

which Christ and his apostles have commanded us to be subject to. For

the Church cannot judge of manners but by external actions, which

actions can never be unlawful, but when they are against the law of the

commonwealth.

If a man’s father, or mother, or master, be excommunicate, yet are not

the children forbidden to keep them company, nor to eat with them: for

that were, for the most part, to oblige them not to eat at all, for want

of means to get food; and to authorize them to disobey their parents and

masters, contrary to the precept of the apostles.

In sum, the power of excommunication cannot be extended further than to

the end for which the apostles and pastors of the Church have their

commission from our Saviour; which is not to rule by command and

co-action, but by teaching and direction of men in the way of salvation

in the world to come. And as a master in any science may abandon his

scholar, when he obstinately neglecteth the practise of his rules; but

not accuse him of injustice, because he was never bound to obey him: so

a teacher of Christian doctrine may abandon his disciples that

obstinately continue in an unchristian life; but he cannot say, they do

him wrong, because they are not obliged to obey him. For to a teacher

that shall so complain, may be applied the answer of God to Samuel in

the like place, (_1 Sam._ viii. 7) _They have not rejected thee, but

me_. Excommunication therefore, when it wanteth the assistance of the

civil power, as it doth, when a Christian state or prince is

excommunicate by a foreign authority, is without effect; and

consequently ought to be without terror. The name of _Fulmen

excommunicationis_, that is, the _thunderbolt of excommunication_,

proceeded from an imagination of the Bishop of Rome, which first used

it, that he was king of kings; as the heathen made Jupiter king of the

gods, and assigned him, in their poems, and pictures, a thunderbolt,

wherewith to subdue and punish the giants, that should dare to deny his

power. Which imagination was grounded on two errors; one, that the

kingdom of Christ is of this world, contrary to our Saviour’s own words,

(_John_ xviii. 36) _My kingdom is not of this world_; the other, that he

is Christ’s vicar, not only over his own subjects, but over all the

Christians of the world; whereof there is no ground in Scripture, and

the contrary shall be proved in its due place.

[Sidenote: Of the interpreter of the Scriptures, before civil sovereigns

became Christians.]

St. Paul coming to Thessalonica, where was a Synagogue of the Jews,

(_Acts_, xvii. 2, 3) _as his manner was, went in unto them, and three

Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, opening and

alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the

dead; and that this Jesus whom he preached was the Christ_. The

Scriptures here mentioned were the Scriptures of the Jews, that is, the

Old Testament. The men, to whom he was to prove that Jesus was the

Christ and risen again from the dead, were also Jews, and did believe

already, that they were the word of God. Hereupon (as it is in verse 4)

some of them believed, and (as it is in verse 5) some believed not. What

was the reason, when they all believed the Scripture, that they did not

all believe alike; but that some approved, others disapproved the

interpretation of St. Paul that cited them; and every one interpreted

them to himself? It was this; St. Paul came to them without any legal

commission, and in the manner of one that would not command, but

persuade; which he must needs do, either by miracles, as Moses did to

the Israelites in Egypt, that they might see his authority in God’s

works; or by reasoning from the already received Scripture, that they

might see the truth of his doctrine in God’s word. But whosoever

persuadeth by reasoning from principles written, maketh him to whom he

speaketh judge, both of the meaning of those principles, and also of the

force of his inferences upon them. If these Jews of Thessalonica were

not, who else was the judge of what St. Paul alleged out of Scripture?

If St. Paul, what needed he to quote any places to prove his doctrine?

It had been enough to have said, I find it so in Scripture, that is to

say, in your laws, of which I am interpreter, as sent by Christ. The

interpreter therefore of the Scripture, to whose interpretation the Jews

of Thessalonica were bound to stand, could be none: every one might

believe, or not believe, according as the allegation seemed to himself

to be agreeable, or not agreeable to the meaning of the places alleged.

And generally in all cases of the world, he that pretendeth any proof,

maketh judge of his proof him to whom he addresseth his speech. And as

to the case of the Jews in particular, they were bound by express words

(_Deut._ xvii.) to receive the determination of all hard questions, from

the priests and judges of Israel for the time being. But this is to be

understood of the Jews that were yet unconverted.

For the conversion of the Gentiles, there was no use of alleging the

Scriptures, which they believed not. The apostles therefore laboured by

reason to confute their idolatry; and that done, to persuade them to the

faith of Christ, by their testimony of his life and resurrection. So

that there could not yet be any controversy concerning the authority to

interpret Scripture; seeing no man was obliged, during his infidelity,

to follow any man’s interpretation of any Scripture, except his

sovereign’s interpretation of the laws of his country.

Let us now consider the conversion itself, and see what there was

therein that could be cause of such an obligation. Men were converted to

no other thing than to the belief of that which the apostles preached:

and the apostles preached nothing, but that Jesus was the Christ, that

is to say, the king that was to save them, and reign over them eternally

in the world to come; and consequently that he was not dead, but risen

again from the dead, and gone up into heaven, and should come again one

day to judge the world, (which also should rise again to be judged,) and

reward every man according to his works. None of them preached that

himself, or any other apostle, was such an interpreter of the Scripture,

as all that became Christians, ought to take their interpretation for

law. For to interpret the laws, is part of the administration of a

present kingdom; which the apostles had not. They prayed then, and all

other pastors ever since, _let thy kingdom come_; and exhorted their

converts to obey their then ethnic princes. The New Testament was not

yet published in one body. Every of the evangelists was interpreter of

his own gospel; and every apostle of his own epistle; and of the Old

Testament our Saviour himself saith to the Jews (_John_ v. 39) _Search

the Scriptures; for in them ye think to have eternal life, and they are

they that testify of me_. If he had not meant they should interpret

them, he would not have bidden them take thence the proof of his being

the Christ: he would either have interpreted them himself, or referred

them to the interpretation of the priests.

When a difficulty arose, the apostles and elders of the Church assembled

themselves together, and determined what should be preached and taught,

and how they should interpret the Scriptures to the people; but took not

from the people the liberty to read and interpret them to themselves.

The apostles sent divers letters to the Churches, and other writings for

their instruction; which had been in vain, if they had not allowed them

to interpret, that is, to consider the meaning of them. And as it was in

the apostles’ time, it must be till such time as there should be

pastors, that could authorize an interpreter, whose interpretation

should generally be stood to: but that could not be till kings were

pastors, or pastors kings.

[Sidenote: Of the power to make Scripture, law.]

There be two senses, wherein a writing may be said to be _canonical_;

for _canon_, signifieth a _rule_; and a rule is a precept, by which a

man is guided and directed in any action whatsoever. Such precepts,

though given by a teacher to his disciple, or a counsellor to his

friend, without power to compel him to observe them, are nevertheless

canons; because they are rules. But when they are given by one, whom he

that receiveth them is bound to obey, then are those canons, not only

rules, but laws. The question therefore here, is of the power to make

the Scriptures, which are the rules of Christian faith, laws.

[Sidenote: Of the ten commandments.]

That part of the Scripture, which was first law, was the Ten

Commandments, written in two tables of stone, and delivered by God

himself to Moses; and by Moses made known to the people. Before that

time there was no written law of God, who as yet having not chosen any

people to be his peculiar kingdom, had given no law to men, but the law

of nature, that is to say, the precepts of natural reason, written in

every man’s own heart. Of these two tables, the first containeth the law

of sovereignty; 1. That they should not obey, nor honour the gods of

other nations, in these words, _Non habebis deos alienos coram me_, that

is, _thou shalt not have for gods, the gods that other nations worship,

but only me_: whereby they were forbidden to obey, or honour, as their

king and governor, any other God, than him that spake unto them then by

Moses, and afterwards by the high-priest. 2. That they _should not make

any image to represent him_; that is to say, they were not to choose to

themselves, neither in heaven, nor in earth, any representative of their

own fancying, but obey Moses and Aaron, whom he had appointed to that

office. 3. That _they should not take the name of God in vain_; that is,

they should not speak rashly of their king, nor dispute his right, nor

the commissions of Moses and Aaron, his lieutenants. 4. That _they

should every seventh day abstain from their ordinary labour_, and employ

that time in doing him public honour. The second table containeth the

duty of one man towards another, as _to honour parents_; _not to kill_;

_not to commit adultery_; _not to steal_; _not to corrupt judgment by

false witness_; and finally, _not so much as to design in their heart

the doing of any injury one to another_. The question now is, who it was

that gave to these written tables the obligatory force of laws. There is

no doubt but they were made laws by God himself: but because a law

obliges not, nor is law to any, but to them that acknowledge it to be

the act of the sovereign; how could the people of Israel, that were

forbidden to approach the mountain to hear what God said to Moses, be

obliged to obedience to all those laws which Moses propounded to them?

Some of them were indeed the laws of nature, as all the second table;

and therefore to be acknowledged for God’s laws; not to the Israelites

alone, but to all people: but of those that were peculiar to the

Israelites, as those of the first table, the question remains; saving

that they had obliged themselves, presently after the propounding of

them, to obey Moses, in these words (_Exod._ xx. 19), _Speak thou to us,

and we will hear thee; but let not God speak to us, lest we die_. It was

therefore only Moses then, and after him the high-priest, whom, by

Moses, God declared should administer this his peculiar kingdom, that

had on earth the power to make this short Scripture of the Decalogue to

be law in the commonwealth of Israel. But Moses, and Aaron, and the

succeeding high-priests, were the civil sovereigns. Therefore hitherto,

the canonizing or making the Scripture law, belonged to the civil

sovereign.

[Sidenote: Of the judicial and Levitical law.]

The judicial law, that is to say, the laws that God prescribed to the

magistrates of Israel for the rule of their administration of justice,

and of the sentences or judgments they should pronounce in pleas between

man and man; and the Levitical law, that is to say, the rule that God

prescribed touching the rites and ceremonies of the priests and Levites,

were all delivered to them by Moses only; and therefore also became

laws, by virtue of the same promise of obedience to Moses. Whether these

laws were then written, or not written, but dictated to the people by

Moses, after his being forty days with God in the Mount, by word of

mouth, is not expressed in the text; but they were all positive laws,

and equivalent to holy Scripture, and made canonical by Moses the civil

sovereign.

[Sidenote: The second law.]

After the Israelites were come into the plains of Moab over against

Jericho, and ready to enter into the land of promise, Moses to the

former laws added divers others; which therefore are called

_Deuteronomy_; that is, _second laws_. And are, (as it is written

_Deut._ xxix. 1) _the words of a covenant which the Lord commanded Moses

to make with the children of Israel, besides the covenant which he made

with them in Horeb_. For having explained those former laws, in the

beginning of the book of _Deuteronomy_, he addeth others, that begin at

the xiith chapter, and continue to the end of the xxvith of the same

book. This law (_Deut._ xxvii. 3) they were commanded to write upon

great stones plastered over, at their passing over Jordan: this law also

was written by Moses himself in a book, and delivered into the hands of

the _priests, and to the elders of Israel_ (_Deut._ xxxi. 9), and

commanded (verse 26) _to be put in the side of the ark_; for in the ark

itself was nothing but the _ten commandments_. This was the law, which

Moses (_Deut._ xvii. 18) commanded the kings of Israel should keep a

copy of: and this is the law, which having been long time lost, was

found again in the temple in the time of Josiah, and by his authority

received for the law of God. But both Moses at the writing, and Josiah

at the recovery thereof, had both of them the civil sovereignty.

Hitherto therefore the power of making Scripture canonical, was in the

civil sovereign.

Besides this book of the law, there was no other book, from the time of

Moses till after the Captivity, received amongst the Jews for the law of

God. For the prophets, except a few, lived in the time of the Captivity

itself; and the rest lived but a little before it; and were so far from

having their prophecies generally received for laws, as that their

persons were persecuted, partly by false prophets, and partly by the

kings which were seduced by them. And this book itself, which was

confirmed by Josiah for the law of God, and with it all the history of

the works of God, was lost in the captivity and sack of the city of

Jerusalem, as appears by that of _2 Esdras_, xiv. 21, _thy law is burnt;

therefore no man knoweth the things that are done of thee, or the works

that shall begin_. And before the captivity, between the time when the

law was lost, (which is not mentioned in the Scripture, but may probably

be thought to be the time of Rehoboam, when (_1 Kings_ xiv. 26) Shishak,

king of Egypt, took the spoil of the temple), and the time of Josiah

when it was found again, they had no written word of God, but ruled

according to their own discretion, or by the direction of such as each

of them esteemed prophets.

[Sidenote: The Old Testament when made canonical.]

From hence we may infer, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament, which

we have at this day, were not canonical nor a law unto the Jews, till

the renovation of their covenant with God at their return from the

captivity, and restoration of their commonwealth under Esdras. But from

that time forward they were accounted the law of the Jews, and for such

translated into Greek by seventy elders of Judea, and put into the

library of Ptolemy at Alexandria, and approved for the word of God. Now

seeing Esdras was the high-priest, and the high-priest was their civil

sovereign, it is manifest that the Scriptures were never made laws, but

by the sovereign civil power.

[Sidenote: The New Testament began to be canonical under Christian

sovereigns.]

By the writings of the fathers that lived in the time before that the

Christian religion was received, and authorized by Constantine the

emperor, we may find, that the books we now have of the New Testament

were held by the Christians of that time, except a few, (in respect of

whose paucity the rest were called the Catholic Church, and others

heretics), for the dictates of the Holy Ghost, and consequently for the

canon or rule of faith: such was the reverence and opinion they had of

their teachers; as generally the reverence, that the disciples bear to

their first masters in all manner of doctrine they receive from them, is

not small. Therefore there is no doubt, but when St. Paul wrote to the

Churches he had converted; or any other apostle or disciple of Christ,

to those which had then embraced Christ; they received those their

writings for the true Christian doctrine. But in that time, when not the

power and authority of the teacher, but the faith of the hearer, caused

them to receive it, it was not the apostles that made their own writings

canonical, but every convert made them so to himself.

But the question here, is not what any Christian made a law or canon to

himself, which he might again reject by the same right he received it;

but what was so made a canon to them, as without injustice they could

not do any thing contrary thereunto. That the New Testament should in

this sense be canonical, that is to say a law, in any place where the

law of the commonwealth had not made it so, is contrary to the nature of

a law. For a law, as has been already shown, is the commandment of that

man or assembly, to whom we have given sovereign authority to make such

rules for the direction of our actions as he shall think fit, and to

punish us when we do any thing contrary to the same. When therefore any

other man shall offer unto us any other rules, which the sovereign ruler

hath not prescribed, they are but counsel and advice; which, whether

good or bad, he that is counselled, may without injustice refuse to

observe; and when contrary to the laws already established, without

injustice cannot observe, how good soever he conceiveth it to be. I say,

he cannot in this case observe the same in his actions, nor in his

discourse with other men; though he may without blame believe his

private teachers, and wish he had the liberty to practise their advice,

and that it were publicly received for law. For internal faith is in its

own nature invisible, and consequently exempted from all human

jurisdiction; whereas the words and actions that proceed from it, as

breaches of our civil obedience, are injustice both before God and man.

Seeing then our Saviour hath denied his kingdom to be in this world,

seeing he had said, he came not to judge, but to save the world, he hath

not subjected us to other laws than those of the commonwealth; that is,

the Jews to the law of Moses, which he saith (_Matth._ v. 17) he came

not to destroy, but to fulfil; and other nations to the laws of their

several sovereigns, and all men to the laws of nature; the observing

whereof, both he himself, and his apostles, have in their teaching

recommended to us, as a necessary condition of being admitted by him in

the last day into his eternal kingdom, wherein shall be protection, and

life everlasting. Seeing then our Saviour, and his apostles, left not

new laws to oblige us in this world, but new doctrine to prepare us for

the next; the books of the New Testament, which contain that doctrine,

until obedience to them was commanded by them that God had given power

to on earth to be legislators, were not obligatory canons, that is,

laws, but only good and safe advice, for the direction of sinners in the

way to salvation, which every man might take and refuse at his own

peril, without injustice.

Again, our Saviour Christ’s commission to his apostles and disciples,

was to proclaim his kingdom, not present, but to come; and to teach all

nations, and to baptize them that should believe; and to enter into the

houses of them that should receive them, and where they were not

received, to shake off the dust of their feet against them; but not to

call for fire from heaven to destroy them, nor to compel them to

obedience by the sword. In all which there is nothing of power, but of

persuasion. He sent them out as sheep unto wolves, not as kings to their

subjects. They had not in commission to make laws; but to obey, and

teach obedience to laws made; and consequently they could not make their

writings obligatory canons, without the help of the sovereign civil

power. And therefore the Scripture of the New Testament is there only

law, where the lawful civil power hath made it so. And there also the

king, or sovereign, maketh it a law to himself; by which he subjecteth

himself, not to the doctor or apostle that converted him, but to God

himself and his Son Jesus Christ, as immediately as did the apostles

themselves.

[Sidenote: Of the power of councils to make the Scriptures law.]

That which may seem to give the New Testament, in respect of those that

have embraced Christian doctrine, the force of laws, in the times and

places of persecution, is the decrees they made amongst themselves in

their synod. For we read (_Acts_ xv. 28) the style of the council of the

apostles, the elders, and the whole Church, in this manner; _It seemed

good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen

than these necessary things, &c_; which is a style that signifieth a

power to lay a burthen on them that had received their doctrine. Now _to

lay a burthen on another_, seemeth the same as _to oblige_; and

therefore the acts of that council were laws to the then Christians.

Nevertheless, they were no more laws than are these other precepts,

_Repent; be baptized; keep the commandments; believe the gospel; come

unto me; sell all that thou hast; give it to the poor_; and, _follow

me_; which are not commands, but invitations, and callings of men to

Christianity, like that of _Isaiah_ lv. 1; _Ho, every man that

thirsteth, come ye to the waters, come, and buy wine and milk without

money_. For first, the apostles’ power was no other than that of our

Saviour, to invite men to embrace the kingdom of God; which they

themselves acknowledged for a kingdom, not present, but to come; and

they that have no kingdom, can make no laws. And secondly, if their acts

of council were laws, they could not without sin be disobeyed. But we

read not any where, that they who received not the doctrine of Christ,

did therein sin; but that they died in their sins; that is, that their

sins against the laws to which they owed obedience, were not pardoned.

And those laws were the laws of nature, and the civil laws of the state,

whereto every Christian man had by pact submitted himself. And therefore

by the burthen, which the apostles might lay on such as they had

converted, are not to be understood laws, but conditions proposed to

those that sought salvation; which they might accept or refuse at their

own peril, without a new sin, though not without the hazard of being

condemned and excluded out of the kingdom of God for their sins past.

And therefore of infidels, St. John saith not, the wrath of God shall

_come_ upon them, but (_John_ iii. 36) _the wrath of God remaineth upon

them_; and not that they shall be condemned, but that (_John_ iii. 18)

_they are condemned already_. Nor can it be conceived, that the benefit

of faith _is remission of sins_, unless we conceive withal, that the

damage of infidelity _is the retention of the same sins_.

But to what end is it, may some man ask, that the apostles, and other

pastors of the Church after their time, should meet together to agree

upon what doctrine should be taught, both for faith and manners, if no

man were obliged to observe their decrees? To this may be answered, that

the apostles and elders of that council were obliged even by their

entrance into it, to teach the doctrine therein concluded and decreed to

be taught, so far forth, as no precedent law, to which they were obliged

to yield obedience, was to the contrary; but not that all other

Christians should be obliged to observe what they taught. For though

they might deliberate what each of them should teach; yet they could not

deliberate what others should do, unless their assembly had had a

legislative power; which none could have but civil sovereigns. For

though God be the sovereign of all the world, we are not bound to take

for his law whatsoever is propounded by every man in his name; nor

anything contrary to the civil law, which God hath expressly commanded

us to obey.

Seeing then the acts of council of the apostles, were then no laws, but

counsels; much less are laws the acts of any other doctors or council

since, if assembled without the authority of the civil sovereign. And

consequently, the Books of the New Testament, though most perfect rules

of Christian doctrine, could not be made laws by any other authority

than that of kings or sovereign assemblies.

The first council, that made the Scriptures we now have canon, is not

extant: for that collection of the canons of the apostles, attributed to

Clemens, the first bishop of Rome after St. Peter, is subject to

question. For though the canonical books be there reckoned up; yet these

words, _sint vobis omnibus clericis et laicis libri venerandi, etc._

contain a distinction of clergy and laity, that was not in use so near

St. Peter’s time. The first council for settling the canonical

Scripture, that is extant, is that of Laodicea, (_Can._ lix.) which

forbids the reading of other books than those in the churches; which is

a mandate that is not addressed to every Christian, but to those only

that had authority to read any thing publicly in the church; that is, to

ecclesiastics only.

[Sidenote: Of the right of constituting ecclesiastical officers in the

time of the apostles.]

Of ecclesiastical officers in the time of the apostles, some were

magisterial, some ministerial. Magisterial were the offices of the

preaching of the gospel of the kingdom of God to infidels; of

administering the sacraments, and divine service; and of teaching the

rules of faith and manners to those that were converted. Ministerial was

the office of deacons, that is, of them that were appointed to the

administration of the secular necessities of the church, at such time as

they lived upon a common stock of money, raised out of the voluntary

contributions of the faithful.

Amongst the officers magisterial, the first and principal were the

apostles; whereof there were at first but twelve; and these were chosen

and constituted by our Saviour himself; and their office was not only to

preach, teach, and baptize, but also to be martyrs, witnesses of our

Saviour’s resurrection. This testimony was the specifical and essential

mark, whereby the apostleship was distinguished from other magistracy

ecclesiastical; as being necessary for an apostle, either to have seen

our Saviour after his resurrection, or to have conversed with him

before, and seen his works, and other arguments of his divinity; whereby

they might be taken for sufficient witnesses. And therefore at the

election of a new apostle in the place of Judas Iscariot, St. Peter

saith (_Acts_ i. 21, 22) _Of these men that have companied with us, all

the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst us, beginning from

the baptism of John unto that same day that he was taken up from us_,

must _one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection_:

where by this word _must_, is implied a necessary property of an

apostle, to have companied with the first and prime apostles, in the

time that our Saviour manifested himself in the flesh.

[Sidenote: Matthias made apostle by the congregation.]

The first apostle, of those which were not constituted by Christ in the

time he was upon the earth, was Matthias, chosen in this manner. There

were assembled together in Jerusalem about one hundred and twenty

Christians (_Acts_ i. 15). These (verse 23) appointed two, Joseph the

Just and Matthias, and caused lots to be drawn; _and_ (verse 26) _the

lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the apostles_. So that

here we see the ordination of this apostle was the act of the

congregation, and not of St. Peter nor of the eleven, otherwise than as

members of the assembly.

[Sidenote: Paul and Barnabas made apostles by the Church of Antioch.]

After him there was never any other apostle ordained, but Paul and

Barnabas; which was done as we read (_Acts_ xiii. 1, 2, 3) in this

manner. _There were in the Church that was at Antioch, certain prophets

and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius

of Cyrene, and Manaen; which had been brought up with Herod the

Tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered unto the Lord, and fasted, the

Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I

have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their

hands on them, they sent them away._

By which it is manifest, that though they were called by the Holy Ghost,

their calling was declared unto them and their mission authorized by the

particular Church of Antioch. And that this their calling was to the

apostleship, is apparent by that, that they are both called (_Acts_ xiv.

14) apostles: and that it was by virtue of this act of the Church of

Antioch, that they were apostles, St. Paul declareth plainly (_Rom._ i.

1), in that he useth the word, which the Holy Ghost used at his calling:

for he styleth himself, _An apostle separated unto the gospel of God_;

alluding to the words of the Holy Ghost, _Separate me Barnabas and Saul,

&c._ But seeing the work of an apostle, was to be a witness of the

resurrection of Christ, a man may here ask, how St. Paul, that conversed

not with our Saviour before his passion, could know he was risen? To

which is easily answered, that our Saviour himself appeared to him in

the way to Damascus, from heaven, after his ascension; _and chose him

for a vessel to bear his name before the Gentiles, and kings, and

children of Israel_: and consequently, having seen the Lord after his

passion, he was a competent witness of his resurrection. And as for

Barnabas, he was a disciple before the passion. It is therefore evident

that Paul and Barnabas were apostles; and yet chosen and authorized, not

by the first apostles alone, but by the Church of Antioch; as Matthias

was chosen and authorized by the Church of Jerusalem.

[Sidenote: What offices in the church are magisterial.]

_Bishop_, a word formed in our language out of the Greek Επισκοπος,

signifieth an overseer or superintendent of any business, and

particularly a pastor or shepherd; and thence by metaphor was taken, not

only amongst the Jews that were originally shepherds, but also amongst

the heathen, to signify the office of a king, or any other ruler or

guide of people, whether he ruled by laws or doctrine. And so the

apostles were the first Christian bishops, instituted by Christ himself:

in which sense the apostleship of Judas is called (_Acts_ i. 20) _his

bishopric_. And afterwards, when there were constituted elders in the

Christian Churches, with charge to guide Christ’s flock by their

doctrine and advice; these elders were also called bishops. Timothy was

an elder, (which word _elder_, in the New Testament, is a name of

office, as well as of age); yet he was also a bishop. And bishops were

then content with the title of elders. Nay St. John himself, the apostle

beloved of our Lord, beginneth his second Epistle with these words, _The

elder to the elect lady_. By which it is evident, that _bishop_,

_pastor_, _elder_, _doctor_, that is to say, _teacher_, were but so many

divers names of the same office in the time of the apostles; for there

was then no government by coercion, but only by doctrine and persuading.

The kingdom of God was yet to come, in a new world: so that there could

be no authority to compel in any Church, till the commonwealth had

embraced the Christian faith: and consequently no diversity of

authority, though there were diversity of employments.

Besides these magisterial employments in the Church, namely, apostles,

bishops, elders, pastors, and doctors, whose calling was to proclaim

Christ to the Jews and infidels, and to direct and to teach those that

believed, we read in the New Testament of no other. For by the names of

_evangelists_ and _prophets_, is not signified any office, but several

gifts, by which several men were profitable to the Church: as

evangelists, by writing the life and acts of our Saviour, such as were

St. Matthew and St. John apostles, and St. Mark and St. Luke disciples,

and whosoever else wrote of that subject, (as St. Thomas, and St.

Barnabas are said to have done, though the Church have not received the

books that have gone under their names): and as prophets, by the gift of

interpreting the Old Testament, and sometimes by declaring their special

revelations to the Church. For neither these gifts, nor the gifts of

languages, nor the gift of casting out devils, nor of curing other

diseases, nor any thing else, did make an officer in the Church, save

only the due calling and election to the charge of teaching.

[Sidenote: Ordination of teachers.]

As the apostles, Matthias, Paul, and Barnabas, were not made by our

Saviour himself, but were elected by the Church, that is, by the

assembly of Christians; namely, Matthias by the Church of Jerusalem, and

Paul and Barnabas by the Church of Antioch; so were also the

_presbyters_ and _pastors_ in other cities, elected by the Churches of

those cities. For proof whereof let us consider, first, how St. Paul

proceeded in the ordination of presbyters, in the cities where he had

converted men to the Christian faith, immediately after he and Barnabas

had received their apostleship. We read (_Acts_ xiv. 23) that _they

ordained elders in every Church_; which at first sight may be taken for

an argument, that they themselves chose, and gave them their authority:

but if we consider the original text, it will be manifest that they were

authorized and chosen by the assembly of the Christians of each city.

For the words there are, χειροτονήσαντες ἀυτοῖς πρεσβυτέρους κατ’

ἐκκλησίαν, that is, _when they had ordained them elders by the holding

up of hands in every congregation_. Now it is well enough known, that in

all those cities the manner of choosing magistrates and officers, was by

plurality of suffrages; and, because the ordinary way of distinguishing

the affirmative votes from the negatives, was by holding up of hands, to

ordain an officer in any of the cities, was no more but to bring the

people together, to elect them by plurality of votes, whether it were by

plurality of elevated hands, or by plurality of voices, or plurality of

balls, or beans, or small stones, of which every man cast in one, into a

vessel marked for the affirmative or negative; for divers cities had

divers customs in that point. It was therefore the assembly that elected

their own elders: the apostles were only presidents of the assembly, to

call them together for such election, and to pronounce them elected, and

to give them the benediction which now is called consecration. And for

this cause, they that were presidents of the assemblies, as in the

absence of the apostles the elders were, were called προεστῶτες, and in

Latin _antistites_; which words signify the principal person of the

assembly, whose office was to number the votes, and to declare thereby

who was chosen; and where the votes were equal, to decide the matter in

question, by adding his own; which is the office of a president in

council. And, because all the Churches had their presbyters ordained in

the same manner, where the word is _constitute_, (as _Titus_ i. 5) ἵνα

καταστησης κατα πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους, _For this cause left I thee in

Crete, that thou shouldest constitute elders in every city_, we are to

understand the same thing, namely, that he should call the faithful

together, and ordain them presbyters by plurality of suffrages. It had

been a strange thing, if in a town, where men perhaps had never seen any

magistrate otherwise chosen than by an assembly, those of the town

becoming Christians should so much as have thought on any other way of

election of their teachers and guides, that is to say, of their

presbyters, (otherwise called bishops) than this of plurality of

suffrages, intimated by St. Paul (_Acts_ xiv. 23) in the word

χειροτονήσαντες. Nor was there ever any choosing of bishops, before the

emperors found it necessary to regulate them, in order to the keeping of

the peace amongst them, but by the assemblies of the Christians in every

several town.

The same is also confirmed by the continual practice, even to this day,

in the election of the bishops of Rome. For if the bishop of any place

had the right of choosing another, to the succession of the pastoral

office, in any city, at such times as he went from thence to plant the

same in another place; much more had he had the right to appoint his

successors in that place, in which he last resided and died: and we find

not that ever any bishop of Rome appointed his successor. For they were

a long time chosen by the people, as we may see by the sedition raised

about the election between _Damasus_ and _Ursicinus_; which Ammianus

Marcellinus saith was so great, that _Juventius_ the præfect, unable to

keep the peace between them, was forced to go out of the city; and that

there were above an hundred men found dead upon that occasion in the

church itself. And though they afterwards were chosen, first, by the

whole clergy of Rome, and afterwards by the cardinals; yet never any was

appointed to the succession by his predecessor. If therefore they

pretended no right to appoint their own successors, I think I may

reasonably conclude they had no right to appoint the successors of other

bishops, without receiving some new power; which none could take from

the Church to bestow on them, but such as had a lawful authority, not

only to teach, but to command the Church; which none could do, but the

civil sovereign.

[Sidenote: Ministers of the Church, what.]

The word _minister_, in the original Διάκονος, signifieth one that

voluntarily doth the business of another man; and differeth from a

servant only in this, that servants are obliged by their condition, to

do what is commanded them; whereas ministers are obliged only by their

undertaking, and bound therefore to no more than that they have

undertaken: so that both they that teach the word of God, and they that

administer the secular affairs of the Church, are both ministers, but

they are ministers of different persons. For the pastors of the Church,

called (_Acts_ vi. 4) _the ministers of the word_, are ministers of

Christ, whose word it is: but the ministry of a deacon, which is called

(verse 2 of the same chapter) _serving of tables_, is a service done to

the Church or congregation: so that neither any one man, nor the whole

church, could ever of their pastor say, he was their minister: but of a

deacon, whether the charge he undertook were to serve tables, or

distribute maintenance to the Christians, when they lived in each city

on a common stock or upon collections, as in the first times, or to take

a care of the house of prayer, or of the revenue, or other worldly

business of the Church, the whole congregation might properly call him

their minister.