The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• To My Most Honor’d Friend Mr. Francis Godolphin, of Godolphin.
• The Introduction.
• Part I.: Of Man.
• Chapter I.: Of Sense.
• Chapter II.: Of Imagination.
• Chapter III.: Of the Consequence Or Train of Imaginations.
• Chapter IV.: Of Speech.
• Chapter V.: Of Reason and Science.
• Chapter VI.: Of the Interior Beginnings of Voluntary Motions; Commonly Called the Passions; and the Speeches By Which They Are Expressed.
• Chapter VII.: Of the Ends, Or Resolutions of Discourse.
• Chapter VIII.: Of the Virtues Commonly Called Intellectual; and Their Contrary Defects.
• Chapter IX.: Of the Several Subjects of Knowledge.
• Chapter X.: Of Power, Worth, Dignity, Honour, and Worthiness.
• Chapter XI.: Of the Difference of Manners.
• Chapter XII.: Of Religion.
• Chapter XIII.: Of the Natural Condition of Mankind As Concerning Their Felicity, and Misery.
• Chapter XIV.: Of the First and Second Natural Laws, and of Contracts.
• Chapter XV.: Of Other Laws of Nature.
• Chapter XVI.: Of Persons, Authors, and Things Personated.
• Part II.: Of Commonwealth.
• Chapter XVII.: Of the Causes, Generation, and Definition of a Commonwealth.
• Chapter XVIII.: Of the Rights of Sovereigns By Institution.
• Chapter XIX.: Of the Several Kinds of Commonwealth By Institution, and of Succession to the Sovereign Power.
• Chapter XX.: Of Dominion Paternal, and Despotical.
• Chapter XXI.: Of the Liberty of Subjects.
• Chapter XXII.: Of Systems Subject, Political, and Private.
• Chapter XXIII.: Of the Public Ministers of Sovereign Power.
• Chapter XXIV.: Of the Nutrition, and Procreation of a Commonwealth.
• Chapter XXV.: Of Counsel.
• Chapter XXVI.: Of Civil Laws.
• Chapter XXVII.: Of Crimes, Excuses, and Extenuations.
• Chapter XXVIII.: Of Punishments and Rewards.
• Chapter XXIX.: Of Those Things That Weaken, Or Tend to the Dissolution of a Commonwealth.
• Chapter XXX.: Of the Office of the Sovereign Representative.
• Chapter XXXI.: Of the Kingdom of God By Nature.
• Part III.: Of a Christian Commonwealth.
• Chapter XXXII.: Of the Principles of Christian Politics.
• Chapter XXXIII.: Of the Number, Antiquity, Scope, Authority and Interpreters of the Books of Holy Scripture.
• Chapter XXXIV.: Of the Signification of Spirit, Angel, and Inspiration In the Books of Holy Scripture.
• Chapter XXXV: Of the Signification In Scripture of Kingdom of God, of Holy, Sacred, and Sacrament.
• Chapter XXXVI.: Of the Word of God, and of Prophets.
• Chapter XXXVII.: Of Miracles, and Their Use.
• Chapter XXXVIII.: Of the Signification In Scripture of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, the World to Come, and Redemption.
• Chapter XXXIX.: Of the Signification In Scripture of the Word Church.
• Chapter Xl.: of the Rights of the Kingdom of God, In Abraham, Moses, the High-priests, and the Kings of Judah.
• Chapter Xli.: of the Office of Our Blessed Saviour.
• Chapter Xlii.: of Power Ecclesiastical.
• Chapter Xliii.: of What Is Necessary For a Man’s Reception Into the Kingdom of Heaven.
• Part IV.: Of the Kingdom of Darkness.
• Chapter Xliv.: of Spiritual Darkness, From Misinterpretation of Scripture.
• Chapter Xlv.: of Demonology, and Other Relics of the Religion of the Gentiles.
• Chap. Xlvi.: of Darkness From Vain Philosophy, and Fabulous Traditions.
• Chapter Xlvii.: of the Benefit That Proceedeth From Such Darkness, and to Whom It Accrueth.
• A Review, and Conclusion.
• Books Published By John Bohn.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 wellpleasing 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.

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, holdi n 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 reasonedwith 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.

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 any thing? 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.

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 remittedunto 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 theChrist, 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.

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 thunderboltof 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.

Of the interpreter of the Scriptares, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Of the power of councils to make the Scripture law.

That which may seem to give the New Testament, in respect of those that have embraced Christian doctrine, the force of laws, in the times and places of persecution, is the decrees they made amongst themselves in their 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.

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.

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.

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 theyministered 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.

What offices in the church are magisterial.

Bishop, a word formed in our language out of the Greek Επισκοποϛ, 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 rule 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 apos les, 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.

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, χειρ̧οτονήσαντεϛ ἀυτοῖϛ πρ̧εσβυτέρουϛ 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 προεστῶτεϛ, 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 καταστησηϛ κατα πόλιν πρεϛβυτέρουϛ, 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 χειρ̧οτονήσαντεϛ. 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.

Ministers of the Church, what.

The word minister, in the original Διάκονοϛ, 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.

For their employment, as deacons, was to serve the congregation; though upon occasion they omitted not to preach the gospel, and maintain the doctrine of Christ, every one according to his gifts, as St. Stephen did; and both to preach and baptize, as Philip did. For that Philip, which (Acts viii. 5) preached the gospel at Samaria, and (verse 38) baptized the Eunuch, was Philip the deacon, not Philip the apostle. For it is manifest (verse 1) that when Philip preached in Samaria, the apostles were at Jerusalem, and (verse 14) when they heard that Samaria had received the word of God, sent Peter and John to them; by imposition of whose hands, they that were baptized (verse 15), received, which before by the baptism of Philip they had not received, the Holy Ghost. For it was necessary for the conferring of the Holy Ghost, that their baptism should be administered or confirmed by a minister of the word, not by a minister of the Church. And therefore to confirm the baptism of those that Philip the deacon had baptized, the apostles sent out of their own number from Jerusalem to Samaria, Peter and John; who conferred on them that before were but baptized, those graces that were signs of the Holy Spirit, which at that time did accompany all true believers; which what they were may be understood by that which St. Mark saith (chap. xvi. 17), these signs follow them that believe in my name; they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. This to do, was it that Philip could not give; but the apostles could, and, as appears by this place, effectually did to every man that truly believed and was by a minister of Christ himself baptized: which power either Christ’s ministers in this age cannot confer, or else there are very few true believers, or Christ hath very few ministers.

And how chosen.

That the first deacons were chosen, not by the apostles, but by a congregation of the disciples, that is, of Christian men of all sorts, is manifest out of Acts vi, where we read that the Twelve, after the number of disciples was multiplied, called them together, and having told them, that it was not fit that the apostles should leave the word of God and serve tables, said unto them, (verse 3) Brethren, look you out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. Here it is manifest, that though the apostles declared them elected; yet the congregation chose them; which also (verse 5) is more expressly said, where it is written, that the saying pleased the whole multitude, and they chose seven, &c.

Of ecclesiastical revenue, under the law of Moses.

Under the Old Testament, the tribe of Levi were only capable of the priesthood, and other inferior offices of the Church. The land was divided amongst the other tribes, Levi excepted, which, by the subdivision of the tribe of Joseph into Ephraim and Manasseh, were still twelve. To the tribe of Levi were assigned certain cities for their habitation, with the suburbs for their cattle: but for their portion, they were to have the tenth of the fruits of the land of their brethren. Again, the priests for their maintenance had the tenth of that tenth, together with part of the oblations and sacrifices. For God had said to Aaron (Numb. xviii. 20) Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land; neither shalt thou have any part amongst them; I am thy part and thine inheritance amongst the children of Israel. For God being then king, and having constituted the tribe of Levi to be his public ministers, he allowed them for their maintenance the public revenue, that is to say, the part that God had reserved to himself; which were tithes and offerings: and that is it which is meant, where God saith, I am thine inheritance. And therefore to the Levites might not unfitly be attributed the name of clergy, from κλῆρ̧οϛ, which signifieth lot or inheritance; not that they were heirs of the kingdom of God, more than other; but that God’s inheritance was their maintenance. Now, seeing in this time God himself was their king, and Moses, Aaron, and the succeeding high-priests, were his lieutenants; it is manifest, that the right of tithes and offerings was constituted by the civil power.

After their rejection of God in the demanding of a king, they enjoyed still the same revenue; but the right thereof was derived from that, that the kings did never take it from them: for the public revenue was at the disposing of him that was the public person; and that, till the Captivity, was the king. And again, after the return from the Captivity, they paid their tithes as before to the priest. Hitherto therefore Church livings were determined by the civil sovereign.

In our Saviour’s time, and after.

Of the maintenance of our Saviour and his apostles, we read only they had a purse, which was carried by Judas Iscariot; and that of the apostles, such as were fishermen did sometimes use their trade; and that when our Saviour sent the twelve apostles to preach, he forbad them (Matth. x. 9, 10): to carry gold, and silver, and brass in their purses, for that the workman is worthy of his hire. By which it is probable, their ordinary maintenance was not unsuitable to their employment; for their employment was (verse 8) freely to give, because they had freely received; and their maintenance was the free gift of those that believed the good tiding they carried about of the coming of the Messiah their Saviour. To which we may add, that which was contributed out of gratitude by such as our Saviour had healed of diseases; of which are mentioned (Luke viii. 2, 3) Certain women which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities; Mary Magdalen, out of whom went seven devils; and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

After our Saviour’s ascension, the Christians of every city lived in common (Acts iv.34,35) upon the money which was made of the sale of their lands and possessions, and laid down at the feet of the apostles, of good will, not of duty; for, whilst theland remained, saith St. Peter to Ananias (Acts v. 4), was it not thine? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? which sheweth he needed not have saved his land nor his money by lying, as not being bound to contribute any thing at all, unless he had pleased. And as in the time of the apostles, so also all the time downward, till after Constantine the Great, we shall find that the maintenance of the bishops and pastors of the Christian Church was nothing but the voluntary contribution of them that had embraced their doctrine. There was yet no mention of tithes: but such was in the time of Constantine and his sons the affection of Christians to their pastors, as Ammianus Marcellinus saith, describing the sedition of Damasus and Ursicinus about the bishopric, that it was worth their contention, in that the bishops of those times, by the liberality of their flock, and especially of matrons, lived splendidly, were carried in coaches, and were sumptuous in their fare and apparel.

The ministers of the Gospel lived on the benevolence of their flocks.

But here may some ask, whether the pastors were then bound to live upon voluntary contribution, as upon alms; For who, saith St. Paul (1 Cor. ix. 7) goeth to war at his own charges? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? And again, (verse 13) Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things, live of the things of the temple; and they which wait at the altar, partake with the altar; that is to say, have part of that which is offered at the altar for their maintenance? And then he concludeth, (verse 14) Even so hath the Lord appointed, that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. From which place may be inferred indeed, that the pastors of the Church ought to be maintained by their flocks; but not that the pastors were to determine, either the quantity, or the kind of their own allowance, and be, as it were, their own carvers. Their allowance must needs therefore be determined, either by the gratitude and liberality of every particular man of their flock, or by the whole congregation. By the whole congregation it could not be, because their acts were then no laws; therefore the maintenance of pastors before emperors and civil sovereigns had made laws to settle it, was nothing but benevolence. They that served at the altar lived on what was offered. So may the pastors also take what is offered them by their flock; but not exact what is not offered. In what court should they sue for it, who had no tribunals? Or, if they had arbitrators amongst themselves, who should execute their judgments, when they had no power to arm their officers? It remaineth, therefore, that there could be no certain maintenance assigned to any pastors of the Church, but by the whole congregation; and then only, when their decrees should have the force, not only of canons, but also of laws; which laws could not be made, but by emperors, kings, or other civil sovereigns. The right of tithes in Moses’ law, could not be applied to the then ministers of the gospel; because Moses and the high-priests were the civil sovereigns of the people under God, whose kingdom amongst the Jews was present; whereas the kingdom of God by Christ is yet to come.

Hitherto hath been shewn what the pastors of the Church are; what are the points of their commission, as that they were to preach, to teach, to baptize, to be presidents in their several congregations; what is ecclesiastical censure, viz. excommunication, that is to say, in those places where Christianity was forbidden by the civil laws, a putting of themselves out of the company of the excommunicate, and where Christianity was by the civil law commanded, a putting the excommunicate out of the congregations of Christians; who elected the pastors and ministers of the Church, that it was the congregation; who consecrated and blessed them, that it was the pastor; what was their due revenue, that it was none but their own possessions, and their own labour, and the voluntary contributions of devout and grateful Christians. We are to consider now, what office in the Church those persons have, who being civil sovereigns, have embraced also the Christian faith.

That the civil sovereign, being a Christian, hath the right of appointing pastors.

And first, we are to remember, that the right of judging what doctrines are fit for peace, and to be taught the subjects, is in all commonwealths inseparably annexed, as hath been already proved (chapter XVIII.), to the sovereign power civil, whether it be in one man, or in one assembly of men. For it is evident to the meanest capacity, that men’s actions are derived from the opinions they have of the good or evil, which from those actions redound unto themselves; and consequently, men that are once possessed of an opinion, that their obedience to the sovereign power will be more hurtful to them than their disobedience, will disobey the laws, and thereby overthrow the commonwealth, and introduce confusion and civil war; for the avoiding whereof, all civil government was ordained. And therefore in all commonwealths of the heathen, the sovereigns have had the name of pastors of the people, because there was no subject that could lawfully teach the people, but by their permission and authority.

This right of the heathen kings cannot be thought taken from them by their conversion to the faith of Christ; who never ordained that kings, for believing in him, should be deposed, that is, subjected to any but himself, or, which is all one, be deprived of the power necessary for the conservation of peace amongst their subjects, and for their defence against foreign enemies. And therefore Christian kings are still the supreme pastors of their people, and have power to ordain what pastors they please, to teach the Church, that is, to teach the people committed to their charge.

Again, let the right of choosing them be, as before the conversion of kings, in the Church; for so it was in the time of the apostles themselves, as hath been shown already in this chapter; even so also the right will be in the civil sovereign, Christian. For in that he is a Christian, he allows the teaching; and in that he is the sovereign, which is as much as to say, the Church by representation, the teachers he elects are elected by the Church. And when an assembly of Christians choose their pastor in a Christian commonwealth, it is the sovereign that electeth him, because it is done by his authority; in the same manner, as when a town choose their mayor, it is the act of him that hath the sovereign power: for every act done, is the act of him, without whose consent it is invalid. And therefore whatsoever examples may be drawn out of history, concerning the election of pastors by the people, or by the clergy, they are no arguments against the right of any civil sovereign, because they that elected them did it by his authority.

Seeing then in every Christian commonwealth, the civil sovereign is the supreme pastor, to whose charge the whole flock of his subjects is committed, and consequently that it is by his authority that all other pastors are made, and have power to teach, and perform all other pastoral offices; it followeth also, that it is from the civil sovereign that all other pastors derive their right of teaching, preaching, and other functions pertaining to that office, and that they are but his ministers; in the same manner as the magistrates of towns, judges in courts of justice, and commanders of armies, are all but ministers of him that is the magistrate of the whole commonwealth, judge of all causes, and commander of the whole militia, which is always the civil sovereign. And the reason hereof, is not because they that teach, but because they that are to learn, are his subjects. For let it be supposed, that a Christian king commit the authority of ordaining pastors in his dominions to another king, as divers Christian kings allow that power to the Pope; he doth not thereby constitute a pastor over himself, nor a sovereign pastor over his people; for that were to deprive himself of the civil power; which, depending on the opinion men have of their duty to him and the fear they have of punishment in another world, would depend also on the skill and loyalty of doctors, who are no less subject, not only to ambition, but also to ignorance, than any other sort of men. So that where a stranger hath authority to appoint teachers, it is given him by the sovereign in whose dominions he teacheth. Christian doctors are our schoolmasters to Christianity; but kings are fathers of families, and may receive schoolmasters for their subjects from the recommendation of a stranger, but not from the command; especially when the ill teaching them shall redound to the great and manifest profit of him that recommends them: nor can they be obliged to retain them, longer than it is for the public good; the care of which they stand so long charged withal, as they retain any other essential right of the sovereignty.

The pastoral authority of sovereigns only is jure divino; that of other pastors is jure civili.

If a man therefore should ask a pastor, in the execution of his office, as the chief-priests and elders of the people (Matth. xxi. 23) asked our Saviour, By what authority doest thou these things, and who gave thee this authority? he can make no other just answer, but that he doth it by the authority of the commonwealth, given him by the king, or assembly that representeth it. All pastors, except the supreme, execute their charges in the right, that is by the authority of the civil sovereign, that is, jure civili. But the king, and every other sovereign, executeth his office of supreme pastor by immediate authority from God, that is to say, in God’s right or jure divino. And therefore none but kings can put into their titles a mark of their submission to God only, Dei gratiâ rex, &c. Bishops ought to say in the beginning of their mandates, By the favour of the King’s Majesty, bishop of such a diocese; or as civil ministers, in His Majesty’s name. For in saying, Divinâ providentiâ, which is the same with Dei gratiâ, though disguised, they deny to have received their authority from the civil state; and slily slip off the collar of their civil subjection, contrary to the unity and defence of the commonwealth.

Christian kings have power to execute all manner of pastoral function.

But if every Christian sovereign be the supreme pastor of his own subjects, it seemeth that he hath also the authority, not only to preach, which perhaps no man will deny, but also to baptize and to administer the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper: and to consecrate both temples and pastors to God’s service; which most men deny; partly because they use not to do it, and partly because the administration of sacraments, and consecration of persons and places to holy uses, requireth the imposition of such men’s hands, as by the like imposition successively from the time of the apostles have been ordained to the like ministry. For proof therefore that Christian kings have power to baptize, and to consecrate, I am to render a reason, both why they use not to do it, and how, without the ordinary ceremony of imposition of hands, they are made capable of doing it when they will.

There is no doubt but any king, in case he were skilful in the sciences, might by the same right of his office read lectures of them himself, by which he authorizeth others to read them in the universities. Nevertheless, because the care of the sum of the business of the commonwealth taketh up his whole time, it were not convenient for him to apply himself in person to that particular. A king may also, if he please, sit in judgment to hear and determine all manner of causes, as well as give others authority to do it in his name; but that the charge, that lieth upon him of command and government, constrain him to be continually at the helm, and to commit the ministerial offices to others under him. In the like manner our Saviour, who surely had power to baptize, baptized none (John iv. 2) himself, but sent his apostles and disciples to baptize. So also St. Paul, by the necessity of preaching in divers and far distant places, baptized few: amongst all the Corinthians he baptized only (1 Cor.i. 14, 16,) Crispus, Gaius, and Stephanas; and the reason was, (1 Cor. i. 17) because his principal charge was to preach. Whereby it is manifest, that the greater charge, such as is the government of the Church, is a dispensation for the less. The reason therefore why Christian kings use not to baptize, is evident, and the same for which at this day there are few baptized by bishops, and by the Pope fewer.

And as concerning imposition of hands, whether it be needful for the authorising of a king to baptize and consecrate, we may consider thus:

Imposition of hands, was a most ancient public ceremony amongst the Jews, by which was designed, and made certain, the person, or other thing intended in a man’s prayer, blessing, sacrifice, consecration, condemnation, or other speech. So Jacob, in blessing the children of Joseph (Gen. xlviii. 14), Laid his right hand on Ephraim the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh the first born; and this he did wittingly (though they were so presented to him by Joseph, as he was forced in doing it to stretch out his arms across) to design to whom he intended the greater blessing. So also in the sacrificing of the burnt offering, Aaron is commanded (Exod. xxix. 10) to lay his hands on the head of the bullock: and (verse 15) to lay his hand on the head of the ram. The same is also said again Levit. i. 4, and viii. 14. Likewise Moses, when he ordained Joshua to be captain of the Israelites, that is, consecrated him to God’s service, (Numb. xxvii. 23) Laid his hands upon him, and gave him his charge, designing and rendering certain, who it was they were to obey in war. And in the consecration of the Levites (Numb. viii. 10), God commanded that the children of Israel should put their hands upon the Levites. And in the condemnation of him that had blasphemed the Lord (Levit. xxiv. 14), God commanded that all that heard him should lay their hands on his head, and that all the congregation should stone him. And why should they only that heard him, lay their hands upon him, and not rather a priest, Levite, or other minister of justice, but that no