Church Power

For the understanding of POWER ECCLESIASTICALL, 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 Soveraign Civill Power; the other after their Conversion. For it was long after the Ascension, before any King, or Civill Soveraign embraced, and publiquely allowed the teaching of Christian Religion.

To understand ECCLESIASTICAL POWER, what it is and who holds it, we must divide the time since our Saviour’s Ascension into two periods. The first is before the conversion of kings and others holding supreme civil power. The second is after their conversion. For a long time after the Ascension, no king or civil ruler embraced Christianity and publicly permitted its teaching.

And for the time between, it is manifest, that the Power Ecclesiasticall, was in the Apostles; and after them in such as were by them ordained to Preach the Gospell, 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 Kingdome. 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 wee read Deuteronomy 34. ver. 9. “And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the Spirit of Wisdome; 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 20.22.) “Receive yee the Holy Spirit;” and after his Ascension (Acts 2.2, 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 Ecclesiasticall continually remained, in those first times, where there was not any Christian Common-wealth; namely, in them that received the same from the Apostles, by successive laying on of hands.

For the intervening period, it is clear that church authority rested with the Apostles. After them, it rested with those they ordained to preach the Gospel and convert people to Christianity. These ministers also guided converts on the path to salvation. These ministers then passed the authority to others whom they ordained by laying hands on them. This laying on of hands signified giving the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, to those ordained as God’s ministers. Their task was to advance his kingdom. So the laying on of hands was simply the seal of their commission to preach Christ and teach his doctrine. Giving the Holy Spirit through this ceremony followed the example of Moses. For Moses used the same ceremony with his minister Joshua, as we read in Deuteronomy 34:9. “And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the Spirit of Wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him.” Our Saviour therefore gave his Spirit to the Apostles between his Resurrection and Ascension. First, he did so by “breathing on them and saying” (John 20:22), “Receive the Holy Spirit.” After his Ascension, he sent down upon them a “mighty wind and divided tongues of fire” (Acts 2:2, 3). He did not give the Spirit by laying hands on them, just as God did not lay hands on Moses. Afterward, his Apostles passed on the same Spirit by laying on hands, as Moses did to Joshua. This makes clear who continually held church authority in those early times, when no Christian commonwealth existed. It rested with those who received that authority from the Apostles through successive laying on of hands.

Here wee have the Person of God born now the third time. For as Moses, and the High Priests, were Gods Representative in the Old Testament; and our Saviour himselfe 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 shewn before, [chapt. 16.].) is he that is Represented, as often as hee 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. 5.7.) saith, “There be three that bear witnesse 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 Sonne, 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 bare witnesse. St. John therefore tells us (verse 11.) that they bear witnesse, that “God hath given us eternall life in his Son.” Again, if it should be asked, wherein that testimony appeareth, the Answer is easie; 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 prophecyed, 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 Witnesse of his Resurrection; as appeareth expressely (Acts 1. ver. 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 Baptisme of John, unto that same day that hee was taken up from us, must one bee ordained to be a Witnesse with us of his Resurrection:” which words interpret the Bearing of Witnesse, mentioned by St. John. There is in the same place mentioned another Trinity of Witnesses in Earth. For (ver. 8.) he saith, “there are three that bear Witnesse in Earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Bloud; and these three agree in one:” that is to say, the graces of Gods Spirit, and the two Sacraments, Baptisme, and the Lords Supper, which all agree in one Testimony, to assure the consciences of beleevers, of eternall life; of which Testimony he saith (verse 10.) “He that beleeveth on the Son of man hath the Witnesse in himselfe.” In this Trinity on Earth the Unity is not of the thing; for the Spirit, the Water, and the Bloud, 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 God who is alwaies 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 Gods Person in ruling, or in directing under him.

Here we have the Person of God represented for the third time. Moses and the High Priests were God’s representatives in the Old Testament. Our Saviour himself, as a man, represented God during his time on earth. Since then, the Holy Ghost has represented God. That is, the Apostles and their successors in preaching and teaching, who had received the Holy Spirit, have represented him. But a Person is whoever is represented, counted separately each time he is represented. I have explained this before [chapt. 16.]. God has been represented, or personated, three times. Therefore, God may properly enough be called three Persons. Yet neither the word Person nor Trinity is applied to him in the Bible. St. John does indeed say (1 Epist. 5.7.), “There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. And these Three are One:” But this statement does not conflict with three Persons. Rather, it fits the proper meaning of Persons: whoever is represented by another. Thus God the Father, as represented by Moses, is one Person. As represented by his Son, God is another Person. As represented by the Apostles and teachers whose authority came from them, God is a third Person. Yet each Person here is the Person of one and the same God. But someone may ask what these three bore witness to. St. John therefore tells us (verse 11.) that they bear witness that “God has given us eternal life in his Son.” Again, someone might ask how that testimony is shown. The answer is simple. God confirmed that testimony through the miracles he performed, first through Moses, then through his Son himself. Finally, God performed miracles through his Apostles, who had received the Holy Spirit. All these, in their own times, represented the Person of God and either prophesied or preached Jesus Christ. As for the first twelve great Apostles, bearing witness to his Resurrection was the defining mark of their apostleship. This is stated explicitly in Acts 1, verses 21 and 22. When a new Apostle was to replace Judas Iscariot, St. Peter used these words: “One of these men must be appointed to join us as a witness to his Resurrection. He must have accompanied us throughout the time the Lord Jesus lived among us. That time began with John’s Baptism and ended on the day Jesus was taken up from us:” These words explain the bearing of witness mentioned by St. John. The same passage in St. John mentions another Trinity of witnesses on earth. For he says (verse 8.), “There are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood. And these three agree in one:” These are the gifts of God’s Spirit and the two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. All give the same testimony, assuring believers in their consciences of eternal life. Of this testimony, he says (verse 10.), “Whoever believes in the Son of man has the witness within himself.” In this earthly Trinity, unity does not mean that the witnesses are one thing. For the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood are not the same substance, although they give the same testimony. But in the heavenly Trinity, the Persons are the Persons of one and the same God. God is represented at three different times and on three different occasions. To conclude, the doctrine of the Trinity, as far as Scripture directly reveals it, amounts to this. God, who is always one and the same, was the Person represented by Moses. He was the Person represented by his Son made flesh, and the Person represented by the Apostles. As God is represented by the Apostles, the Holy Spirit through whom they spoke is God. As God is represented by his Son, who was God and man, the Son is that same God. As God is represented by Moses and the High Priests, the Father is that same God. The Father here means the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. From this we may understand why the Old Testament never uses Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as names for God. For these are Persons, meaning that their names come from representing God. Such names could not arise until different men had represented God’s Person by ruling or giving guidance under his authority.

Thus wee see how the Power Ecclesiasticall 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 sometime in the New Testament Paracletus which signifieth an Assister, or one called to for helpe, though it bee commonly translated a Comforter. Let us now consider the Power it selfe, what it was, and over whom.

Thus we see how our Saviour entrusted church authority to the Apostles. We also see how they received the Holy Spirit so they could better exercise that authority. For this reason, the Holy Spirit is sometimes called Paracletus in the New Testament. The name means a helper, or someone called on for help, though it is usually translated as a Comforter. Let us now consider the authority itself: what it was and over whom it extended.

Cardinall Bellarmine in his third generall Controversie, hath handled a great many questions concerning the Ecclesiasticall Power of the Pope of Rome; and begins with this, Whether it ought to be Monarchicall, Aristocraticall, or Democraticall. All which sorts of Power, are Soveraign, and Coercive. If now it should appear, that there is no Coercive Power left them by our Saviour; but onely a Power to proclaim the Kingdom of Christ, and to perswade men to submit themselves thereunto; and by precepts and good counsell, 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 Schoolemasters, and not our Commanders, and their Precepts not Laws, but wholesome Counsells then were all that dispute in vain.

Cardinal Bellarmine, in his third general Controversy, discusses many questions about the church authority of the Pope of Rome. He begins by asking whether this authority should be monarchical, aristocratic, or democratic. All these forms of power are sovereign and coercive. Now suppose it becomes clear that our Saviour gave church ministers no power to compel obedience. Suppose he gave them only the power to proclaim Christ’s Kingdom and persuade people to submit to it. Suppose their instructions and good advice are only meant to teach those who have submitted what they must do. The purpose is for those people to be received into the Kingdom of God when it comes. Suppose, too, that the Apostles and other ministers of the Gospel are our teachers, not our commanders. And suppose their instructions are not laws, but sound advice. If all this proves true, then that entire debate would be pointless.

I have shewn already (in the last Chapter,) that the Kingdome of Christ is not of this world: therefore neither can his Ministers (unlesse they be Kings,) require obedience in his name. For if the Supreme King, have not his Regall Power in this world; by what authority can obedience be required to his Officers? As my Father sent me, (so saith our Saviour) I send you. But our Saviour was sent to perswade the Jews to return to, and to invite the Gentiles, to receive the Kingdome of his Father, and not to reign in Majesty, no not, as his Fathers Lieutenant, till the day of Judgment.

I have already shown in the last chapter that the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world. Therefore, his ministers cannot demand obedience in his name unless they are kings. For if the Supreme King has no royal power in this world, what authority can his officers have to demand obedience? Our Saviour says, as my Father sent me, so I send you. But our Saviour was sent to persuade the Jews to return to his Father’s Kingdom. He was also sent to invite the Gentiles to accept that Kingdom. He was not sent to reign in majesty until the Day of Judgment, not even as his Father’s deputy.

The time between the Ascension, and the generall 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, Mat. 19.28. “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. 6.15.) “Having your feet shod with the Preparation of the Gospell of Peace.”

The time between the Ascension and the general Resurrection is called not a reign, but a regeneration. This means preparing people for Christ’s second and glorious coming on the day of Judgment. Our Saviour’s words in Matthew 19:28 show this: “You who have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man sits on his glorious throne, you too will sit on twelve thrones.” So do St. Paul’s words in Ephesians 6:15: “With your feet fitted with the preparation of the Gospel of Peace.”

And is compared by our Saviour, to Fishing; that is, to winning men to obedience, not by Coercion, and Punishing; but by Perswasion: and therefore he said not to his Apostles, hee 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 Christs Ministers, is Evangelization; that is, a Proclamation of Christ, and a preparation for his second comming; as the Evangelization of John Baptist, was a preparation to his first coming.

And our Saviour compares it to fishing, meaning winning people over to obedience through persuasion, not force and punishment. So he did not tell his Apostles he would make them Nimrods, hunters of men, but fishers of men. It is also compared to yeast, to sowing seed, and to the growth of a mustard seed. All these comparisons rule out force, so there can be no actual rule during that time. The work of Christ’s ministers is evangelization, meaning proclaiming Christ and preparing for his second coming. In the same way, the evangelization of John Baptist prepared for Christ’s first coming.

Again, the Office of Christs Ministers in this world, is to make men Beleeve, and have Faith in Christ: But Faith hath no relation to, nor dependence at all upon Compulsion, or Commandement; but onely upon certainty, or probability of Arguments drawn from Reason, or from something men beleeve already. Therefore the Ministers of Christ in this world, have no Power by that title, to Punish any man for not Beleeving, or for Contradicting what they say; they have I say no Power by that title of Christs Ministers, to Punish such: but if they have Soveraign Civill Power, by politick institution, then they may indeed lawfully Punish any Contradiction to their laws whatsoever: And St. Paul, of himselfe and other then Preachers of the Gospell saith in expresse words, (2 Cor. 1.24.) “Wee have no Dominion over your Faith, but are Helpers of your Joy.”

Again, the role of Christ’s ministers in this world is to lead people to believe and have faith in Christ. But faith has no connection with, or dependence on, force or commands. Faith depends only on the certainty or likelihood of arguments based on reason or on something people already believe. Therefore, Christ’s ministers in this world have no authority as ministers to punish anyone for not believing or for contradicting them. I repeat, their position as Christ’s ministers gives them no authority to punish such people. But if they hold sovereign civil power through an established political system, they may lawfully punish any opposition to their laws whatsoever. And St. Paul speaks explicitly of himself and the other preachers of the Gospel of his time (2 Cor. 1:24): “We have no rule over your faith, but are helpers in your joy.”

Another Argument, that the Ministers of Christ in this present world have no right of Commanding, may be drawn from the lawfull Authority which Christ hath left to all Princes, as well Christians, as Infidels. St. Paul saith (Col. 3.20.) “Children obey your Parents in all things; for this is well pleasing to the Lord.” And ver. 22. “Servants obey in all things your Masters according to the flesh, not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but in singlenesse of heart, as fearing the Lord;” This is spoken to them whose Masters were Infidells; and yet they are bidden to obey them In All Things. And again, concerning obedience to Princes. (Rom. 13. the first 6. 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 onely for” fear of incurring their “wrath, but also for conscience sake.” And St. Peter, (1 Epist. chap. 2e ver. 13, 14, 15.) “Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man, for the Lords sake, whether it bee to the King, as Supreme, or unto Governours, as to them that be sent by him for the punishment of evill doers, and for the praise of them that doe well; for so is the will of God.” And again St. Paul (Tit. 3.1.) “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 obey those Christians, whom God hath ordained to have Soveraign Power over us. How then can wee be obliged to doe any thing contrary to the Command of the King, or other Soveraign Representant of the Common-wealth, 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, unlesse they be also endued with Civill Authority, any authority to Command other men.

Another argument may show that Christ’s ministers have no right to command in this world. It comes from the lawful authority Christ has left to all rulers, both Christians and unbelievers. St. Paul says (Col. 3:20), “Children, obey your parents in all things, for this pleases the Lord.” And in verse 22, “Servants, obey your earthly masters in all things. Do not work only when watched, to please people, but with a sincere heart, fearing the Lord.” These words address servants whose masters were unbelievers. Yet those servants are told to obey their masters in all things. Again, concerning obedience to rulers, St. Paul urges people to “submit to the governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1–6). He says “all authority is established by God.” He also says “we ought to submit to those authorities, not only for fear of their anger, but also for conscience’s sake.” And St. Peter says (1 Peter 2:13, 14, 15), “Submit yourselves to every human institution for the Lord’s sake. Submit whether to the king as supreme, or to governors sent by him to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good. For this is God’s will.” Again, St. Paul says (Tit. 3:1), “Remind people to submit to rulers and authorities, and to obey magistrates.” The rulers and authorities St. Peter and St. Paul speak of here were all unbelievers. How much more, then, must we obey Christian rulers whom God has appointed to hold sovereign power over us? How, then, can we be obliged to do anything against the commands of our king or other sovereign representative? We are members of the commonwealth that sovereign represents, and we look to that sovereign for protection. It is therefore clear that Christ has given his ministers no authority to command others in this world, unless those ministers also hold civil authority.

But what (may some object) if a King, or a Senate, or other Soveraign Person forbid us to beleeve in Christ? To this I answer, that such forbidding is of no effect, because Beleef, and Unbeleef never follow mens 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 wee bee commanded by our lawfull Prince, to say with our tongue, wee beleeve not; must we obey such command? Profession with the tongue is but an externall thing, and no more then any other gesture whereby we signifie our obedience; and wherein a Christian, holding firmely 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 hee saith (2 Kings 5.17.) “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 my selfe in the house of Rimmon; when I bow my selfe in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing.” This the Prophet approved, and bid him “Goe in peace.” Here Naaman beleeved in his heart; but by bowing before the Idol Rimmon, he denyed the true God in effect, as much as if he had done it with his lips. But then what shall we answer to our Saviours saying, “Whosoever denyeth 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 in obedience to his Soveraign, 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 Soveraigns; nor is it he that in this case denyeth Christ before men, but his Governour, and the law of his countrey. 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 Common-wealth, that should be inwardly in his heart of the Mahometan Religion, whether if his Soveraign Command him to bee present at the divine service of the Christian Church, and that on pain of death, he think that Mamometan obliged in conscience to suffer death for that cause, rather than to 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 bee obedient, then he alloweth to himself, that which hee denyeth to another, contrary to the words of our Saviour, “Whatsoever you would that men should doe unto you, that doe yee 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 doe unto thee.”

But some may object: What if a King, Senate, or other sovereign authority forbids us to believe in Christ? My answer is that such a ban has no effect, because belief and unbelief never follow human commands. Faith is a gift from God. No one can give or take away faith through promises of rewards or threats of torture. Someone may then ask: What if our lawful ruler commands us to say that we do not believe? Must we obey that command? A spoken declaration is only an outward act, no different from any other gesture expressing obedience. In making such a declaration, a Christian who firmly holds faith in Christ has the freedom Elisha allowed Naaman the Syrian. Naaman had turned in his heart to the God of Israel. For he says (2 Kings 5:17), “Your servant will no longer offer burnt offerings or sacrifices to other Gods, but only to the Lord. May the Lord pardon your servant in this matter. When my master enters the house of Rimmon to worship, he leans on my arm, and I bow there. When I bow in the house of Rimmon, may the Lord pardon your servant for doing so.” The Prophet approved this and told him, “Go in peace.” Here Naaman believed in his heart. But by bowing before the idol Rimmon, he effectively denied the true God, just as much as by speaking. But then how should we answer our Saviour’s words, “Whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my Father in Heaven”? We may answer as follows. A subject, as Naaman was, may be compelled to act in obedience to his sovereign. If he acts not according to his own wishes, but according to his country’s laws, the action is his sovereign’s. The action is not his own. In that case, the subject does not deny Christ before others. Rather, his ruler and his country’s law deny Christ. If anyone accuses this teaching of contradicting true and sincere Christianity, I ask him to consider the following case. Suppose a subject in a Christian commonwealth is inwardly a follower of the religion of Mahomet. His sovereign commands him, on pain of death, to attend worship in the Christian Church. Does the critic think this follower of Mahomet is bound in conscience to die rather than obey his lawful ruler? If the critic says he should die instead, then the critic authorizes all private individuals to disobey their rulers. He authorizes them to do so in defence of their religion, whether true or false. If he says the subject should obey, then he allows himself what he denies another. This contradicts our Saviour’s words, “Whatever you would want others to do to you, do to them.” It also contradicts the Law of Nature, which is the unquestionable, everlasting Law of God: “Do not do to another what you would not want him to do to you.”

But what then shall we say of all those Martyrs we read of in the History of the Church, that they have needlessely 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 professe the Kingdome of Christ openly; others have had no such Calling, nor more has been required of them than their owne faith. The former sort, if they have been put to death, for bearing witnesse 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 Witnesse 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 Witnesse 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, Act. 1.21, 22. “Wherefore of these men which have companyed with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst us, beginning from the Baptisme of John unto that same day hee was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a Martyr (that is a Witnesse) with us of his Resurrection:” Where we may observe, that he which is to bee a Witnesse of the truth of the Resurrection of Christ, that is to say, of the truth of this fundamentall 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 originall Disciples: whereas they which were not so, can Witnesse no more, but that their antecessors said it, and are therefore but Witnesses of other mens testimony; and are but second Martyrs, or Martyrs of Christs Witnesses.

But what should we say about all those Martyrs we read about in the history of the Church? Did they needlessly throw away their lives? To answer, we must distinguish between the people put to death for that cause. Some had received a calling to preach and openly proclaim the Kingdom of Christ. Others had received no such calling, and nothing more was required of them than their own faith. Those with a calling were true Martyrs if they were killed for testifying that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For the true definition of a Martyr is a witness to the Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. Only those who knew him on earth and saw him after he rose can be such witnesses. For witnesses must have seen what they testify to. Otherwise, their testimony is not valid. St. Peter’s words in Acts 1:21, 22 make clear that only such people can properly be called Martyrs of Christ. “Therefore, we must choose one of the men who accompanied us throughout the time the Lord Jesus lived among us. That time began with John’s baptism and ended on the day Jesus was taken up from us. One of these men must be appointed a Martyr (that is, a witness) with us to his Resurrection.” Here we can see who can testify to the truth of Christ’s Resurrection. Such testimony concerns the truth of this fundamental article of the Christian religion: that Jesus was the Christ. The witness must be a Disciple who knew him and saw him both before and after his Resurrection. Consequently, the witness must be one of his original Disciples. Those who were not original Disciples can testify only that their predecessors said these things. They are therefore only witnesses to other people’s testimony. They are only secondhand Martyrs, or Martyrs of Christ’s witnesses.

He, that to maintain every doctrine which he himself draweth out of the History of our Saviours life, and of the Acts, or Epistles of the Apostles; or which he beleeveth upon the authority of a private man, wil oppose the Laws and Authority of the Civill State, is very far from being a Martyr of Christ, or a Martyr of his Martyrs. ’Tis one Article onely, which to die for, meriteth so honorable 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 eternall life in his glorious Kingdome. To die for every tenet that serveth the ambition, or profit of the Clergy, is not required; nor is it the Death of the Witnesse, but the Testimony it self that makes the Martyr: for the word signifieth nothing else, but the man that beareth Witnesse, whether he be put to death for his testimony, or not.

Someone may oppose the laws and authority of the civil state to defend every doctrine he draws from Scripture. These doctrines may come from the history of our Saviour’s life or the Acts or Epistles of the Apostles. Or he may believe these doctrines on the authority of a private individual. Such a person is far from being a martyr for Christ or a martyr for Christ’s martyrs. Only one article of faith deserves so honorable a name when someone dies for it: Jesus is the Christ. That is, he has redeemed us and will come again to give us salvation and eternal life in his glorious kingdom. No one is required to die for every belief that serves the clergy’s ambition or profit. Nor is a witness made a martyr by his death, but by his testimony itself. For “martyr” means nothing more than someone who bears witness, whether or not he is put to death for his testimony.

Also he that is not sent to preach this fundamentall article, but taketh it upon him of his private authority, though he be a Witnesse, 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, tis not required at his hands; nor ought hee 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 Witnesse to him that already beleeveth, and therefore needs no Witnesse; 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 beleeved: And he sent them to unbeleevers; “I send you (saith he) as sheep amongst wolves;” not as sheep to other sheep.

Also, someone who has not been sent to preach this fundamental article of faith may undertake it on his own authority. Though he is a witness, and therefore a martyr, he is not obliged to suffer death for that cause. This holds whether he is a direct witness to Christ or an indirect witness to his Apostles, Disciples, or their successors. Because he has not been called to this work, such suffering is not required of him. Nor should he complain if he loses the reward he expects from those who never assigned him the work. Therefore, no one can be a martyr of either degree without authorization to preach that Christ has come in the flesh. That is, only those sent to convert unbelievers can be martyrs. For no one serves as a witness to someone who already believes and therefore needs no witness. Instead, a witness addresses those who deny, doubt, or have not heard the message. Christ authorized his Apostles and his Seventy Disciples to preach. He did not send everyone who believed. And he sent them to unbelievers. “I send you,” he says, “as sheep among wolves,” not as sheep to other sheep.

Lastly the points of their Commission, as they are expressely set down in the Gospel, contain none of them any authority over the Congregation.

Finally, none of the terms of their commission, as explicitly stated in the Gospel, grant authority over the congregation.

We have first (Mat. 10.) that the twelve Apostles were sent “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” and commanded to Preach, “that the Kingdome of God was at hand.” Now Preaching in the originall, is that act, which a Crier, Herald, or other Officer useth to doe publiquely in Proclaiming of a King. But a Crier hath not right to Command any man. And (Luke 10.2.) the seventy Disciples are sent out, “as Labourers, not as Lords of the Harvest;” and are bidden (verse 9.) to say, “The Kingdome of God is come nigh unto you;” and by Kingdome here is meant, not the Kingdome of Grace, but the Kingdome of Glory; for they are bidden to denounce it (ver. 11.) to those Cities which shall not receive them, as a threatning, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodome, than for such a City. And (Mat. 20.28.) 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 ministred unto, but to minister. Preachers therefore have not Magisteriall, but Ministeriall power: “Bee not called Masters, (saith our Saviour, Mat. 23.10) for one is your Master, even Christ.”

First, we read (Mat. 10.) that the twelve Apostles were sent “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” They were commanded to preach “that the Kingdom of God was near.” In the original language, preaching means publicly proclaiming a King, as a crier, herald, or other officer does. But a crier has no right to command anyone. And in Luke 10.2, the seventy Disciples are sent out “as workers, not as lords of the harvest.” They are told (verse 9) to say, “The Kingdom of God has come near you.” The Kingdom here means not the Kingdom of Grace, but the Kingdom of Glory. For the Disciples are told (verse 11) to announce this Kingdom as a threat to cities that refuse to receive them. On that day, Sodom will be treated more leniently than such a city. And in Mat. 20.28, our Saviour addresses his Disciples who sought the highest positions. He tells them their role is to serve, just as the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve. Preachers therefore have authority to serve, not to rule. “Do not be called Masters,” says our Saviour (Mat. 23.10), “for you have one Master, Christ.”

Another point of their Commission, is, to Teach All Nations; as it is in Mat. 28.19. or as in St. Mark 16.15 “Goe into all the world, and Preach the Gospel to every creature.” Teaching therefore, and Preaching is the same thing. For they that Proclaim the comming of a King, must withall make known by what right he commeth, if they mean men shall submit themselves unto him: As St. Paul did to the Jews of Thessalonica, when “three Sabbath days he reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, opening, and alledging 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 beleeve it, to obey those that tell them so, against the laws, and commands of their Soveraigns; but that they shall doe wisely, to expect the coming of Christ hereafter, in Patience, and Faith, with Obedience to their present Magistrates.

Another part of their commission is to teach all nations, as stated in Matthew 28:19. Or, as Mark 16:15 says, “Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.” Teaching and preaching are therefore the same thing. For those who announce a king’s coming must also explain his right to rule, if they want people to submit to him. St. Paul did this when he spoke to the Jews of Thessalonica. For “three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and showing that Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and that this Jesus is Christ.” But teaching from the Old Testament that Jesus was Christ (that is, King) and rose from the dead means something different. It does not mean that, once people believe this teaching, they must obey their teachers against their sovereigns’ laws and commands. Rather, it means they would be wise to await Christ’s future coming with patience and faith, obeying their present rulers.

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 Baptisme? 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 Baptisme is this. He that is Baptized, is Dipped or Washed, as a sign of becomming a new man, and a loyall 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 Sonne, God, and Man, that hath redeemed us, and shall in his humane nature Represent his Fathers Person in his eternall Kingdome 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 Kingdome, to be the onely, and assured way thereunto. This, being our promise in Baptisme; and the Authority of Earthly Soveraigns being not to be put down till the day of Judgment; (for that is expressely affirmed by S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. 22, 23, 24. where he saith, “As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive. But every man in his owne order, Christ the first fruits, afterward they that are Christs, at his comming; Then Commeth the end, when he shall have delivered up the Kingdome of 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 Baptisme constitute over us another authority, by which our externall 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 eternall.

Another part 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 does it mean to dip someone into water in the name of anything? The words of baptism mean the following. The person baptized is dipped or washed as a sign of becoming a new person and a loyal subject of God. Moses and the High Priests represented God in earlier times, when he ruled over the Jews. The baptized person also becomes a loyal subject of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, who is both God and man. Jesus Christ has redeemed us. After the Resurrection, he will represent his Father in his eternal Kingdom in his human nature. The baptized person also acknowledges the teaching of the Apostles as the only sure way into that Kingdom. The Apostles, helped by the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, were left as our guides into that Kingdom. These are the promises we make in baptism. And the authority of earthly sovereigns is not to be abolished until the Day of Judgment. St. Paul expressly affirms this in 1 Corinthians 15:22, 23, 24, where he says: “As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to Christ, at his coming. Then comes the end, when he will have handed over the Kingdom to God, the Father. By then he will have abolished all rule and all authority and power.” So clearly, baptism does not establish another authority over us to govern our outward actions in this life. Instead, we promise to follow the teaching of the Apostles as our guide on the way to eternal life.

The Power of Remission, And Retention Of Sinnes, called also the Power of Loosing, and Binding, and sometimes the Keyes Of The Kingdome Of Heaven, is a consequence of the Authority to Baptize, or refuse to Baptize. For Baptisme is the Sacrament of Allegeance, of them that are to be received into the Kingdome of God; that is to say, into Eternall life; that is to say, to Remission of Sin: For as Eternall life was lost by the Committing, so it is recovered by the Remitting of mens Sins. The end of Baptisme 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 doe, advised them 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 Gods Kingdome; 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 20.22.) “Receive the Holy Ghost,” hee addeth in the next verse, “Whose soever Sins ye Remit, they are Remitted unto them; and whose soever 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 Forgivenesse, or Absolution, in case the absolved have but a feigned Repentance, is thereby without other act, or sentence of the Absolvent, 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 appeare not, they have no authority to Absolve. The same also is to be observed in Baptisme: for to a converted Jew, or Gentile, the Apostles had not the Power to deny Baptisme; nor to grant it to the Un-penitent. But seeing no man is able to discern the truth of another mans Repentance, further than by externall marks, taken from his words, and actions, which are subject to hypocrisie; another question will arise, Who it is that is constituted Judge of those marks. And this question is decided by our Saviour himself; (Mat. 18. 15, 16, 17.) “If thy Brother (saith he) shall trespasse 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, 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 Faithfull, or to them that have authority to bee their Representant. But besides the Judgment, there is necessary also the pronouncing of Sentence: And this belonged alwaies to the Apostle, or some Pastor of the Church, as Prolocutor; and of this our Saviour speaketh in the 18 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 comformable hereunto was the practise of St. Paul (1 Cor. 5.3, 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 (ver. 11, 12.) the Judgment in such a case is more expressely 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 judg them that are without? Do not ye judg 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 Soveraign Authority in the Common-wealth,) the Assembly of the Christians dwelling in the same City; as in Corinth, in the Assembly of the Christians of Corinth.

The power to forgive sins or leave them unforgiven is also called the power of loosing and binding. Sometimes it is called the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. This power follows from the authority to baptize or refuse baptism. For baptism is the sacrament of allegiance for those entering the Kingdom of God. Entering that kingdom means receiving eternal life, which means receiving forgiveness of sins. For just as people lost eternal life by committing sins, they recover eternal life through forgiveness of their sins. The purpose of baptism is forgiveness of sins. So when those converted by St. Peter’s sermon on Pentecost asked what to do, he advised them to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus, for the forgiveness of sins.” Baptizing people therefore declares their acceptance into God’s kingdom, while refusing baptism declares their exclusion. It follows that the same Apostles, their deputies, and their successors received authority to declare people excluded or retained in that kingdom. So after our Saviour breathed on the Apostles, saying, (John 20:22) “Receive the Holy Spirit,” he added in the next verse, “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven. If you leave anyone’s sins unforgiven, they remain unforgiven.” These words do not grant unconditional, absolute authority to forgive sins or leave them unforgiven, as God does. God knows the human heart and whether repentance and conversion are genuine. Instead, this authority grants forgiveness on condition that the person repents. If someone receiving forgiveness, or absolution, only pretends to repent, that absolution becomes void. No further act or judgment by the person granting absolution is needed. Such absolution contributes nothing to salvation. On the contrary, it makes the person’s sin worse. Therefore, the Apostles and their successors must rely only on outward signs of repentance. When those signs appear, they have no authority to deny absolution. When those signs do not appear, they have no authority to grant absolution. The same rule applies to baptism. The Apostles had no power to deny baptism to a converted Jew or Gentile, or to baptize the unrepentant. But no one can judge another person’s repentance beyond the outward signs found in that person’s words and actions. Those signs may be hypocritical. So another question arises: Who has been appointed to judge those signs? Our Saviour himself answers this question (Matthew 18:15, 16, 17): “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault privately, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won your brother back. But if he will not listen, take one or two others with you. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell the Church. Let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” These words make clear that judging the sincerity of repentance did not belong to any one person. That judgment belonged to the Church, meaning the assembly of the faithful, or those authorized to represent the assembly. But besides reaching a judgment, someone must also pronounce the sentence. This duty always belonged to the Apostle or a pastor of the Church, acting as its spokesperson. Our Saviour speaks of this duty in verse 18: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. And whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” St. Paul’s practice followed this rule (1 Corinthians 5:3, 4, and 5). He says, “For although I am absent in body, I am present in spirit. I have already decided about the man who committed this deed, just as if I were present. When you gather in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, with my spirit present and our Lord Jesus Christ’s power, hand such a man over to Satan.” This means expelling the man from the Church as someone whose sins are not forgiven. Paul pronounces the sentence here. But the assembly first had to hear the case, since St. Paul was absent. The assembly therefore also had to condemn the man. In the same chapter (verses 11 and 12), the authority to judge such cases is assigned more explicitly to the assembly: “But now I have written to you not to associate with anyone called a brother who commits sexual immorality, etc. Do not even eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those within the Church?” So the Apostle or pastor pronounced the sentence expelling someone from the Church. But the Church had authority to judge the merits of the case. At that time, kings and others holding sovereign authority in the commonwealth had not yet converted. The Church therefore meant the assembly of Christians living in the same city. In Corinth, for example, it meant the assembly of the Christians of Corinth.

This part of the Power of the Keyes, by which men were thrust out from the Kingdome of God, is that which is called Excommunication; and to excommunicate, is in the Originall, Aposunagogon Poiein, 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 part of the Power of the Keys used to expel people from the Kingdom of God is called excommunication. In the original language, to excommunicate is Aposunagogon Poiein, meaning to cast out of the synagogue, the place of worship. The term comes from the Jewish custom of expelling people whose conduct or teachings were considered contagious. This was like the separation of lepers from the congregation of Israel under the Law of Moses. Lepers remained separated until a priest declared them clean.

The Use and Effect of Excommunication, whilest it was not yet strengthened with the Civill 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 eate, and drink; which with Excommunicate persons they might not do; as appeareth by the words of St. Paul, (1 Cor. 5. ver. 9, 10, &c.) where he telleth them, he had formerly forbidden them to “company with Fornicators;” but (because that could not bee 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 (Mat. 18.17.) “Let him be to thee as a Heathen, and as a Publican.” For Publicans (which signifieth Farmers, and Receivers of the revenue of the Common-wealth) were so hated, and detested by the Jews that were to pay for it, as that Publican and Sinner were taken amongst them for the same thing: Insomuch, as when our Saviour accepted the invitation of Zacchaeus 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.

Before excommunication was backed by civil power, its use and effect went no further than requiring others to avoid excommunicated people. Treating them as heathens who had never been Christians was not enough. Christians could eat and drink with heathens, but not with excommunicated people. This distinction appears in the words of St. Paul (1 Cor. 5:9, 10, etc.). He tells the Corinthians that he had previously forbidden them to “keep company with those who commit sexual immorality.” But avoiding all such people would mean leaving the world. So he limits this ban to sexually immoral people and others who behave wickedly who belong to the Christian fellowship. “With such a person,” he says, Christians should not keep company, “not even to eat.” This means no more than what our Saviour says (Mat. 18:17.): “Treat him as a heathen and a tax collector.” Tax collectors were contractors and collectors of the Commonwealth’s revenue. The Jews who had to pay these taxes hated and despised tax collectors. Among those Jews, tax collector and sinner meant the same thing. Their hatred was so strong that our Saviour was accused of wrongdoing when he accepted Zacchaeus’s invitation. Zacchaeus was a tax collector, although our Saviour accepted the invitation to convert him. Therefore, by adding tax collector to heathen, our Saviour forbade Christians to eat with an excommunicated person.

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 Common-wealth; as well hee that was Excommunicated, as hee that never was Baptized, might enter into them by Commission from the Civill Magistrate; as Paul before his conversion entred into their Synagogues at Damascus, (Acts 9.2.) to apprehend Christians, men and women, and to carry them bound to Jerusalem, by Commission from the High Priest.

As for keeping them out of their synagogues or meeting places, they had only the authority of the place’s owner. This was true whether the owner was Christian or Heathen. And because all places rightfully fall under the Commonwealth’s authority, the civil magistrate could authorize entry into them. This applied equally to someone who had been excommunicated and someone who had never been baptized. Just so, before his conversion, Paul entered their synagogues at Damascus (Acts 9.2.) with authority from the High Priest. His purpose was to arrest Christians, both men and women, and take them in chains to Jerusalem.

By which it appears, that upon a Christian, that should become an Apostate, in a place where the Civill Power did persecute, or not assist the Church, the effect of Excommunication had nothing in it, neither of dammage in this world, nor of terrour: Not of terrour, because of their unbeleef; nor of dammage, because they returned thereby into the favour of the world; and in the world to come, were to be in no worse estate, then they which never had beleeved. The dammage redounded rather to the Church, by provocation of them they cast out, to a freer execution of their malice.

This shows what happened if a Christian abandoned the faith where civil authorities persecuted or did not support the Church. Excommunication brought such a person neither harm in this world nor fear. It brought no fear because the person no longer believed. It brought no harm because being expelled restored the person to the world's favor. And in the world to come, the former believer would be no worse off than those who had never believed. Instead, the harm fell on the Church, because expelling people provoked them to act more freely on their malice.

Excommunication therefore had its effect onely upon those, that beleeved 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 Kingdomes after Judgment, are comprehended in the Kingdome of Satan. This is it that the faithfull stood in fear of, as long as they stood Excommunicate, that is to say, in an estate wherein their sins were not Forgiven. Whereby wee may understand, that Excommunication in the time that Christian Religion was not authorized by the Civill Power, was used onely for a correction of manners, not of errours in opinion: for it is a punishment, whereof none could be sensible but such as beleeved, and expected the coming again of our Saviour to judge the world; and they who so beleeved, needed no other opinion, but onely uprightnesse of life, to be saved.

Excommunication therefore affected only those who believed that Jesus Christ would return in glory to reign and judge the living and the dead. These believers expected him to deny entry into his Kingdom to those whose sins remained unforgiven. That meant those whom the Church had excommunicated. This is why St. Paul calls excommunication handing the excommunicated person over to Satan. For after Judgment, all kingdoms outside the Kingdom of Christ are included in the Kingdom of Satan. The faithful feared this exclusion as long as they remained excommunicated, with their sins unforgiven. From this we may understand how excommunication was used when the civil power had not authorized the Christian religion. It was used only to correct conduct, not errors in opinion. For only those who believed in and expected our Saviour’s return to judge the world could feel this punishment. And those who believed this needed no other belief to be saved, but only an upright life.

There Lyeth Excommunication for Injustice; as (Mat. 18.) 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 lyeth Excommunication for a Scandalous Life, as (1 Cor. 5. 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 yee are not to eat.” But to Excommunicate a man that held this foundation, that Jesus Was The Christ, for difference of opinion in other points, by which that Foundation was not destroyed, there appeareth no authority in the Scripture, nor example in the Apostles. There is indeed in St. Paul (Titus 3.10.) a text that seemeth to be to the contrary. “A man that is an Haeretique, after the first and second admonition, reject.” For an Haeretique, is he, that being a member of the Church, teacheth neverthelesse some private opinion, which the Church has forbidden: and such a one, S. 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 onely by himselfe. The same Apostle saith (2 Tim. 2.23.) “Foolish and unlearned questions avoid;” The word Avoid in this place, and Reject in the former, is the same in the Originall, paraitou: but Foolish questions may bee set by without Excommunication. And again, (Tit. 3.93) “Avoid Foolish questions,” where the Originall, periistaso, (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 faithfull men, such as beleeved the foundation, onely for a singular superstructure of their own, proceeding perhaps from a good & 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 controversie, which oblige men to a needlesse burthen of Conscience, or provoke them to break the union of the Church. Which Lesson the Apostles themselves observed well. S. Peter and S. Paul, though their controversie were great, (as we may read in Gal. 2.11.) yet they did not cast one another out of the Church. Neverthelesse, during the Apostles time, there were other Pastors that observed it not; As Diotrephes (3 John 9. &c.) who cast out of the Church, such as S. John himself thought fit to be received into it, out of a pride he took in Praeeminence; so early it was, that Vainglory, and Ambition had found entrance into the Church of Christ.

Excommunication is justified for injustice, as in Matthew 18. If your brother wrongs you, tell him privately, then with witnesses, and finally tell the Church. If he still refuses to listen, “Treat him as a heathen and a tax collector.” Excommunication is also justified for a scandalous life, as in 1 Corinthians 5:11. “If anyone called a brother is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, a drunkard, or an extortioner, do not eat with him.” But suppose a man holds to the foundation that Jesus was the Christ. Scripture gives no authority for excommunicating him over other opinions that do not undermine that foundation. Nor do the Apostles provide any example of doing so. There is indeed a passage in St. Paul that seems to say otherwise (Titus 3:10). “Reject a heretic after the first and second warning.” A heretic is a Church member who nevertheless teaches some personal opinion that the Church has forbidden. St. Paul advises Titus to reject such a person after the first and second warning. But here, rejecting the man does not mean excommunicating him. It means giving up warning him, leaving him alone, and stopping arguments with him. He must be left as someone who can be convinced only by himself. The same Apostle says (2 Timothy 2:23), “Avoid foolish and ignorant questions.” The original uses the same word, paraitou, for “Avoid” here and “Reject” in the earlier passage. But foolish questions can be set aside without excommunication. Again, Titus 3:9 says, “Avoid foolish questions.” Here the original word, periistaso, means “set them aside” and is equivalent to the earlier word, “Reject.” No other passage can even plausibly support expelling faithful people from the Church merely for distinctive beliefs of their own. Such people believe the foundation, and their additional beliefs may perhaps come from a good and devout conscience. On the contrary, all passages commanding people to avoid such disputes teach a lesson to pastors like Timothy and Titus. Pastors must not create new articles of faith by settling every minor controversy. Doing so places an unnecessary burden on people’s consciences or provokes them to break the Church’s unity. The Apostles themselves followed this lesson well. St. Peter and St. Paul had a serious dispute, as we can read in Galatians 2:11. Yet they did not expel each other from the Church. Nevertheless, even in the Apostles’ time, other pastors failed to follow this lesson. One was Diotrephes (3 John 9 and following). He expelled people whom St. John himself thought should be admitted to the Church. Diotrephes did so out of pride in his position of authority. So early had vanity and ambition entered the Church of Christ.

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 lawfull Assembly, that is to say, of some Christian Church, that hath power to judge of the cause for which hee is to bee Excommunicated. For where there is no community, there can bee no Excommunication; nor where there is no power to Judge, can there bee any power to give Sentence. From hence it followeth, that one Church cannot be Excommunicated by another: For either they have equall power to Excommunicate each other, in which case Excommunication is not Discipline, nor an act of Authority, but Schisme, 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 individuall persons.

Many conditions must be met before a person can be subject to excommunication. First, the person must belong to a community, meaning a lawful assembly, specifically a Christian Church. That Church must have the authority to judge the grounds for the person's excommunication. For where there is no community, there can be no excommunication. And where there is no authority to judge, there can be no authority to pass sentence. It follows that one Church cannot be excommunicated by another. For either the two Churches have equal authority to excommunicate each other, or one is subordinate to the other. In the first case, excommunication is neither discipline nor an act of authority. Instead, it is a schism and a breakdown of Christian love. In the second case, one Church is so subordinate to the other that both speak with one voice. They are therefore only one Church. The excommunicated part is then no longer a Church, but a scattered collection of individuals.

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 Soveraign Prince, or Assembly bee Excommunicate, the sentence is of no effect. For all Subjects are bound to be in the company and presence of their own Soveraign (when he requireth it) by the law of Nature; nor can they lawfully either expell him from any place of his own Dominion, whether profane or holy; nor go out of his Dominion, without his leave; much lesse (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 needfull for keeping Kings and States asunder; nor has any further effect then is in the nature of Policy it selfe; unlesse it be to instigate Princes to warre upon one another.

A sentence of excommunication advises people not to associate or even eat with the excommunicated person. Because of this, if a sovereign prince or assembly is excommunicated, the sentence has no effect. For natural law requires all subjects to attend their own sovereign whenever the sovereign demands their presence. Nor can subjects lawfully expel their sovereign from any place within the sovereign’s own territory, whether secular or sacred. Nor can subjects leave that territory without the sovereign’s permission. Much less can subjects refuse to eat with their sovereign, if the sovereign invites them to that honor. As for other princes and states, they do not belong to one and the same congregation. So they need no further sentence to keep them from associating with the excommunicated state. For just as the establishment of a political community unites many people, it also separates one community from another. So excommunication is unnecessary for keeping kings and states apart. Nor does excommunication have any effect beyond what political organization itself produces, unless it incites princes to war against one another.

Nor is the Excommunication of a Christian Subject, that obeyeth the laws of his own Soveraign, whether Christian, or Heathen, of any effect. For if he beleeve that “Jesus is the Christ, he hath the Spirit of God” (1 Joh. 4.1.) “and God dwelleth in him, and he in God,” (1 Joh. 4.15.) But hee that hath the Spirit of God; hee that dwelleth in God; hee in whom God dwelleth, can receive no harm by the Excommunication of men. Therefore, he that beleeveth Jesus to be the Christ, is free from all the dangers threatned to persons Excommunicate. He that beleeveth 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 bee contrary to the law of his Soveraign, 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 externall Actions, which Actions can never bee unlawfull, but when they are against the Law of the Common-wealth.

Nor does excommunication have any effect on a Christian subject who obeys the laws of his own sovereign. This holds whether the sovereign is Christian or pagan. For if the subject believes that “Jesus is the Christ, he has the Spirit of God” (1 Joh. 4.1.) “and God lives in him, and he in God,” (1 Joh. 4.15.) But someone who has the Spirit of God, lives in God, and has God living in him cannot be harmed by human excommunication. Therefore, anyone who believes Jesus is the Christ is free from all the dangers threatened against excommunicated people. Anyone who does not believe Jesus is the Christ is not a Christian. Therefore, a true and sincere Christian is not subject to excommunication. Nor is anyone who professes to be a Christian, until his conduct reveals his hypocrisy. That happens when his behavior violates his sovereign’s law, the standard for conduct. Christ and his Apostles have commanded us to obey that law. For the Church can judge conduct only by outward actions. Those actions can be unlawful only when they violate the law of the commonwealth.

If a mans Father, or Mother, or Master bee 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 authorise them to disobey their Parents, and Masters, contrary to the Precept of the Apostles.

If someone’s father, mother, or master is excommunicated, the children are still allowed to keep them company and eat with them. For in most cases, forbidding such contact would force the children to go without food. They would have no way to get food. It would also authorize the children to disobey their parents and masters, contrary to the Apostles’ command.

In summe, 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 Coaction, 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 hee 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 doe him wrong, because they are not obliged to obey him: For to a Teacher that shall so complain, may be applyed the Answer of God to Samuel in the like place, (1 Sam. 8.) “They have not rejected thee, but mee.” Excommunication therefore when it wanteth the assistance of the Civill Power, as it doth, when a Christian State, or Prince is Excommunicate by a forain Authority, is without effect; and consequently ought to be without terrour. The name of Fulmen Excommunicationis (that is, the Thunderbolt Of Excommunication) proceeded from an imagination of the Bishop of Rome, which first used it, that he was King of Kings, as the Heathen made Jupiter King of the Gods; and assigned him in their Poems, and Pictures, a Thunderbolt, wherewith to subdue, and punish the Giants, that should dare to deny his power: Which imagination was grounded on two errours; one, that the Kingdome of Christ is of this world, contrary to our Saviours owne words, “My Kingdome is not of this world;” the other, that hee is Christs Vicar, not onely over his owne Subjects, but over all the Christians of the World; whereof there is no ground in Scripture, and the contrary shall bee proved in its due place.

In short, the power of excommunication cannot extend beyond the purpose of the commission our Saviour gave the Apostles and Pastors. Their purpose is not to rule through commands and force. Instead, they must teach and guide people toward salvation in the world to come. A teacher of any subject may abandon a student who stubbornly refuses to follow the teacher’s rules. But the teacher cannot accuse the student of injustice, because the student was never bound to obey the teacher. In the same way, a teacher of Christian doctrine may abandon disciples who stubbornly continue living unchristian lives. But the teacher cannot say these disciples wrong him, because they are not obliged to obey him. God’s answer to Samuel in a similar situation applies to a teacher who complains this way (1 Sam. 8.): “They have not rejected you, but me.” Excommunication therefore has no effect when it lacks the support of civil power. Such support is lacking when a foreign authority excommunicates a Christian State or Prince. Consequently, such excommunication should cause no fear. The name Fulmen Excommunicationis (that is, the Thunderbolt of Excommunication) came from an idea held by the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop, who first used the name, imagined himself King of Kings, just as the pagans made Jupiter King of the Gods. In their poems and pictures, the pagans gave Jupiter a thunderbolt. With this weapon, Jupiter could subdue and punish the Giants who dared to deny his power. The Bishop’s idea rested on two errors. One was that Christ’s kingdom belongs to this world, contrary to our Saviour’s own words: “My kingdom is not of this world.” The other was that the Bishop is Christ’s Vicar, not only over his own subjects, but over all Christians worldwide. Scripture provides no basis for this claim, and the opposite will be proved in its proper place.

St. Paul coming to Thessalonica, where was a Synagogue of the Jews, (Acts 17.2, 3.) “As his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath dayes reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, Opening and alledging, 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 beleeve already, that they were the Word of God. Hereupon (as it is verse 4.) some of them beleeved, and (as it is in the 5. ver.) some beleeved not. What was the reason, when they all beleeved the Scripture, that they did not all beleeve 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; S. Paul came to them without any Legall Commission, and in the manner of one that would not Command, but Perswade; which he must needs do, either by Miracles, as Moses did to the Israelites in Egypt, that they might see his Authority in Gods works; or by Reasoning from the already received Scripture, that they might see the truth of his doctrine in Gods Word. But whosoever perswadeth by reasoning from principles written, maketh him to whom hee 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 S. Paul alledged out of Scripture? If S. 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 beleeve, or not beleeve, according as the Allegations seemed to himselfe to be agreeable, or not agreeable to the meaning of the places alledged. And generally in all cases of the world, hee that pretendeth any proofe, maketh Judge of his proofe him to whom he addresseth his speech. And as to the case of the Jews in particular, they were bound by expresse words (Deut. 17.) to receive the determination of all hard questions, from the Priests and Judges of Israel for the time being. But this is to bee understood of the Jews that were yet unconverted.

St. Paul came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. As Acts 17:2–3 says, “As was his custom, he went in and reasoned with them from the Scriptures for three Sabbaths. He explained and argued that Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead. And he argued that this Jesus whom he preached was the Christ.” The Scriptures mentioned here were the Jewish Scriptures, that is, the Old Testament. The people Paul sought to convince that Jesus was the Christ and had risen from the dead were also Jews. They already believed those Scriptures were the Word of God. As verse 4 says, some of them believed Paul, and as verse 5 says, some did not. Since they all believed the Scriptures, why did they not all reach the same conclusion? Why did some accept St. Paul’s interpretation of the passages he quoted, while others rejected it, each interpreting for himself? The reason was this: St. Paul came to them without any legal commission, seeking not to command but to persuade. To persuade them, he had to use either miracles or reasoning from the Scriptures they already accepted. Through miracles, as Moses used with the Israelites in Egypt, they could see his authority in God’s works. Through reasoning from Scripture, they could see the truth of his teaching in God’s Word. But anyone who argues from written principles makes the listener the judge of their meaning and of the conclusions drawn from them. If these Jews of Thessalonica were not the judges of St. Paul’s arguments from Scripture, who else was? If St. Paul was the judge, why did he need to quote passages to prove his teaching? It would have been enough to say, I find this in Scripture, that is, in your laws. Christ sent me to interpret those laws. Therefore, there could be no interpreter of Scripture whose interpretation the Jews of Thessalonica were bound to accept. Each person could believe or disbelieve, depending on whether Paul’s arguments seemed consistent with the meaning of the quoted passages. In general, in every case, anyone who offers a proof makes the person addressed the judge of that proof. As for the Jews in particular, Deuteronomy 17 expressly required them to accept rulings on all difficult questions. Those rulings were to come from the priests and judges of Israel holding office at the time. But this requirement applies to Jews who had not yet converted.

For the Conversion of the Gentiles, there was no use of alledging the Scriptures, which they beleeved not. The Apostles therefore laboured by Reason to confute their Idolatry; and that done, to perswade them to the faith of Christ, by their testimony of his Life, and Resurrection. So that there could not yet bee any controversie concerning the authority to Interpret Scripture; seeing no man was obliged during his infidelity, to follow any mans Interpretation of any Scripture, except his Soveraigns Interpretation of the Laws of his countrey.

To convert the Gentiles, there was no use in citing the Scriptures, since the Gentiles did not believe them. The Apostles therefore used reason to try to disprove the Gentiles’ idolatry. Having done so, the Apostles sought to persuade the Gentiles to believe in Christ. They did this by testifying to Christ’s life and resurrection. So there could not yet be any dispute about who had the authority to interpret Scripture. As long as someone remained an unbeliever, they were not obliged to follow anyone’s interpretation of any Scripture. The only exception was their sovereign’s interpretation of the laws of their country.

Let us now consider the Conversion it self, and see what there was therein, that could be cause of such an obligation. Men were converted to no other thing then to the Beleef 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 hee was not dead, but risen again from the dead, and gone up into Heaven, and should come again one day to judg the world, (which also should rise again to be judged,) and reward every man according to his works. None of them preached that himselfe, 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 Kingdome; which the Apostles had not. They prayed then, and all other Pastors ever since, “Let thy Kingdome come;” and exhorted their Converts to obey their then Ethnique 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 himselfe saith to the Jews (John 5. 39.) “Search the Scriptures; for in them yee thinke to have eternall life, and they are they that testifie of me.” If hee had not meant they should Interpret them, hee would not have bidden them take thence the proof of his being the Christ; he would either have Interpreted them himselfe, or referred them to the Interpretation of the Priests.

Let us now consider conversion itself and ask what about it could have created such an obligation. People were converted only to belief in what the Apostles preached. And the Apostles preached nothing but that Jesus was the Christ. That is, he was the King who would save them and rule over them forever in the world to come. Consequently, Jesus was not dead but had risen from the dead and ascended into Heaven. He would return one day to judge the world, whose people would also rise again to be judged. He would reward everyone according to their deeds. None of the Apostles preached that Christians must accept his interpretation of Scripture, or another Apostle’s interpretation, as law. For interpreting laws is part of governing a kingdom that exists in the present, and the Apostles had no such kingdom. They prayed then, as all other pastors have prayed ever since, “Let your kingdom come.” And they urged their converts to obey the pagan rulers then governing them. The New Testament had not yet been published as a single collection. Each of the Evangelists interpreted his own Gospel, and each Apostle his own Epistle. And concerning the Old Testament, our Saviour himself says to the Jews (John 5:39), “Search the Scriptures. For you think you have eternal life in them, and these Scriptures testify about me.” If he had not intended the Jews to interpret the Scriptures, he would not have told them to find proof there that he was the Christ. He would either have interpreted the Scriptures himself or directed the Jews to the priests’ interpretation.

When a difficulty arose, the Apostles and Elders of the Church assembled themselves together, and determined what should bee 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 authorise an Interpreter, whose Interpretation should generally be stood to: But that could not be till Kings were Pastors, or Pastors Kings.

When a difficulty arose, the Apostles and Elders of the Church met to decide what should be preached and taught. They also decided how to interpret the Scriptures for the people. But they did not take away the people’s freedom to read and interpret the Scriptures for themselves. The Apostles sent various letters and other writings to instruct the Churches. Those writings would have been pointless unless the people were allowed to interpret them, meaning to consider their meaning. And the practice in the Apostles’ time must continue until Pastors could authorize an interpreter whose interpretation everyone would accept. But that could not happen until Kings became Pastors, or Pastors became Kings.

There be two senses, wherein a Writing may be said to be Canonicall; 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 Compell him to observe them, are neverthelesse 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 onely Rules, but Laws: The question therefore here, is of the Power to make the Scriptures (which are the Rules of Christian Faith) Laws.

There are two senses in which a text may be called canonical. For a canon means a rule, and a rule is an instruction that guides a person in any action. Such instructions may come from a teacher to a student, or from an adviser to a friend. Although the teacher or adviser has no power to enforce these instructions, the instructions are still canons because they are rules. But when instructions come from someone the recipient is bound to obey, those canons are not just rules but laws. The question here, therefore, concerns the power to make the Scriptures (the rules of Christian faith) into laws.

That part of the Scripture, which was first Law, was the Ten Commandements, written in two Tables of Stone, and delivered by God himselfe 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 bee his peculiar Kingdome, had given no Law to men, but the Law of Nature, that is to say, the Precepts of Naturall Reason, written in every mans own heart. Of these two Tables, the first containeth the law of Soveraignty; 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 onely me:” whereby they were forbidden to obey, or honor, as their King and Governour, 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 Publique Honor. The second Table containeth the Duty of one man towards another, as “To honor Parents; Not to kill; Not to Commit Adultery; Not to steale; Not to corrupt Judgment by false witnesse;” and finally, “Not so much as to designe 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 Lawes. There is no doubt but that they were made Laws by God himselfe: But because a Law obliges not, nor is Law to any, but to them that acknowledge it to be the act of the Soveraign, 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 Gods 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. 20.19.) “Speak them thou to us, and we will hear thee; but let not God speak to us, lest we die.” It was therefore onely Moses then, and after him the High Priest, whom (by Moses) God declared should administer this his peculiar Kingdome, that had on Earth, the power to make this short Scripture of the Decalogue to bee Law in the Common-wealth of Israel. But Moses, and Aaron, and the succeeding High Priests were the Civill Soveraigns. Therefore hitherto, the Canonizing, or making of the Scripture Law, belonged to the Civill Soveraigne.

The first part of Scripture to become law was the Ten Commandments, written on two stone tablets. God himself gave them to Moses, and Moses made them known to the people. Before then, there was no written law of God. God had not yet chosen any people as his special kingdom. He had given humanity no law except the law of nature. This law consists of the principles of natural reason, written in every person's own heart. The first of these two tablets contains the law of sovereignty. 1. The Israelites were not to obey or honor the gods of other nations, as expressed in these words: “Non habebis Deos alienos coram me,” meaning, “You shall not have the gods worshiped by other nations as your gods, but only me.” This command forbade them to obey or honor any other god as their king and ruler. They were to obey only the God who spoke to them through Moses, and later through the High Priest. 2. They “should not make any image to represent him.” This meant they were not to choose any representative of their own imagining, either in heaven or on earth. Instead, they were to obey Moses and Aaron, whom God had appointed to that role. 3. They “should not take the name of God in vain.” This meant they should not speak rashly about their king or question his right to rule. Nor should they question the authority granted to Moses and Aaron, his deputies. 4. They “should stop their ordinary work every seventh day” and spend that time publicly honoring him. The second tablet contains each person's duties toward others: “Honor your parents. Do not kill. Do not commit adultery. Do not steal. Do not corrupt justice by giving false testimony.” Finally, they were “not even to plan in their hearts to do any harm to one another.” The question now is who gave these written tablets the binding force of law. There is no doubt that God himself made them laws. But a law binds only those who recognize it as an act of their sovereign. For anyone else, it is not law. The people of Israel were forbidden to approach the mountain to hear what God said to Moses. How, then, could they be bound to obey all the laws Moses presented to them? Some were indeed laws of nature, including all those on the second tablet. Therefore, all peoples, not just the Israelites, must recognize those laws as God's laws. But the question remains for laws applying specifically to the Israelites, such as those on the first tablet. There is, however, this exception: immediately after these laws were presented, the Israelites bound themselves to obey Moses. They said (Exod. 20.19.), “You speak to us, and we will listen. But do not let God speak to us, or we will die.” Therefore, only Moses at that time, and the High Priest after him, had this authority on earth. Through Moses, God had declared that the High Priest should govern this special kingdom of his. Their authority gave this short passage of Scripture, the Decalogue, the force of law in the Commonwealth of Israel. But Moses, Aaron, and the succeeding High Priests were the civil sovereigns. Thus, up to this point, canonizing Scripture, or making Scripture law, belonged to the civil sovereign.

The Judiciall 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 Leviticall 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 onely; and therefore also became Lawes, by vertue 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 forty dayes being 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 Canonicall by Moses the Civill Soveraign.

The Judicial Law consisted of the laws God gave Israel’s magistrates to guide their administration of justice. These laws also governed the sentences or judgments the magistrates were to give in disputes between individuals. The Levitical Law consisted of God’s rules for the rites and ceremonies of the Priests and Levites. All these laws were delivered to the people by Moses alone. They therefore became laws through the same promise to obey Moses. The text does not say whether these laws were written down at that time. Nor does the text say whether Moses instead dictated them orally to the people after his forty days with God on the Mount. But all these laws were positive laws, equivalent to holy Scripture. Moses, as the civil sovereign, made them canonical.

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. 29.1.) “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 12. Cha. and continue to the end of the 26. of the same Book. This Law (Deut. 27.1.) they were commanded to write upon great stones playstered 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. 31.9.) and commanded (ve. 26.) “to be put in the side of the Arke;” for in the Ark it selfe was nothing but the Ten Commandements. This was the Law, which Moses (Deuteronomy 17.18.) commanded the Kings of Israel should keep a copie 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 Civill Soveraignty. Hitherto therefore the Power of making Scripture Canonicall, was in the Civill Soveraign.

The Israelites had reached the Plains of Moab, opposite Jericho, and were ready to enter the Promised Land. Moses then added several other laws to the earlier ones. These added laws are therefore called Deuteronomy, meaning Second Laws. As Deuteronomy 29:1 says, they are “The words of a covenant that the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israel, besides the covenant he made with them in Horeb.” Moses explained the earlier laws at the beginning of Deuteronomy. He then added others, beginning in chapter 12 and continuing through the end of chapter 26. The Israelites were commanded to write this law on large, plaster-covered stones when they crossed the Jordan (Deuteronomy 27:1). Moses himself also wrote this law in a book. He gave the book to the “priests and the elders of Israel” (Deuteronomy 31:9). He commanded that the book be “placed beside the Ark” (verse 26). The Ark itself contained nothing but the Ten Commandments. This was the law that Moses commanded the Kings of Israel to keep a copy of (Deuteronomy 17:18). And this was the law that, after being lost for a long time, was rediscovered in the Temple under Josiah. By Josiah’s authority, this law was accepted as the Law of God. But Moses held civil sovereignty when he wrote this law, and Josiah held civil sovereignty when it was recovered. Up to this point, therefore, the power to make Scripture canonical belonged to 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 it selfe; 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 it self, 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 14.21. “Thy Law is burnt; therefor no man knoweth the things that are done of thee, of 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 Shishak King of Egypt took the spoils of the Temple,(1 Kings 14.26.)) and the time of Josiah, when it was found againe, 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.

Apart from this Book of the Law, the Jews accepted no other book as God’s law from Moses until after the Captivity. For most of the Prophets lived during the Captivity itself, and the rest lived only a little before it. Far from having their prophecies generally accepted as laws, the Prophets themselves were persecuted. Some persecution came from false Prophets, and some from Kings whom those false Prophets had misled. Even this Book, which Josiah had confirmed as God’s law, was lost during the Captivity and Jerusalem’s destruction. All the history of God’s works was lost with it, as shown by 2 Esdras 14.21: “Your law is burned. Therefore no one knows the things you have done, or the works that will begin.” Before the Captivity, there was also a period between the loss of the Law and its rediscovery under Josiah. Scripture does not say when the Law was lost. But it may reasonably be thought to have happened during Rehoboam’s reign, when Shishak, King of Egypt, plundered the Temple (1 Kings 14.26.). During that period, they had no written Word of God. Instead, they ruled by their own judgment, or followed the guidance of those whom each ruler regarded as Prophets.

From whence we may inferre, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament, which we have at this day, were not Canonicall, nor a Law unto the Jews, till the renovation of their Covenant with God at their return from the Captivity, and restauration of their Common-wealth 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 Judaea, 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 Civill Soveraigne, it is manifest, that the Scriptures were never made Laws, but by the Soveraign Civill Power.

From this we may infer that the Old Testament Scriptures we have today were not yet canonical or binding Jewish law. They gained that status only when the Jews renewed their covenant with God after returning from captivity. This renewal accompanied the restoration of their commonwealth under Esdras. But from then on, these Scriptures were regarded as the law of the Jews. As such, they were translated into Greek by seventy elders of Judaea and placed in Ptolemy’s library at Alexandria. They were also accepted as the Word of God. Now Esdras was the High Priest, and the High Priest was the Jews’ civil sovereign. So it is clear that the Scriptures were never made law except by the sovereign civil power.

The New Testament Began To Be Canonicall Under Christian Soveraigns By the Writings of the Fathers that lived in the time before that Christian Religion was received, and authorised by Constantine the Emperour, we may find, that the Books wee 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 Catholique Church, and others Haeretiques) 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 S. 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 Canonicall, but every Convert made them so to himself.

The New Testament Began to Become Canonical Under Christian Sovereigns We can learn from the writings of the Fathers who lived before Emperor Constantine accepted and authorized the Christian religion. Christians at that time regarded the books we now have in the New Testament as the Holy Ghost’s words. Only a few Christians disagreed. Because those dissenters were so few, the rest were called the Catholic Church, and the dissenters were called heretics. Christians therefore regarded these books as the canon, or rule of faith. Such was their reverence for their teachers and their high opinion of them. In general, disciples show considerable reverence for their first teachers in every kind of teaching they receive from them. So there is no doubt about how the churches Paul had converted received his letters. The same holds for writings from any other Apostle or disciple of Christ to those who had already embraced Christ. These converts received such writings as true Christian teaching. But at that time, the teacher’s power and authority did not cause the hearer to accept the teaching. Rather, the hearer’s faith caused that acceptance. So the Apostles did not make their own writings canonical. Each convert made those writings canonical for 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 doe any thing contrary thereunto. That the New Testament should in this sense be Canonicall, that is to say, a Law in any place where the Law of the Common-wealth had not made it so, is contrary to the nature of a Law. For a Law, (as hath been already shewn) is the Commandement of that Man, or Assembly, to whom we have given Soveraign Authority, to make such Rules for the direction of our actions, as hee shall think fit; and to punish us, when we doe any thing contrary to the same. When therefore any other man shall offer unto us any other Rules, which the Soveraign Ruler hath not prescribed, they are but Counsell, and Advice; which, whether good, or bad, hee 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 beleeve the his private Teachers, and wish he had the liberty to practise their advice; and that it were publiquely received for Law. For internall faith is in its own nature invisible, and consequently exempted from all humane 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 denyed his Kingdome to be in this world, seeing he hath said, he came not to judge, but to save the world, he hath not subjected us to other Laws than those of the Common-wealth; that is, the Jews to the Law of Moses, (which he saith (Mat. 5.) he came not to destroy, but to fulfill,) and other Nations to the Laws of their severall Soveraigns, and all men to the Laws of Nature; the observing whereof, both he himselfe, 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 eternall Kingdome, 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 containe that Doctrine, untill obedience to them was commanded, by them that God hath given power to on earth to be Legislators, were not obligatory Canons, that is, Laws, but onely good, and safe advice, for the direction of sinners in the way to salvation, which every man might take, and refuse at his owne perill, without injustice.

But the question here is not what any Christian chose as a law or canon for himself. He could reject such a rule by the same right that allowed him to accept it. The question is what became a binding canon for Christians, so that disobeying it would be unjust. In this sense, calling the New Testament canonical means calling it law. But where the law of the commonwealth has not made it law, this claim contradicts the nature of law. For a law, as already shown, is a command from the person or assembly we have given sovereign authority. That authority allows the sovereign to make whatever rules for our conduct the sovereign thinks fit. It also allows the sovereign to punish us for breaking those rules. So when anyone else offers rules that the sovereign ruler has not prescribed, those rules are only counsel and advice. Whether the advice is good or bad, the person receiving it may refuse to follow it without acting unjustly. But when the advice conflicts with established laws, following it is unjust, however good the person thinks it is. In that case, I mean that the person cannot justly follow the advice in actions or conversations with others. Yet the person may blamelessly believe private teachers and wish for the freedom to follow their advice. The person may also wish that their advice were publicly adopted as law. For inward faith is by nature invisible and therefore beyond all human jurisdiction. But words and actions arising from faith are unjust before both God and humanity when they violate our civil obedience. Our Saviour has denied that his Kingdom belongs to this world. He has said that he came not to judge the world, but to save it. Therefore, he has subjected us to no laws beyond those of the commonwealth. For the Jews, this means the Law of Moses. He says he came not to destroy that law, but to fulfill it (Mat. 5.). For other nations, it means the laws of their respective sovereigns. And all people remain subject to the Laws of Nature. Both he and his Apostles taught that obeying these laws is necessary for admission into his eternal Kingdom. He will admit people into that Kingdom on the last day, and there they will have protection and everlasting life. Thus our Saviour and his Apostles left no new laws binding us in this world. Instead, they left new teaching to prepare us for the next. The Books of the New Testament contain that teaching. But those books were not binding canons, or laws, until earthly lawmakers commanded obedience to them. These lawmakers are those whom God has given the power to make laws on earth. Until then, the books offered only good and safe advice, guiding sinners toward salvation. Each person could accept or reject that advice at their own peril, without acting unjustly.

Again, our Saviour Christs Commission to his Apostles, and Disciples, was to Proclaim his Kingdome (not present, but) to come; and to Teach all Nations; and to Baptize them that should beleeve; 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 compell them to obedience by the Sword. In all which there is nothing of Power, but of Perswasion. 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 Soveraign Civill Power. And therefore the Scripture of the New Testament is there only Law, where the lawfull Civill Power hath made it so. And there also the King, or Soveraign, maketh it a Law to himself; by which he subjecteth himselfe, 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.

Again, our Saviour Christ sent his Apostles and disciples to proclaim his Kingdom, not as already present, but as coming. He instructed them to teach all nations and baptize those who believed. They were to enter the houses of those who welcomed them. Where they were not welcomed, they were to shake the dust off their feet against those who rejected them. But they were not to call down fire from heaven to destroy those people, or force obedience with the sword. All these instructions relied on persuasion, not power. He sent them out as sheep among wolves, not as kings to their subjects. They had no authority to make laws, but were to obey existing laws and teach others to obey them. Consequently, they could not make their writings binding religious rules without the help of the sovereign civil power. Therefore, the Scriptures of the New Testament are law only where the lawful civil power has made them so. There, too, the king or sovereign makes those Scriptures a law for himself. By doing so, he submits not to the teacher or Apostle who converted him, but to God himself and his Son Jesus Christ. His submission to God and Jesus Christ is just as direct as that of the Apostles themselves.

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 Synods. For we read (Acts 15.28.) the stile of the Councell 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 stile 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 that “to oblige;” and therefore the Acts of that Councell were Laws to the then Christians. Neverthelesse, they were no more Laws than are these other Precepts, “Repent, Be Baptized; Keep the Commandements; Beleeve 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 Esay 55.1. “Ho, every man that thirsteth, come yee to the waters, come, and buy wine and milke without money.” For first, the Apostles power was no other than that of our Saviour, to invite men to embrace the Kingdome of God; which they themselves acknowledged for a Kingdome (not present, but) to come; and they that have no Kingdome, can make no Laws. And secondly, if their Acts of Councell, 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 Civill 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 perill, without a new sin, though not without the hazard of being condemned, and excluded out of the Kingdome of God for their sins past. And therefore of Infidels, S. John saith not, the wrath of God shall “come” upon them, but “the wrath of God remaineth upon them;” and not that they shall be condemned; but that “they are condemned already.”(John 3.36, 3.18) Nor can it be conceived, that the benefit of Faith, “is Remission of sins” unlesse we conceive withall, that the dammage of Infidelity, is “the Retention of the same sins.”

The decrees Christians made among themselves in their synods may seem to give the New Testament the force of law. This would apply to those who accepted Christian teaching, in times and places of persecution. For in Acts 15:28, the council of the Apostles, the Elders, and the whole Church speaks as follows: “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay no greater burden on you than these necessary things, etc.” This wording indicates a power to impose a burden on those who had accepted their teaching. Now, “to impose a burden on another” seems to mean the same as “to place someone under an obligation.” Therefore, the acts of that council were laws for Christians at that time. Nevertheless, those acts were no more laws than these other instructions: “Repent, Be baptized, Keep the Commandments, Believe the Gospel, Come to me, Sell everything you have, Give it to the poor,” and “Follow me.” These are not commands, but invitations and calls to Christianity. They resemble the invitation in Isaiah 55:1: “Come, everyone who is thirsty, come to the waters, come and buy wine and milk without money.” For first, the Apostles had only the power our Saviour had: to invite people to embrace the Kingdom of God. The Apostles themselves acknowledged that this Kingdom was not present, but still to come. And those who have no kingdom can make no laws. Second, if the acts of their council were laws, disobeying those acts would necessarily be a sin. But nowhere do we read that those who did not accept Christ’s teaching sinned by refusing it. Instead, we read that they died in their sins. That is, their sins against the laws they were bound to obey were not forgiven. Those laws were the Laws of Nature and the civil laws of the state. Every Christian had submitted to those civil laws by agreement. Therefore, the burden the Apostles could impose on their converts should not be understood as laws. Rather, it consisted of conditions offered to those seeking salvation. Those seeking salvation could accept or refuse these conditions at their own risk, without committing a new sin. But refusal still risked condemnation and exclusion from the Kingdom of God for their past sins. Therefore, St. John does not say that God’s wrath shall “come” upon unbelievers, but that “God’s wrath remains upon them.” Nor does he say they will be condemned, but that “they are condemned already.” (John 3:36, 3:18) Nor can we understand the benefit of faith as “the forgiveness of sins” without also understanding unbelief’s harm. That harm is “those same sins remaining unforgiven.”

But to what end is it (may some man aske), 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 Councell, 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 yeeld 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 Civill Soveraigns. For though God be the Soveraign of all the world, we are not bound to take for his Law, whatsoever is propounded by every man in his name; nor any thing contrary to the Civill Law, which God hath expressely commanded us to obey.

But someone may ask: What purpose did it serve for the Apostles, and later pastors of the Church, to meet together? Why agree on what doctrine to teach about faith and conduct, if no one was obliged to follow their decrees? The answer is that, by joining the council, the Apostles and Elders committed themselves to teaching the doctrine agreed upon there. This obligation held only as long as that doctrine did not conflict with any existing law they were obliged to obey. But their agreement did not oblige all other Christians to follow what they taught. For although the council members could decide what each of them should teach, they could not decide what others should do. They could do so only if their assembly had lawmaking power, which only civil sovereigns could possess. For although God is sovereign over the whole world, we are not bound to accept every claim made in his name as his law. Nor are we bound to accept anything contrary to civil law, which God has expressly commanded us to obey.

Seeing then the Acts of Councell of the Apostles, were then no Laws, but Councells; much lesse are Laws the Acts of any other Doctors, or Councells since, if assembled without the Authority of the Civill Soveraign. And consequently, the Books of the New Testament, though most perfect Rules of Christian Doctrine, could not be made Laws by any other authority then that of Kings, or Soveraign Assemblies.

The decisions of the Apostles’ council, then, were not laws at the time, but advice. Still less are the decisions of later religious teachers or councils laws if they meet without the civil sovereign’s authority. Consequently, although the books of the New Testament are the most perfect rules of Christian doctrine, authority is still needed. Only kings or sovereign assemblies could make those books law.

The first Councell, that made the Scriptures we now have, Canon, is not extant: For that Collection the first Bishop of Rome after S. Peter, is subject to question: For though the Canonicall books bee there reckoned up; yet these words, “Sint vobis omnibus Clericis & Laicis Libris venerandi, &c.” containe a distinction of Clergy, and Laity, that was not in use so neer St. Peters time. The first Councell for setling the Canonicall Scripture, that is extant, is that of Laodicea, Can. 59. which forbids the reading of other Books then those in the Churches; which is a Mandate that is not addressed to every Christian, but to those onely that had authority to read any publiquely in the Church; that is, to Ecclesiastiques onely.

No record survives of the first Council that established the Scriptures we now have as canonical. For the collection attributed to the first Bishop of Rome after St. Peter is open to question. Although the canonical books are listed there, the words “Sint vobis omnibus Clericis & Laicis Libris venerandi, &c.” distinguish clergy from laity. That distinction was not in use so close to St. Peter’s time. The earliest surviving Council ruling that establishes the scriptural canon is Canon 59 of the Council of Laodicea. It forbids reading any books in churches except those listed as canonical. But this command is not addressed to every Christian. It is addressed only to those authorized to read any books publicly in church, that is, only to ecclesiastics.

Of Ecclesiastical Officers in the time of the Apostles, some were Magisteriall, some Ministeriall. Magisteriall were the Offices of preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to Infidels; of administring the Sacraments, and Divine Service; and of teaching the Rules of Faith and Manners to those that were converted. Ministeriall 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 mony, raised out of the voluntary contributions of the faithfull.

In the time of the Apostles, some Church officers had teaching and religious duties, while others had practical duties. The first group preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to unbelievers. They also administered the sacraments, conducted worship, and taught converts the rules of faith and conduct. The practical duties belonged to deacons, who were appointed to manage the Church’s material needs. At that time, the Church lived on a shared fund of money raised through believers’ voluntary contributions.

Amongst the Officers Magisteriall, the first, and principall were the Apostles; whereof there were at first but twelve; and these were chosen and constituted by our Saviour himselfe; and their Office was not onely to Preach, Teach, and Baptize, but also to be Martyrs, (Witnesses of our Saviours Resurrection.) This Testimony, was the specificall, and essentiall mark; whereby the Apostleship was distinguished from other Magistracy Ecclesiasticall; 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, S. Peter saith (Acts 1.21,22.) “Of these men that have companyed with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the Baptisme of John unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a Witnesse with us of his Resurrection:” where, by this word Must, is implyed a necessary property of an Apostle, to have companyed with the first and prime Apostles in the time that our Saviour manifested himself in the flesh.

Among church officials with governing authority, the Apostles were the first and most important. At first there were only twelve, chosen and appointed by our Saviour himself. Their role was not only to preach, teach, and baptize, but also to be martyrs (witnesses of our Saviour’s Resurrection). This testimony was the specific and essential mark distinguishing apostleship from other church offices. An Apostle had to have seen our Saviour after his Resurrection. Or he had to have spent time with him before, seeing his works and other evidence of his divinity. This experience would allow the Apostles to be accepted as adequate witnesses. Therefore, when a new Apostle was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot, St. Peter said (Acts 1:21,22): “One of these men who accompanied us throughout the time the Lord Jesus lived among us must be appointed. He must have been with us from John’s baptism until the day Jesus was taken up from us. He must join us as a witness to his Resurrection.” Here, the word “must” implies a necessary qualification for an Apostle. He had to have accompanied the first and foremost Apostles during the time our Saviour revealed himself in the flesh.

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 120 Christians (Acts 1.15.) These appointed two, Joseph the Just, and Matthias (ver. 23.) and caused lots to be drawn; “and (ver. 26.) the Lot fell on Matthias and he was numbred 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 then as Members of the Assembly.

Matthias was the first Apostle appointed after Christ’s time on Earth. He was chosen in the following way: About 120 Christians gathered in Jerusalem (Acts 1.15.). They nominated two men, Joseph the Just and Matthias (ver. 23.), and had lots drawn. “And (ver. 26.) the lot fell on Matthias, and he was counted among the Apostles.” So we see that this Apostle’s ordination was an act of the congregation. It was not an act of St. Peter or the eleven, except as members of the assembly.

After him there was never any other Apostle ordained, but Paul and Barnabas, which was done (as we read Acts 13.1,2,3.) in this manner. “There were in the Church that was at Antioch, certaine Prophets, and Teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen; which had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministred unto the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, ‘Separate mee Barnabas, and Saul for the worke whereunto I have called them.’ And when they had fasted, and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.”

After him, no other Apostles were ordained except Paul and Barnabas. Their ordination took place as follows, as we read in Acts 13:1–3. “In the Church at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers. These were Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Saul. Manaen had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch. As they worshipped the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, ‘Set apart Barnabas and Saul for me, for the work to which I have called them.’ After fasting and praying, the prophets and teachers laid their hands on Barnabas and Saul and 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 14.14.) Apostles: And that it was by vertue of this act of the Church of Antioch, that they were Apostles, S. Paul declareth plainly (Rom. 1.1.) in that hee useth the word, which the Holy Ghost used at his calling: For he stileth 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 Witnesse of the Resurrection of Christ, and man may here aske, how S. Paul that conversed not with our Saviour before his passion, could know he was risen. To which it 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 vessell to bear his name before the Gentiles, and Kings, and Children of Israel;” and consequently (having seen the Lord after his passion) was a competent Witnesse 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.

This makes it clear that although the Holy Ghost called them, the particular Church of Antioch declared their calling to them. That church also authorized their mission. Their calling was to be Apostles, since both are called Apostles in Acts 14:14. St. Paul plainly states in Romans 1:1 that they became Apostles through this act of the Church of Antioch. He uses the same word that the Holy Ghost used when calling him. He calls himself “an Apostle set apart for the Gospel of God.” This echoes the Holy Ghost’s words, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul, etc.” But an Apostle’s work was to be a witness to Christ’s Resurrection. So someone may ask how St. Paul could know that our Saviour had risen. After all, Paul had not spent time with our Saviour before his suffering and death. The answer is simple. After his Ascension, our Saviour himself appeared from Heaven to Paul on the road to Damascus. Our Saviour “chose him as an instrument to carry his name before the Gentiles, Kings, and the Children of Israel.” Since Paul had seen the Lord after his suffering and death, Paul was a qualified witness to his Resurrection. As for Barnabas, he was a Disciple before Christ’s suffering and death. It is therefore clear that Paul and Barnabas were Apostles. Yet they were chosen and authorized by the Church of Antioch, not by the first Apostles alone. In the same way, Matthias was chosen and authorized by the Church of Jerusalem.

Bishop, a word formed in our language, out of the Greek Episcopus, signifieth an overseer, or Superintendent of any businesse, 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 signifie the Office of a King, or any other Ruler, or Guide of People, whether he ruled by Laws, or Doctrine. And so the Apostles were the first Christian Bishops, instituted by Christ himselfe: in which sense the Apostleship of Judas is called (Acts 1.20.) his Bishoprick. And afterwards, when there were constituted Elders in the Christian Churches, with charge to guide Christs 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 S. John himselfe, 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 Perswading. The Kingdome of God was yet to come, in a new world; so that there could be no authority to compell in any Church, till the Common-wealth had embraced the Christian Faith; and consequently no diversity of Authority, though there were diversity of Employments.

Bishop comes into our language from the Greek Episcopus. It means an overseer or supervisor of any activity, and particularly a pastor or shepherd. From this meaning, the word came to describe, metaphorically, the office of a king or other ruler or guide. This use appeared among both the Jews, who were originally shepherds, and the pagans. It applied whether the ruler guided people through laws or teaching. So the Apostles were the first Christian Bishops, appointed by Christ himself. In this sense, Judas’s apostleship is called his bishopric (Acts 1:20). Later, Elders were appointed in Christian churches to guide Christ’s flock through their teaching and advice. These Elders were also called Bishops. Timothy was an Elder, but he was also a Bishop. In the New Testament, Elder names an office as well as indicating age. And Bishops at that time were content with the title of Elders. Indeed, St. John himself, the Apostle beloved by our Lord, begins his Second Epistle with these words: “The Elder to the Elect Lady.” This clearly shows that Bishop, Pastor, Elder, and Doctor, meaning Teacher, were different names for the same office in the Apostles’ time. For there was then no government through force, but only through teaching and persuasion. The Kingdom of God was still to come, in a new world. So no Church could have authority to compel obedience until the commonwealth had embraced the Christian faith. Consequently, there were no differences in authority, though there were differences in duties.

Besides these Magisteriall 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 teach those that beleeved we read in the New Testament of no other. For by the names of Evangelists and Prophets, is not signified any Office, but severall Gifts, by which severall men were profitable to the Church: as Evangelists, by writing the life and acts of our Saviour; such as were S. Matthew and S. John Apostles, and S. Marke and S. Luke Disciples, and whosoever else wrote of that subject, (as S. Thomas, and S. 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 speciall Revelations to the Church. For neither these gifts, nor the gifts of Languages, nor the gift of Casting out Devils, or of Curing other diseases, nor any thing else did make an Officer in the Church, save onely the due calling and election to the charge of Teaching.

The New Testament mentions no Church leadership roles beyond Apostles, Bishops, Elders, Pastors, and Doctors (teachers). Their calling was to proclaim Christ to Jews and unbelievers, and to guide and teach believers. For the names Evangelists and Prophets do not refer to offices, but to different gifts that benefited the Church. Evangelists served by writing about the life and deeds of our Saviour. These included the Apostles S. Matthew and S. John, and the Disciples S. Marke and S. Luke. They also included anyone else who wrote on that subject. (S. Thomas and S. Barnabas are said to have done so, though the Church has not accepted books attributed to them.) Prophets served through their gift for interpreting the Old Testament, and sometimes by sharing their special revelations with the Church. For none of these gifts made anyone an officer in the Church. Neither did speaking in different languages, casting out devils, curing other diseases, or anything else. Only a proper calling and election to the responsibility of teaching made someone an officer in the Church.

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 S. 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 14.23.) 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 Originall 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, “cheirotonesantes autoispresbuterous kat ekklesian,” 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 vessell marked for the Affirmative, or Negative; for divers Cities had divers customes in that point. It was therefore the Assembly that elected their own Elders: the Apostles were onely 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 proestotes, and in Latin Antistities; which words signifie the Principall Person of the Assembly, whose office was to number the Votes, and to declare thereby who was chosen; and where the Votes were equall, to decide the matter in question, by adding his own; which is the Office of a President in Councell. And (because all the Churches had their Presbyters ordained in the same manner,) where the word is Constitute, (as Titus 1.5.) “ina katasteses kata polin presbuterous,” “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 hee should call the faithfull 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 then by an Assembly, those of the Town becomming 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,) then this of plurality of suffrages, intimated by S. Paul (Acts 14.23.) in the word Cheirotonesantes: 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 severall Town.

Just as Matthias, Paul, and Barnabas were not appointed Apostles by our Saviour himself, but elected by the Church, so were the Presbyters and Pastors in other cities. The Church means the assembly of Christians. Matthias was elected by the Church of Jerusalem, and Paul and Barnabas by the Church of Antioch. Likewise, the Presbyters and Pastors were elected by the Churches of their own cities. For proof, first consider how St. Paul ordained Presbyters in cities where he had converted people to the Christian faith. He did so immediately after he and Barnabas had received their Apostleship. We read (Acts 14.23.) that “they ordained Elders in every Church.” At first glance, these words may suggest that Paul and Barnabas themselves chose the Elders and gave them their authority. But the original text makes clear that the Christian assembly in each city chose and authorized the Elders. The words are “cheirotonesantes autoispresbuterous kat ekklesian,” meaning “When they had ordained Elders for them by a show of hands in every congregation.” Now, it is well known that all those cities chose magistrates and officers by a majority of votes. The usual way to distinguish votes for and against was by a show of hands. So ordaining an officer in any of those cities meant simply gathering the people to elect officers by majority vote. The majority might be counted through raised hands, voices, balls, beans, or small stones. Each person placed one ball, bean, or stone in a container marked for votes for or against. Different cities had different customs in this matter. Therefore, the assembly elected its own Elders. The Apostles merely presided over the assembly. They called the people together for the election, announced who had been elected, and gave the blessing now called Consecration. For this reason, those who presided over assemblies were called proestotes, or Antistities in Latin. In the Apostles’ absence, the Elders served as these presiding officers. These words mean the leading person in the assembly. His job was to count the votes and announce who had been chosen. When the votes were equal, he settled the question by adding his own vote. This is the role of a presiding officer in a council. And because all the Churches ordained their Presbyters in the same way, we must understand “constitute” in the same sense. The word appears in Titus 1.5.: “ina katasteses kata polin presbuterous,” “I left you in Crete for this reason, that you should appoint Elders in every city.” This meant that Titus should gather the faithful and ordain Presbyters for them by majority vote. It would have been strange if a town’s people had even considered another way to elect their teachers and guides. The people in such a town had perhaps never seen a magistrate chosen except by an assembly. On becoming Christians, why would they consider any other way of choosing their Presbyters, also called Bishops? The method was majority voting, indicated by St. Paul (Acts 14.23.) in the word Cheirotonesantes. Nor were Bishops ever chosen except by assemblies of Christians in each town, before the Emperors intervened. The Emperors found it necessary to regulate these elections to keep peace among the Christians.

The same is also confirmed by the continuall practise 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 Pastorall Office, in any City, at such time as he went from thence, to plant the same in another place; much more had he had the Right, to appoint his successour in that place, in which he last resided and dyed: 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 Damascus, and Ursinicus; which Ammianus Marcellinus saith was so great, that Juventius the Praefect, unable to keep the peace between them, was forced to goe out of the City; and that there were above an hundred men found dead upon that occasion in the Church it self. And though they afterwards were chosen, first, by the whole Clergy of Rome, and afterwards by the Cardinalls; yet never any was appointed to the succession by his predecessor. If therefore they pretended no right to appoint their successors, I think I may reasonably conclude, they had no right to appoint the new power; which none could take from the Church to bestow on them, but such as had a lawfull authority, not onely to Teach, but to Command the Church; which none could doe, but the Civill Soveraign.

The continuing practice of electing the Bishops of Rome, even today, also confirms the same point. Suppose a bishop had the right to choose his successor as pastor in a city when leaving to establish another church. Then he would have had even more right to appoint his successor where he last lived and died. Yet we find no Bishop of Rome who ever appointed his successor. For a long time, the Bishops of Rome were chosen by the people. We can see this from the unrest over the election between Damascus and Ursinicus. Ammianus Marcellinus says the unrest was so great that Juventius, the Prefect, could not keep the peace between the rivals. Juventius was therefore forced to leave the city. Marcellinus also says that more than a hundred men were found dead in the church itself because of the unrest. Although later bishops were chosen first by all the clergy of Rome, and afterward by the Cardinals, the pattern remained. No bishop was ever appointed as successor by his predecessor. If, therefore, these bishops claimed no right to appoint their successors, I think I can reasonably draw a further conclusion. They had no right to appoint the new power. Only someone with lawful authority both to teach and to command the Church could take that power from the Church and give it to the bishops. Only the civil sovereign could do this.

The word Minister in the Originall Diakonos signifieth one that voluntarily doth the businesse of another man; and differeth from a Servant onely in this, that Servants are obliged by their condition, to what is commanded them; whereas Ministers are obliged onely 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 6.4.) “The Ministers of the Word,” are Ministers of Christ, whose Word it is: But the Ministery 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 businesse of the Church, the whole Congregation might properly call him their Minister.

The word Minister comes from the original word Diakonos, meaning someone who voluntarily does another person’s work. A Minister differs from a servant in only one respect. Servants are bound by their status to do what they are commanded. Ministers are bound only by the work they agree to do, and therefore owe no more than they have agreed to undertake. So both those who teach the Word of God and those who manage the Church’s worldly affairs are Ministers. But they serve different persons. The Church’s Pastors are called “The Ministers of the Word” (Acts 6:4). They are Ministers of Christ, because the Word is his. But a Deacon’s ministry, called “Serving of Tables” in verse 2 of the same chapter, serves the Church, or Congregation. So neither any individual nor the whole Church could ever call their Pastor their Minister. But the whole Congregation could properly call a Deacon their Minister, whatever Church duties the Deacon had undertaken. Those duties might include serving tables or distributing support to Christians. In the early days, Christians in each city lived on a common fund or on collections. A Deacon’s duties might also include caring for the House of Prayer, managing revenue, or handling other worldly Church business.

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 S. Steven did; and both to Preach, and Baptize, as Philip did: For that Philip, which (Act. 8. 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 Baptisme of Philip they had not received) the Holy Ghost. For it was necessary for the conferring of the Holy Ghost, that their Baptisme should be administred, or confirmed by a Minister of the Word, not by a Minister of the Church. And therefore to confirm the Baptisme 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 Beleevers; which what they were may be understood by that which S. Marke saith (chap. 16.17.) “These signs follow them that beleeve in my Name; they shall cast out Devills; 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 doe, was it that Philip could not give; but the Apostles could, and (as appears by this place) effectually did to every man that truly beleeved, and was by a Minister of Christ himself Baptized: which power either Christs Ministers in this age cannot conferre, or else there are very few true Beleevers, or Christ hath very few Ministers.

For their work as deacons was to serve the congregation. Yet they also took opportunities to preach the Gospel and uphold the doctrine of Christ, each according to his gifts. S. Steven did this, and Philip both preached and baptized. For the Philip who preached the Gospel at Samaria (Acts 8:5) and baptized the eunuch (verse 38) was Philip the Deacon. He was not Philip the Apostle. Verse 1 makes clear that the Apostles were in Jerusalem when Philip preached in Samaria. And verse 14 says, “When they heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent Peter and John there.” Through the laying on of Peter and John's hands, those who had been baptized received the Holy Ghost (verse 15). They had not received the Holy Ghost through Philip's baptism alone. For receiving the Holy Ghost required baptism administered or confirmed by a minister of the Word, not a minister of the Church. Therefore, the Apostles sent two of their own number, Peter and John, from Jerusalem to Samaria. Their purpose was to confirm the baptism of those whom Philip the Deacon had baptized. Peter and John gave those who had previously only been baptized the gifts that were signs of the Holy Spirit. At that time, these gifts accompanied all true believers. What these gifts were can be understood from what S. Marke says (chapter 16:17): “These signs will follow those who believe in my name. They will cast out devils. They will speak in new tongues. They will pick up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly, it will not harm them. They will lay hands on the sick, and the sick will recover.” Philip could not give people the power to do these things, but the Apostles could. And, as this passage shows, the Apostles did indeed give that power to everyone who truly believed and was baptized by a minister of Christ himself. Either Christ's ministers today cannot give this power, or there are very few true believers, or Christ has very few ministers.

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 6. where we read that the Twelve, after the number of Disciples was multiplyed, 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 looke you out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, and of Wisdome, whom we may appoint over this businesse.” Here it is manifest, that though the Apostles declared them elected; yet the Congregation chose them; which also, (verse the fift) is more expressely said, where it is written, that “the saying pleased the multitude, and they chose seven, &c.”

The first Deacons were chosen not by the Apostles, but by a congregation of the Disciples, Christians of all kinds. Acts 6 makes this clear. We read that, after the number of Disciples had grown, the Twelve called them together. The Twelve said it was not right for the Apostles to leave the Word of God to serve tables. They then told the Disciples (verse 3), “Brothers, choose from among yourselves seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom. We may then appoint these men to oversee this work.” Clearly, although the Apostles declared the men elected, the congregation chose them. Verse 5 states this even more explicitly: “These words pleased the whole gathering, and they chose seven, etc.”

Under the Old Testament, the Tribe of Levi were onely capable of the Priesthood, and other inferiour 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 Manasses, were still twelve. To the Tribe of Levi were assigned certain Cities for their habitation, with the suburbs for their cattell: 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. 18. 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 Publique Ministers, he allowed them for their maintenance, the Publique revenue, that is to say, the part that God had reserved to himself; which were Tythes, and Offerings: and that it is 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 Kleros, which signifieth Lot, or Inheritance; not that they were heirs of the Kingdome of God, more than other; but that Gods 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 Tythes, and Offerings was constituted by the Civill Power.

Under the Old Testament, only members of the Tribe of Levi could serve as priests or hold lesser Church offices. The land was divided among the other Tribes, excluding Levi. There were still twelve Tribes because the Tribe of Joseph was divided into Ephraim and Manasses. The Tribe of Levi received certain cities to live in, with surrounding land for their cattle. But as their share, the Levites were to receive a tenth of the produce from their fellow Israelites’ land. The priests, in turn, received a tenth of that tenth for their support, along with some offerings and sacrifices. For God had said to Aaron (Numb. 18. 20.): “You shall have no inheritance in their land, nor any share among them. I am your share and your inheritance among the Children of Israel.” God was then King and had appointed the Tribe of Levi as his public ministers. He therefore supported the Levites with public revenue, meaning the share God had reserved for himself: tithes and offerings. That is what God means when he says, I am your inheritance. So the Levites could fittingly be called Clergy, from Kleros, meaning Lot or Inheritance. This was not because the Levites were heirs to the Kingdom of God more than anyone else. Rather, God’s inheritance provided their support. At that time, God himself was their King, and Moses, Aaron, and the succeeding High Priests were his deputies. It is therefore clear that the right to tithes and offerings was established by the civil power.

After their rejection of God in the demand 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 Publique Revenue was at the disposing of him that was the Publique Person; and that (till the Captivity) was the King. And again, after the return from the Captivity, they paid their Tythes as before to the Priest. Hitherto therefore Church Livings were determined by the Civill Soveraign.

After they rejected God by demanding a king, they continued to receive the same income. But their right to that income rested on the fact that the kings never took it away from them. For public revenue was controlled by the person representing the state. Until the Captivity, that person was the king. And after returning from the Captivity, they again paid their tithes to the priest as before. Up to this point, therefore, the clergy’s income was determined by the civil sovereign.

Of the maintenance of our Saviour, and his Apostles, we read onely they had a Purse, (which was carried by Judas Iscariot;) and, that of the Apostles, such as were Fisher-men, did sometimes use their trade; and that when our Saviour sent the Twelve Apostles to Preach, he forbad them “to carry Gold, and Silver, and Brasse in their purses, for that the workman is worthy of his hire:” (Mat. 10. 9,10.) By which it is probable, their ordinary maintenance was not unsuitable to their employment; for their employment was (ver. 8.) “freely to give, because they had freely received;” and their maintenance was the Free Gift of those that beleeved the good tyding they carryed about of the coming of the Messiah their Saviour. To which we may adde, that which was contributed out of gratitude, by such as our Saviour had healed of diseases; of which are mentioned “Certain women (Luke 8. 2,3.) which had been healed of evill spirits and infirmities; Mary Magdalen, out of whom went seven Devills; and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herods Steward; and Susanna, and many others, which ministred unto him of their substance.

About the support of our Saviour and his Apostles, we read only that they had a shared purse. (Judas Iscariot carried it.) We also read that the Apostles who were fishermen sometimes worked at their trade. When our Saviour sent the Twelve Apostles to preach, he forbade them “to carry gold, silver, or brass in their purses, because the worker deserves his pay.” (Matthew 10:9–10.) This suggests that their usual means of support suited their work. For their work was (verse 8) “to give freely, because they had freely received.” And their support came from the freely given gifts of those who believed their good news. The news they spread was of the coming of the Messiah, their Saviour. To these gifts we may add the contributions made out of gratitude by people our Saviour had healed of diseases. Among these are mentioned “certain women (Luke 8:2–3) who had been healed of evil spirits and illnesses. These included Mary Magdalen, from whom seven devils had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward. There were also Susanna and many others, who supported him from their own resources.”

After our Saviours Ascension, the Christians of every City lived in Common, (Acts 4. 34.) upon the mony 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 “whilest the Land remained (saith S. Peter to Ananias Acts 5.4.) was it not thine? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power?” which sheweth he needed not to have saved his land, nor his money by lying, as not being bound to contribute any thing at all, unlesse 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 Tythes: 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 Ursinicus about the Bishopricke,) 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 carryed in Coaches, and sumptuous in their fare and apparell.

After our Saviour’s Ascension, the Christians of every city shared their resources (Acts 4:34). They lived on money from selling their lands and possessions, which they willingly placed at the Apostles’ feet. They gave freely, not out of duty. For St. Peter said to Ananias (Acts 5:4), “While the land remained unsold, was it not yours? And after it was sold, was the money not yours to use?” This shows that Ananias did not need to lie to keep his land or his money. He was not bound to contribute anything unless he wished to. Just as in the Apostles’ time, so throughout the period until after Constantine the Great, Christian bishops and pastors received only voluntary support. Their support came from those who had accepted their teaching. There was no mention of tithes yet. But Christians were so devoted to their pastors in the time of Constantine and his sons that bishoprics were worth fighting over. Ammianus Marcellinus makes this point when describing the conflict between Damasus and Ursinicus over the bishopric. Through their flocks’ generosity, especially that of wealthy married women, bishops of that time lived in splendor. They rode in coaches and enjoyed lavish food and clothing.

The Ministers Of The Gospel Lived On The Benevolence Of Their Flocks But here may some ask, whether the Pastor were then bound to live upon voluntary contribution, as upon almes, “For who (saith S. Paul 1 Cor. 9. 7.) goeth to war at his own charges? or who feedeth a flock, and eatheth not of the milke of the flock?” And again, (1 Cor. 9. 13.) “Doe 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, “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 Emperours and Civill Soveraigns had made Laws to settle it, was nothing but Benevolence. They that served at the Altar lived on what was offered. In what court should they sue for it, who had no Tribunalls? Or if they had Arbitrators amongst themselves, who should execute their Judgments, when they had no power to arme their Officers? It remaineth therefore, that there could be no certaine maintenance assigned to any Pastors of the Church, but by the whole Congregation; and then onely, when their Decrees should have the force (not onely of Canons, but also) of Laws; which Laws could not be made, but by Emperours, Kings, or other Civill Soveraignes. The Right of Tythes in Moses Law, could not be applyed to the then Ministers of the Gospell; because Moses and the High Priests were the Civill Soveraigns of the people under God, whose Kingdom amongst the Jews was present; whereas the Kingdome of God by Christ is yet to come.

Ministers of the Gospel Lived on the Generosity of Their Flocks But some may ask whether pastors were then required to live on voluntary contributions, as though receiving charity. “For who,” says S. Paul (1 Cor. 9. 7.), “goes to war at his own expense? Or who tends a flock without drinking its milk?” And again (1 Cor. 9. 13.), “Do you not know that those who perform sacred duties live on what the Temple provides? And those who serve at the Altar share in what is offered there?” That is, they receive part of the offerings at the Altar for their support. He then concludes, “In the same way, the Lord has appointed that those who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel.” From this passage, we may indeed infer that the Church’s pastors ought to be supported by their flocks. But we cannot infer that pastors could decide either the amount or the kind of support they received. They could not, so to speak, carve out their own portions. Their support must therefore have been determined by each member’s gratitude and generosity, or by the whole congregation. But the whole congregation could not determine their support, because its decisions did not then have the force of law. Therefore, before Emperors and Civil Sovereigns made laws establishing pastors’ support, that support depended entirely on voluntary generosity. Those who served at the Altar lived on what was offered. In what court could they sue for support, when they had no courts? Or, if they had arbitrators among themselves, who would enforce their judgments, when they lacked power to arm their officers? It follows, then, that no fixed support could be assigned to any Church pastor except by the whole congregation. Even then, the congregation’s decrees would need the force not only of Canons, or church rules, but also of laws. Only Emperors, Kings, or other Civil Sovereigns could make such laws. The right to tithes under Moses’ Law could not apply to the Ministers of the Gospel at that time. For Moses and the High Priests were the people’s Civil Sovereigns under God, whose Kingdom among the Jews then existed. But the Kingdom of God through Christ is still 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 severall Congregations;) what is Ecclesiasticall Censure, viz. Excommunication, that is to say, in those places where Christianity was forbidden by the Civill Laws, a putting of themselves out of the company of the Excommunicate, and where Christianity was by the Civill Law commanded, a putting the Excommunicate out of the Congregations of Christians; who elected the Pastors and Ministers of the Church, (that it was, the Congregation); who consecrated and blessed them, (that it was the Pastor); what was their due revenue, (that it was none but their own possessions, and their own labour, and the voluntary contributions of devout and gratefull Christians). We are to consider now, what Office those persons have, who being Civill Soveraignes, have embraced also the Christian Faith.

So far, we have shown who the Church’s pastors are and what duties they were given. They were to preach, teach, baptize, and preside over their own congregations. We have also explained Church discipline, namely excommunication. Where civil law forbade Christianity, excommunication meant that Christians withdrew from the company of the excommunicated person. Where civil law required Christianity, excommunication meant removing the excommunicated person from Christian congregations. We have shown who elected the Church’s pastors and ministers (the congregation) and who consecrated and blessed them (the pastor). We have also shown what income the pastors and ministers were entitled to. They had only their own property, their own labor, and voluntary contributions from devout and grateful Christians. We must now consider the role of civil sovereigns who have also embraced the Christian faith.

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

First, we must remember that in all commonwealths, civil sovereign power includes the right to judge which doctrines support peace. This power also includes deciding which doctrines may be taught to subjects. These rights cannot be separated from sovereign power, as already proved in chapter 18. This holds whether sovereign power belongs to one person or an assembly. Even the least intelligent person can see that people act according to their beliefs about what benefits or harms them. People therefore disobey the laws once convinced that obeying the sovereign power will harm them more than disobeying it. By doing so, they overthrow the commonwealth and bring about disorder and civil war. All civil government was established to prevent these evils. Therefore, in all pagan commonwealths, sovereigns have been called shepherds of the people. This was because no subject could lawfully teach the people without the sovereign’s permission and authority.

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

We cannot think that pagan kings lose this right when they convert to faith in Christ. Christ never decreed that kings should be deposed for believing in him, meaning subjected to anyone but himself. Nor, what amounts to the same thing, should kings lose the power needed to keep peace among their subjects. That power is also necessary to defend their subjects against foreign enemies. Therefore, Christian kings remain the supreme pastors of their people. They have the power to appoint whatever pastors they choose to teach the Church. That means teaching the people entrusted to the kings’ care.

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

Again, suppose the Church has the right to choose teachers, as before kings became Christians. The Church had this right in the Apostles’ own time, as already shown in this chapter. Even so, this right will also belong to the Christian civil sovereign. As a Christian, he approves the teaching. As sovereign, he represents the Church, so the teachers he chooses are chosen by the Church. When an assembly of Christians chooses its pastor in a Christian commonwealth, the sovereign is the one who chooses him. This is because the assembly acts by the sovereign’s authority. In the same way, when a town chooses its mayor, the choice is an act of whoever holds sovereign power. For every act belongs to the person without whose consent the act is invalid. Therefore, whatever historical examples may show pastors being chosen by the people or the clergy, they prove nothing against any civil sovereign’s right. Those who chose the pastors did so by the sovereign’s authority.

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

In every Christian commonwealth, then, the civil sovereign is the supreme pastor, entrusted with the whole flock of his subjects. All other pastors are therefore appointed by his authority. His authority gives them the power to teach and perform all other pastoral duties. It follows that all other pastors receive their right to teach, preach, and perform their other duties from the civil sovereign. They are only his ministers, just as town magistrates, judges in courts of justice, and army commanders are his ministers. For the civil sovereign is always the magistrate of the whole commonwealth, judge of all cases, and commander of all armed forces. The reason is not that the teachers are his subjects, but that those they teach are his subjects. Suppose a Christian king gives another king the authority to ordain pastors in his dominions. Various Christian kings grant this power to the Pope. By doing so, the king does not appoint a pastor over himself or a sovereign pastor over his people. For doing so would strip him of civil power. That power depends on people's understanding of their duty to him and their fear of punishment in another world. His civil power would therefore also depend on the knowledge and loyalty of religious teachers. Yet religious teachers are no less prone to ambition and ignorance than any other group of people. So when a foreigner has authority to appoint teachers, the sovereign of the country where the foreigner teaches grants that authority. Christian teachers are our schoolmasters in Christianity. But kings are fathers of households. Kings may accept schoolmasters for their subjects on a foreigner's recommendation, but not at a foreigner's command. This is especially true when teaching their subjects badly would bring great and obvious profit to the person recommending those teachers. Nor can kings be required to keep those teachers any longer than the public good requires. Kings remain responsible for the public good as long as they retain any other essential right of sovereignty.

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

Suppose someone questions a pastor carrying out his duties, as the chief priests and elders questioned our Saviour (Matthew 21:23): “By what authority do you do these things, and who gave you this authority?” The pastor’s only rightful answer is that he acts by the authority of the Commonwealth. The King, or the Assembly representing the Commonwealth, has given him that authority. All pastors except the Supreme Pastor carry out their duties by the authority of the civil sovereign. That is, they act by civil right, or Jure Civili. But the King, and every other sovereign, serves as Supreme Pastor by authority received directly from God. That is, the sovereign acts by God’s right, or Jure Divino. Therefore, only kings may include Dei Gratia Rex, and similar phrases, in their titles. This marks their submission to God alone. Bishops should begin their official orders with “By the favour of the King’s Majesty, Bishop of such a Diocese”. Or, like civil officials, they should write “In his Majesty’s Name.” For by using Divina Providentia, bishops deny having received their authority from the civil state. Although disguised, the phrase means the same as Dei Gratia. By using it, bishops slyly slip off the collar of their civil subjection, undermining the Commonwealth’s unity and defence.

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

But if every Christian sovereign is the supreme pastor of his own subjects, he seems to have further authority. He may preach, which perhaps no one will deny. But he may also baptize, administer the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and consecrate churches and pastors to God’s service. Most people deny these further powers, partly because sovereigns do not usually exercise them. Another reason concerns the laying on of hands required for administering sacraments and consecrating people and places for holy use. Those who lay on hands must themselves have been ordained to the same ministry through the same ceremony. This succession must extend back to the time of the Apostles. So, to prove that Christian kings have the power to baptize and consecrate, I must explain two things. First, why they do not usually exercise these powers. Second, how they are qualified to exercise these powers whenever they wish, without the usual ceremony of laying on hands.

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

There is no doubt that any King skilled in the sciences could lecture on them himself. His office gives him the same right to teach as to authorize others to teach in universities. Nevertheless, managing all the affairs of the Commonwealth takes up his whole time. So personally teaching a particular subject would not be practical for him. A King may also, if he wishes, sit as a judge to hear and decide all kinds of cases. He may do so just as he may authorize others to judge in his name. But his responsibility for command and government requires him to remain continually at the helm. He must therefore entrust subordinate duties to others under him. In the same way, our Saviour certainly had the power to baptize. Yet he baptized no one himself, but sent his Apostles and Disciples to baptize. (John 4.2.) Likewise, S. Paul baptized few because he needed to preach in many widely separated places. Among all the Corinthians, he baptized only Crispus, Cajus, and Stephanus. (1 Cor. 1.14,16.) The reason was that his main responsibility was to preach. (1 Cor. 1.17.) So it is clear that a greater responsibility, such as governing the Church, excuses someone from a lesser one. The reason Christian Kings do not usually baptize is therefore clear. The same reason explains why, today, Bishops baptize few people, and the Pope even fewer.

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

As for whether the laying on of hands is necessary to authorize a king to baptize and consecrate, we may consider the question as follows.

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

The laying on of hands was a very ancient public ceremony among the Jews. It clearly identified the person or thing intended in someone’s prayer, blessing, sacrifice, consecration, condemnation, or other speech. So Jacob, when blessing Joseph’s children (Gen. 48.14.), “laid his right hand on Ephraim the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh the firstborn.” Jacob did this deliberately to show whom he intended to receive the greater blessing. Joseph had positioned the children so that Jacob had to cross his arms to do this. Likewise, when sacrificing the burnt offering, Aaron was commanded (Exod. 29.10.) “to lay his hands on the head of the bull.” He was also commanded (verse 15.) “to lay his hand on the head of the ram.” The same command appears again in Levit. 1.4. and 8.14. Likewise, Moses appointed Joshua commander of the Israelites, consecrating him to God’s service (Numb. 27.23.). Moses “laid his hands on him and gave him his instructions.” By doing so, Moses clearly identified the man the Israelites were to obey in war. And when the Levites were consecrated (Numb. 8.10.), God commanded that “the children of Israel should lay their hands on the Levites.” And when a man was condemned for blaspheming the Lord (Levit. 24.14.), God commanded that “all who heard him should lay their hands on his head, and that the whole congregation should stone him.” Why should only those who heard the man lay their hands on him? Why not a priest, Levite, or other officer of justice? The reason was that no one else could identify the blasphemer and show the congregation who ought to die. And identifying a person or thing visibly by hand is less likely to cause mistakes than identifying them by name alone.

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

This ceremony was followed even when blessing the whole congregation at once, when laying hands on everyone is impossible. Yet “Aaron (Levit. 9.22.) raised his hand toward the people when he blessed them.” We also read of a similar ceremony for consecrating temples among pagans. The priest placed his hands on some post of the temple throughout the words of consecration. So natural is it, in God’s public worship, to identify a particular thing by hand rather than by words. The hand makes the thing clear to the eyes, rather than words explaining it to the ear.

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

This ceremony was therefore not new in our Saviour’s time. For Jairus (Mark 5:23), whose daughter was sick, begged our Saviour not simply to heal her. Instead, he asked our Saviour “to lay his hands on her so that she might be healed.” And (Matthew 19:13) “people brought little children to him so that he would lay his hands on them and pray.”

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

Following this ancient rite, the Apostles, Presbyters, and the Presbytery itself laid hands on those they ordained as pastors. They also prayed that those ordained might receive the Holy Ghost. They did this not only once, but sometimes again when a new occasion arose. But the purpose remained the same: to mark out the person precisely and religiously for service. That service could be pastoral responsibility in general or a particular mission. Thus, in Acts 6:6, “The Apostles prayed and laid their hands” on the seven Deacons. They did this not to give the Deacons the Holy Ghost, but to appoint them to that office. As the preceding verse 3 shows, the Deacons were already full of the Holy Ghost before being chosen. Later, Philip the Deacon converted certain people in Samaria. Peter and John then went down (Acts 8:17) “and laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” Not only an Apostle, but also a Presbyter, had this power. For St. Paul advises Timothy (1 Timothy 5:22), “Do not lay hands on anyone hastily.” In other words, do not rashly appoint anyone to the office of pastor. We read in 1 Timothy 4:14 that the whole Presbytery laid their hands on Timothy. But we should understand this to mean that some acted on the Presbytery’s instructions. Most likely, their Proestos, or spokesman, performed the act, and perhaps this was St. Paul himself. For in his second letter to Timothy, verse 6, he tells Timothy: “Stir up God’s gift within you, received through the laying on of my hands.” Notice, in passing, that “the Holy Ghost” here does not mean the third Person of the Trinity. It means the gifts necessary for the pastoral office. We also read that St. Paul received the laying on of hands twice. The first time was from Ananias at Damascus, at his baptism (Acts 9:17–18). The second was at Antioch, when he was first sent out to preach (Acts 13:3). The purpose of this ceremony in ordaining pastors, then, was to identify the person receiving such authority. But suppose someone becoming a Christian then had already possessed the authority to teach. Baptizing that person, meaning making him a Christian, would have given him no new authority. Baptism would only have led him to preach true doctrine, meaning to use his authority rightly. The laying on of hands would therefore have been unnecessary. Baptism itself would have been enough. But every sovereign, before Christianity, had the authority to teach and to ordain teachers. Christianity therefore gave sovereigns no new right, but only guided them in teaching the truth. Consequently, they needed no laying on of hands beyond what takes place in baptism. They already had authority to perform every part of the pastoral role, including baptizing and consecrating. In the Old Testament, only the priest had the right to consecrate while sovereign power belonged to the High Priest. Yet this was not so when sovereign power belonged to the King. For we read in 1 Kings 8 that Solomon blessed the people, consecrated the Temple, and offered the public prayer. That prayer is now the model for consecrating all Christian churches and chapels. This shows that Solomon had not only the right to govern religious affairs, but also to perform religious duties.

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

Political and religious authority are united in Christian sovereigns. From this union, it is clear that Christian sovereigns have all the power that can be given to human beings to govern their subjects’ outward actions. This power covers both politics and religion. So Christian sovereigns may make whatever laws they judge best for governing their own subjects, both as a commonwealth and as a Church. For the State and the Church consist of the same people.

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

If sovereigns wish, therefore, they may entrust the religious government of their subjects to the Pope. Many Christian kings now do so. But in religious matters, the Pope is then subordinate to those sovereigns. He exercises that office in another ruler’s territory by civil right, under the authority of the civil sovereign. He does not exercise it by divine right, under God’s authority. The sovereign may therefore remove the Pope from that office whenever the sovereign considers it necessary for the subjects’ good. Sovereigns may also, if they wish, entrust religious affairs to one supreme pastor or an assembly of pastors. They may give those pastors whatever power over the Church, or over one another, they think most suitable. They may grant whatever titles of honor they wish, such as bishops, archbishops, priests, or presbyters. They may make whatever laws they wish to support those pastors, through tithes or other means. But sovereigns must do so with a sincere conscience, which God alone can judge. The civil sovereign appoints judges and interpreters of the canonical Scriptures, because the sovereign gives those Scriptures legal force. The sovereign also gives force to excommunications. Without laws and punishments to humble stubborn people who reject religious restraints, excommunications would be treated with contempt. Those laws and punishments bring such people back into unity with the rest of the Church. In short, the sovereign has supreme power in all matters, both religious and civil, concerning actions and words. Only actions and words can be known and made the subject of accusations. Where no accusation can be made, there is no judge except God, who knows the heart. These rights belong to all sovereigns, whether monarchs or assemblies. For the representatives of a Christian people are also representatives of the Church. A Church and a commonwealth of Christian people are the same thing.

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

What I have said here and elsewhere in this book seems clear enough to establish Christian sovereigns’ supreme church authority. Yet the Pope of Rome claims that authority universally. Cardinal Bellarmine has been the chief defender of the Pope’s claim in his work De Summo Pontifice. I think Bellarmine has defended the claim as strongly as possible. Because of this defense, I have thought it necessary to examine the foundations and strength of Bellarmine’s argument. I will do so as briefly as I can.

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

He has written five books on this subject. The first addresses three questions. The first question is whether monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy is the best form of government in itself. He chooses none of them, favoring instead a government that mixes all three. The second question is which form is best for governing the Church. Again, he favors a mixed government, but one with a larger share of monarchy. The third question is whether St. Peter held the position of monarch in this mixed monarchy. As for his first conclusion, I have already sufficiently proved (chapter 18) that all governments people must obey are undivided and absolute. In a monarchy, only one man holds supreme power. Everyone else with any power in the state holds it by his authorization, for as long as he wishes. They exercise that power in his name. In an aristocracy or democracy, only one assembly holds supreme power. That assembly has the same power that belongs to the monarch in a monarchy. This is not mixed sovereignty, but absolute sovereignty. Once any of these three forms is established, there should be no debate about which is best. Instead, the existing government should always be preferred, maintained, and considered best. For anything tending to overthrow that government violates both the law of nature and God's expressly given law. Besides, which form of government is best has no bearing on any pastor's power, unless he holds civil sovereignty. For pastors are not called to govern people by commands, but to teach them and persuade them through arguments. They must leave people to consider whether to accept or reject the doctrine taught. For monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy describe three kinds of sovereigns, not three kinds of pastors. Or, we might say, they describe three kinds of heads of households, not three kinds of schoolteachers for their children.

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

Therefore, the second conclusion, about the best form of Church government, has no bearing on the Pope’s power outside his own territories. For in all other states, if the Pope has any power at all, it is only a schoolmaster’s power. It is not the power of the head of a household.

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

His third conclusion is that St. Peter was the monarch of the Church. His chief argument comes from St. Matthew (16:18, 19): “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, etc. And I will give you the keys of Heaven. Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven.” Properly considered, this passage proves only that Christ’s Church rests on a single article of faith. Peter declared that article on behalf of all the Apostles, prompting our Saviour to speak the words quoted here. To understand this clearly, we must consider what our Saviour preached, himself and through John the Baptist and his Apostles. He preached only this article of faith: “that he was the Christ.” All other articles require belief only insofar as they rest on that one. John began first (Matthew 3:2), preaching only this: “The Kingdom of God is at hand.” Then our Saviour himself (Matthew 4:17) preached the same. When he commissioned his Twelve Apostles (Matthew 10:7), there was no mention of preaching any other article. This was the fundamental article, the foundation of the Church’s faith. Afterwards, when the Apostles had returned to him, he asked them all (Matthew 16:13), not Peter alone, “Who do people say I am?” They answered that “some said he was John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the Prophets.” Then (verse 15) he again asked them all, not Peter alone, “Who do you say I am?” So Peter answered for them all: “You are Christ, the Son of the living God.” As I have said, this article is the foundation of the whole Church’s faith. Peter’s answer prompted our Saviour to say, “On this stone I will build my Church.” Clearly, then, the Church’s foundation stone meant the fundamental article of the Church’s faith. But some will object: why does our Saviour insert the words, “You are Peter”? If the original text had been translated strictly, the reason would have been clear. We must therefore consider that the Apostle Simon was given the surname Stone. That is the meaning of the Syriac word Cephas and the Greek word Petrus. After Peter declared that fundamental article, our Saviour therefore made a play on his name. He said, as if speaking in English: You are “Stone,” and on this Stone I will build my Church. This amounts to saying that the article “I am the Christ” is the foundation of all the faith he requires. He requires that faith of those who are to become members of his Church. Such a play on a name is not unusual in ordinary speech. But suppose our Saviour had intended to build his Church on the person of St. Peter. It would then have been strange and obscure to say, “You are a Stone, and on this Stone I will build my Church.” He could so obviously have said, without ambiguity, “I will build my Church on you.” And the same play on Peter’s name would still have been there.

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

As for the next words, “I will give you the keys of Heaven, etc.”, our Saviour gave no more than he also gave all his other Disciples (Matthew 18:18). “Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven. And whatever you release on Earth will be released in Heaven.” But however these words are interpreted, the power granted here undoubtedly belongs to all supreme pastors. All Christian civil sovereigns are supreme pastors within their own dominions. So even if St. Peter or our Saviour himself had converted any such sovereign to faith in Christ and recognition of his kingdom, the sovereign would still have retained authority. Because Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, he would have left that sovereign alone with supreme responsibility for converting his subjects. Otherwise, Christ would have had to strip the sovereign of sovereignty, since the right to teach is inseparable from sovereignty. This concludes the refutation of his first book. In that book, he seeks to prove that St. Peter was the universal monarch of the Church. That is, the monarch of all Christians in the world.

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

The second book reaches two conclusions. First, S. Peter was Bishop of Rome and died there. Second, the Popes of Rome are his successors. Others have disputed both claims. But suppose both are true. If Bishop of Rome means either the Church’s monarch or its supreme pastor, then Constantine, not Silvester, was that bishop. Constantine was the first Christian Emperor. Like Constantine, all other Christian Emperors were, by right, supreme bishops of the Roman Empire. I say the Roman Empire, not all Christendom. For other Christian sovereigns had the same right within their own territories. The office of supreme bishop was inseparable from their sovereignty. This will serve as my answer to his second book.

In the third Book, he handleth the question whether the Pope be Antichrist. For my part, I see no argument that proves he is so, in that sense that Scripture useth the name: nor will I take any argument from the quality of Antichrist, to contradict the Authority he exerciseth, or hath heretofore exercised in the Dominions of any other Prince, or State.

In the third Book, he examines whether the Pope is Antichrist. For my part, I see no argument proving that the Pope is Antichrist in the sense Scripture uses the name. Nor will I use the claim that the Pope is Antichrist to challenge his authority in another Prince’s or State’s territory. This applies both to the authority he exercises now and to the authority he has exercised in the past.

It is evident that the Prophets of the Old Testament foretold, and the Jews expected a Messiah, that is, a Christ, that should re-establish amongst them the kingdom of God, which had been rejected by them in the time of Samuel, when they required a King after the manner of other Nations. This expectation of theirs, made them obnoxious to the Imposture of all such, as had both the ambition to attempt the attaining of the Kingdome, and the art to deceive the People by counterfeit miracles, by hypocriticall life, or by orations and doctrine plausible. Our Saviour therefore, and his Apostles forewarned men of False Prophets, and of False Christs. False Christs, are such as pretend to be the Christ, but are not, and are called properly Antichrists, in such sense, as when there happeneth a Schisme in the Church by the election of two Popes, the one calleth the other Antipapa, or the false Pope. And therefore Antichrist in the proper signification hath two essentiall marks; One, that he denyeth Jesus to be Christ; and another that he professeth himselfe to bee Christ. The first Mark is set down by S. John in his 1 Epist. 4. ch. 3. ver. “Every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; And this is the Spirit of Antichrist.” The other Mark is expressed in the words of our Saviour, (Mat. 24.5.) “Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ;” and again, “If any man shall say unto you, Loe, here is Christ, there is Christ beleeve it not.” And therefore Antichrist must be a False Christ, that is, some one of them that shall pretend themselves to be Christ. And out of these two Marks, “to deny Jesus to be the Christ,” and to “affirm himselfe to be the Christ,” it followeth, that he must also be an “Adversary of the true Christ,” which is another usuall signification of the word Antichrist. But of these many Antichrists, there is one speciall one, O Antichristos, The Antichrist, or Antichrist definitely, as one certaine person; not indefinitely An Antichrist. Now seeing the Pope of Rome, neither pretendeth himself, nor denyeth Jesus to be the Christ, I perceive not how he can be called Antichrist; by which word is not meant, one that falsely pretendeth to be His Lieutenant, or Vicar Generall, but to be Hee. There is also some Mark of the time of this speciall Antichrist, as (Mat. 24.15.) when that abominable Destroyer, spoken of by Daniel, (Dan. 9. 27.) shall stand in the Holy place, and such tribulation as was not since the beginning of the world, nor ever shall be again, insomuch as if it were to last long, (ver. 22.) “no flesh could be saved; but for the elects sake those days shall be shortened” (made fewer). But that tribulation is not yet come; for it is to be followed immediately (ver. 29.) by a darkening of the Sun and Moon, a falling of the Stars, a concussion of the Heavens, and the glorious coming again of our Saviour, in the cloudes. And therefore The Antichrist is not yet come; whereas, many Popes are both come and gone. It is true, the Pope in taking upon him to give Laws to all Christian Kings, and Nations, usurpeth a Kingdome in this world, which Christ took not on him: but he doth it not As Christ, but as For Christ, wherein there is nothing of the Antichrist.

Clearly, the Prophets of the Old Testament foretold a Messiah, that is, a Christ, and the Jews expected him. He would restore among them the kingdom of God. They had rejected that kingdom in Samuel’s time, when they demanded a King like those of other Nations. This expectation made them vulnerable to impostors who were ambitious enough to seek the kingdom and skilled enough to deceive. Such impostors deceived the people through fake miracles, false displays of holiness, or persuasive speeches and teachings. Our Saviour and his Apostles therefore warned people about False Prophets and False Christs. False Christs are people who claim to be the Christ but are not. They are properly called Antichrists. The term works like Antipapa, or false Pope. When the election of two Popes divides the Church, each calls the other Antipapa. In its proper meaning, therefore, Antichrist has two essential identifying marks. First, he denies that Jesus is the Christ. Second, he claims to be the Christ himself. St. John gives the first mark in his First Epistle, chapter 4, verse 3: “Every spirit that does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not from God. And this is the spirit of Antichrist.” Our Saviour states the other mark in Matthew 24:5: “Many will come in my name, saying, I am Christ.” And again: “If anyone says to you, Look, here is Christ, or there is Christ, do not believe it.” Antichrist must therefore be a False Christ, someone who claims to be the Christ. These two marks are “denying that Jesus is the Christ” and “claiming to be the Christ himself.” Together, they mean that he must also be an “opponent of the true Christ.” This is another common meaning of the word Antichrist. But among these many Antichrists, there is one particular figure, O Antichristos, The Antichrist. Here the word identifies one specific person, not simply An Antichrist. Now, the Pope of Rome neither claims to be the Christ nor denies that Jesus is the Christ. So I do not see how he can be called Antichrist. The word does not mean someone who falsely claims to be Christ’s deputy, or Vicar General. It means someone who claims to be Christ himself. There is also some indication of when this particular Antichrist will appear. Matthew 24:15 describes the abominable Destroyer spoken of by Daniel (Daniel 9:27) standing in the Holy place. There will then be suffering unlike anything since the world began, and nothing like it will ever happen again. If that suffering lasted long, “no one could survive. But for the sake of the elect, those days will be shortened” (verse 22), meaning made fewer. But that suffering has not yet come. For immediately afterward, according to verse 29, the Sun and Moon will darken, the Stars will fall, and the Heavens will shake. Our Saviour will then return in glory in the clouds. Therefore, The Antichrist has not yet come, whereas many Popes have already come and gone. It is true that the Pope claims the right to make laws for all Christian Kings and Nations. In doing so, he seizes a kingdom in this world that Christ did not claim. But the Pope does this not as Christ himself, but as someone acting for Christ. There is nothing of the Antichrist in that.

In the fourth Book, to prove the Pope to be the supreme Judg in all questions of Faith and Manners, (which is as much as to be the absolute Monarch of all Christians in the world,) be bringeth three Propositions: The first, that his Judgments are Infallible: The second, that he can make very Laws, and punish those that observe them not: The third, that our Saviour conferred all Jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall on the Pope of Rome.

In the fourth book, he aims to prove that the Pope is the supreme judge in all matters of faith and morals. (This amounts to making the Pope the absolute monarch of all Christians in the world.) To prove this, he presents three claims. First, the Pope’s judgments are infallible. Second, the Pope can make actual laws and punish those who do not obey them. Third, our Saviour gave the Pope of Rome all authority over Church matters.

For the Infallibility of his Judgments, he alledgeth the Scriptures: and first, that of Luke 22.31. “Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired you that hee may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith faile not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy Brethren.” This, according to Bellarmines exposition, is, that Christ gave here to Simon Peter two priviledges: one, that neither his Faith should fail, neither he, nor any of his successors should ever define any point concerning Faith, or Manners erroneously, or contrary to the definition of a former Pope: Which is a strange, and very much strained interpretation. But he that with attention readeth that chapter, shall find there is no place in the whole Scripture, that maketh more against the Popes Authority, than this very place. The Priests and Scribes seeking to kill our Saviour at the Passeover, and Judas possessed with a resolution to betray him, and the day of killing the Passeover being come, our Saviour celebrated the same with his Apostles, which he said, till the Kingdome of God was come hee would doe no more; and withall told them, that one of them was to betray him: Hereupon they questioned, which of them it should be; and withall (seeing the next Passeover their Master would celebrate should be when he was King) entred into a contention, who should then be the greater man. Our Saviour therefore told them, that the Kings of the Nations had Dominion over their Subjects, and are called by a name (in Hebrew) that signifies Bountifull; but I cannot be so to you, you must endeavour to serve one another; I ordain you a Kingdome, but it is such as my Father hath ordained mee; a Kingdome that I am now to purchase with my blood, and not to possesse till my second coming; then yee shall eat and drink at my Table, and sit on Thrones, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel: And then addressing himself to St. Peter, he saith, Simon, Simon, Satan seeks by suggesting a present domination, to weaken your faith of the future; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail; Thou therefore (Note this,) being converted, and understanding my Kingdome as of another world, confirm the same faith in thy Brethren: To which S. Peter answered (as one that no more expected any authority in this world) “Lord I am ready to goe with thee, not onely to Prison, but to Death.” Whereby it is manifest, S. Peter had not onely no jurisdiction given him in this world, but a charge to teach all the other Apostles, that they also should have none. And for the Infallibility of St. Peters sentence definitive in matter of Faith, there is no more to be attributed to it out of this Text, than that Peter should continue in the beleef of this point, namely, that Christ should come again, and possesse the Kingdome at the day of Judgement; which was not given by the Text to all his Successors; for wee see they claim it in the World that now is.

To support the infallibility of the Pope’s judgments, Bellarmine cites Scripture. He begins with Luke 22:31: “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” According to Bellarmine’s interpretation, Christ here gave Simon Peter two privileges. First, Peter’s faith would not fail. Second, neither Peter nor any of his successors would ever wrongly define any matter of faith or morals. Nor would they ever contradict a previous Pope’s definition. This interpretation is strange and very far-fetched. But anyone who reads that chapter carefully will find no passage in Scripture more opposed to the Pope’s authority. The Priests and Scribes were seeking to kill our Saviour at the Passover. Judas was firmly resolved to betray him. When the day came to kill the Passover sacrifice, our Saviour celebrated the Passover with his Apostles. He said he would not celebrate it again until the Kingdom of God had come. He also told them that one of them would betray him. They then asked one another who the betrayer would be. They also began arguing about which of them would then be the greatest. For the next Passover their Master celebrated would be when he was King. Our Saviour therefore told them that the Kings of the nations ruled over their subjects. Those Kings were called by a name that means Generous in Hebrew. But I cannot be such a ruler over you. You must strive to serve one another. I appoint a Kingdom for you, but it is the kind my Father has appointed for me. I am now to purchase that Kingdom with my blood, and will not possess it until my second coming. Then you will eat and drink at my table. You will sit on thrones, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel. Then, addressing St. Peter, he says: Simon, Simon, Satan seeks to weaken your faith in future rule by suggesting rule now. But I have prayed for you, that your faith will not fail. Therefore, once you have turned back and understood that my Kingdom belongs to another world, strengthen your brothers in that same faith. Note this condition. St. Peter answered as someone who no longer expected any authority in this world: “Lord, I am ready to go with you, not only to prison, but to death.” Clearly, then, St. Peter was not given any governing authority in this world. He was also charged with teaching all the other Apostles that they too should have none. As for the infallibility of St. Peter’s definitive judgments on matters of faith, this passage supports no broader claim. It says only that Peter would continue to believe this point: Christ would return and possess the Kingdom on the day of Judgment. The passage did not grant this continuing belief to all Peter’s successors. For we see that they claim the Kingdom in the present world.

The second place is that of Matth. 16. “Thou art Peter, and upon this rocke I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” By which (as I have already shewn in this chapter) is proved no more, than that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the confession of Peter, which gave occasion to that speech; namely this, That Jesus Is Christ The Sonne Of God.

The second passage is Matthew 16: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of Hell will not overcome it.” As I have already shown in this chapter, this passage proves only one thing. The gates of Hell will not overcome Peter’s confession, which prompted those words: Jesus is Christ, the Son of God.

The third text is John 21. ver. 16,17. “Feed my sheep;” which contains no more but a Commission of Teaching: And if we grant the rest of the Apostles to be contained in that name of Sheep; then it is the supreme Power of Teaching: but it was onely for the time that there were no Christian Soveraigns already possessed of that Supremacy. But I have already proved, that Christian Soveraignes are in their owne Dominions the supreme Pastors, and instituted thereto, by vertue of their being Baptized, though without other Imposition of Hands. For such imposition being a Ceremony of designing the person, is needlesse, when hee is already designed to the Power of Teaching what Doctrine he will, by his institution to an Absolute Power over his Subjects. For as I have proved before, Soveraigns are supreme Teachers (in generall) by their Office and therefore oblige themselves (by their Baptisme) to teach the Doctrine of Christ: And when they suffer others to teach their people, they doe it at the perill of their own souls; for it is at the hands of the Heads of Families that God will require the account of the instruction of his Children and Servants. It is of Abraham himself, not of a hireling, that God saith (Gen. 18.19) “I know him that he will command his Children, and his houshold after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, and do justice and judgement.

The third passage is John 21:16–17, “Feed my sheep.” This gives only the authority to teach. If we grant that “sheep” includes the other Apostles, then this is the supreme authority to teach. But this authority lasted only while no Christian sovereigns already held that supreme power. I have already proved that Christian sovereigns are the supreme pastors in their own territories. Their baptism gives them this position, even without any further laying on of hands. For laying on hands is a ceremony that appoints a person to an office. Such a ceremony is unnecessary when a sovereign already has the authority to teach whatever doctrine he chooses. His appointment to absolute power over his subjects already gives him that authority. For, as I proved earlier, sovereigns are the supreme teachers in general by virtue of their office. Through baptism, therefore, they commit themselves to teaching the doctrine of Christ. When sovereigns allow others to teach their people, they risk their own souls. For God will hold the heads of families accountable for the instruction of their children and servants. God speaks of Abraham himself, not a hired servant, when he says (Gen. 18:19), “I know him. He will command his children and his household after him to follow the Lord’s way and act justly and fairly.”

The fourth place is that of Exod. 28.30. “Thou shalt put in the Breastplate of Judgment, the Urim and the Thummin:” which hee saith is interpreted by the Septuagint, delosin kai aletheian, that is, Evidence and Truth: And thence concludeth, God had given Evidence, and Truth, (which is almost infallibility,) to the High Priest. But be it Evidence and Truth it selfe that was given; or be it but Admonition to the Priest to endeavour to inform himself cleerly, and give judgment uprightly; yet in that it was given to the High Priest, it was given to the Civill Soveraign: For next under God was the High Priest in the Common-wealth of Israel; and is an argument for Evidence and Truth, that is, for the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of Civill Soveraigns over their own Subjects, against the pretended Power of the Pope. These are all the Texts hee bringeth for the Infallibility of the Judgement of the Pope, in point of Faith.

The fourth passage is Exodus 28:30: “You shall put the Urim and the Thummin in the Breastplate of Judgment.” He says the Septuagint translates these words as delosin kai aletheian, meaning Evidence and Truth. From this, he concludes that God gave the High Priest Evidence and Truth, which amounts to almost infallibility. But perhaps the gift was Evidence and Truth itself. Or perhaps it was only a warning to the Priest to seek clear knowledge and judge fairly. Either way, because the gift was given to the High Priest, it was given to the civil sovereign. For in the Commonwealth of Israel, the High Priest stood next below God. So this passage supports Evidence and Truth for civil sovereigns, meaning their supreme authority over their own subjects in religious matters. It argues against the Pope’s claimed power. These are all the texts he offers to support the infallibility of the Pope’s judgment in matters of faith.

For the Infallibility of his Judgment concerning Manners, hee bringeth one Text, which is that of John 16.13. “When the Spirit of truth is come, hee will lead you into all truth” where (saith he) by All Truth, is meant, at least, All Truth Necessary To Salvation. But with this mitigation, he attributeth no more Infallibility to the Pope, than to any man that professeth Christianity, and is not to be damned: For if any man erre in any point, wherein not to erre is necessary to Salvation, it is impossible he should be saved; for that onely is necessary to Salvation, without which to be saved is impossible. What points these are, I shall declare out of the Scripture in the Chapter following. In this place I say no more, but that though it were granted, the Pope could not possibly teach any error at all, yet doth not this entitle him to any Jurisdiction in the Dominions of another Prince, unlesse we shall also say, a man is obliged in conscience to set on work upon all occasions the best workman, even then also when he hath formerly promised his work to another.

To support the infallibility of the Pope’s judgment on moral conduct, he cites one passage, John 16:13. “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth”. By all truth, he says, he means at least all truth necessary for salvation. But with this qualification, he gives the Pope no more infallibility than any professing Christian who will not be damned. For anyone who errs on a point where freedom from error is necessary for salvation cannot possibly be saved. Only something without which salvation is impossible is necessary for salvation. I will show from Scripture what these points are in the next chapter. Here I say only this: suppose we granted that the Pope could not possibly teach any error at all. Even then, his freedom from error would not give him any authority in another Prince’s territories. Otherwise, we must also say that conscience requires a person always to hire the best worker available. That requirement would apply even when the person had already promised the work to someone else.

Besides the Text, he argueth from Reason, thus, If the Pope could erre in necessaries, then Christ hath not sufficiently provided for the Churches Salvation; because he hath commanded her to follow the Popes directions. But this Reason is invalid, unlesse he shew when, and where Christ commanded that, or took at all any notice of a Pope: Nay granting whatsoever was given to S. Peter was given to the Pope; yet seeing there is in the Scripture no command to any man to obey St. Peter, no man can bee just, that obeyeth him, when his commands are contrary to those of his lawfull Soveraign.

Besides citing Scripture, he argues from reason as follows: If the Pope could err on essentials, Christ has not adequately provided for the Church’s salvation. This is because Christ has commanded the Church to follow the Pope’s directions. But this argument is invalid unless he shows when and where Christ gave that command or even mentioned a Pope. Indeed, suppose that whatever was given to St. Peter was given to the Pope. Even so, Scripture contains no command for anyone to obey St. Peter. Therefore, no one can rightly obey St. Peter when his commands conflict with those of that person’s lawful sovereign.

Lastly, it hath not been declared by the Church, nor by the Pope himselfe, that he is the Civill Soveraign of all the Christians in the world; and therefore all Christians are not bound to acknowledge his Jurisdiction in point of Manners. For the Civill Soveraignty, and supreme Judicature in controversies of Manners, are the same thing: And the Makers of Civill Laws, are not onely Declarers, but also Makers of the justice, and injustice of actions; there being nothing in mens Manners that makes them righteous, or unrighteous, but their conformity with the Law of the Soveraign. And therefore when the Pope challengeth Supremacy in controversies of Manners, hee teacheth men to disobey the Civill Soveraign; which is an erroneous Doctrine, contrary to the many precepts of our Saviour and his Apostles, delivered to us in the Scripture.

Finally, neither the Church nor the Pope himself has declared that the Pope is the civil sovereign of all Christians worldwide. Therefore, not all Christians are bound to recognize his authority over moral conduct. For civil sovereignty and the final authority to judge disputes about moral conduct are the same thing. And those who make civil laws do not merely declare which actions are just or unjust. They also make actions just or unjust. For nothing makes human conduct right or wrong except its conformity with the sovereign’s law. Therefore, when the Pope claims supreme authority in disputes about moral conduct, he teaches people to disobey the civil sovereign. This teaching is false and contradicts the many commands of our Saviour and his Apostles given to us in Scripture.

To prove the Pope has Power to make Laws, he alledgeth many places; as first, Deut. 17.12. “The man that will doe presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest, (that standeth to Minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the Judge,) even that man shall die, and thou shalt put away the evill from Israel.” For answer whereunto, we are to remember that the High Priest (next and immediately under God) was the Civill Soveraign; and all Judges were to be constituted by him. The words alledged sound therefore thus. “The man that will presume to disobey the Civill Soveraign for the time being, or any of his Officers in the execution of their places, that man shall die, &c.” which is cleerly for the Civill Soveraignty, against the Universall power of the Pope.

To prove that the Pope has the power to make laws, he cites many passages. The first is Deut. 17.12. “The man who acts arrogantly and refuses to obey the Priest or the Judge must die. The Priest stands there to serve before the Lord your God. You must remove the evil from Israel.” In reply, we must remember that the High Priest was the civil sovereign, directly under God. All judges were to be appointed by him. So the quoted words mean this: “The man who presumes to disobey the current civil sovereign must die. The same applies to anyone who disobeys any of the sovereign’s officers as they carry out their duties, etc.” This clearly supports civil sovereignty, not the Pope’s universal power.

Secondly, he alledgeth that of Matth. 16. “Whatsoever yee shall bind, &c.” and interpreteth it for such Binding as is attributed (Matth. 23.4.) to the Scribes and Pharisees, “They bind heavy burthens, and grievous to be born, and lay them on mens shoulders;” by which is meant (he sayes) Making of Laws; and concludes thence, the Pope can make Laws. But this also maketh onely for the Legislative power of Civill Soveraigns: For the Scribes, and Pharisees sat in Moses Chaire, but Moses next under God was Soveraign of the People of Israel: and therefore our Saviour commanded them to doe all that they should say, but not all that they should do. That is, to obey their Laws, but not follow their Example.

Secondly, he cites Matthew 16: “Whatever you bind, etc.” He interprets this as the kind of binding attributed to the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:4: “They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders.” This means making laws, he says, and from this he concludes that the Pope can make laws. But this argument, too, supports only the lawmaking power of civil sovereigns. For the Scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses’ chair, and Moses, under God, was sovereign over the people of Israel. Therefore, our Saviour commanded the people to do everything the Scribes and Pharisees told them, but not everything those teachers did. That is, the people were to obey their laws, but not follow their example.

The third place, is John 21.16. “Feed my sheep;” which is not a Power to make Laws, but a command to Teach. Making Laws belongs to the Lord of the Family; who by his owne discretion chooseth his Chaplain, as also a Schoolmaster to Teach his children.

The third passage is John 21.16: “Feed my sheep.” This is not authority to make laws, but a command to teach. Making laws belongs to the head of the household. He chooses his chaplain at his own discretion, just as he chooses a schoolteacher to teach his children.

The fourth place John 20.21. is against him. The words are, “As my Father sent me, so send I you.” But our Saviour was sent to Redeem (by his Death) such as should Beleeve; and by his own, and his Apostles preaching to prepare them for their entrance into his Kingdome; which he himself saith, is not of this world, and hath taught us to pray for the coming of it hereafter, though hee refused (Acts 1.6,7.) to tell his Apostles when it should come; and in which, when it comes, the twelve Apostles shall sit on twelve Thrones (every one perhaps as high as that of St. Peter) to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Seeing then God the Father sent not our Saviour to make Laws in this present world, wee may conclude from the Text, that neither did our Saviour send S. Peter to make Laws here, but to perswade men to expect his second comming with a stedfast faith; and in the mean time, if Subjects, to obey their Princes; and if Princes, both to beleeve it themselves, and to do their best to make their Subjects doe the same; which is the Office of a Bishop. Therefore this place maketh most strongly for the joining of the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy to the Civill Soveraignty, contrary to that which Cardinall Bellarmine alledgeth it for.

The fourth passage, John 20:21, goes against him. The words are, “As my Father sent me, so send I you.” But our Saviour was sent to redeem, through his death, those who would believe. Through his own preaching and his Apostles’ preaching, he was also to prepare them to enter his kingdom. He himself says that his kingdom is not of this world. He has taught us to pray for its future coming. Yet he refused to tell his Apostles when his kingdom would come (Acts 1:6,7). When it comes, the twelve Apostles will sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps each throne will be as high as St. Peter’s. God the Father did not send our Saviour to make laws in this present world. So we may conclude from this passage that our Saviour did not send St. Peter to make laws here either. Instead, St. Peter was to persuade people to await our Saviour’s second coming with steadfast faith. In the meantime, if they were subjects, he was to persuade them to obey their princes. If they were princes, he was to persuade them to believe in that coming themselves. He was also to persuade princes to do their best to make their subjects believe the same. This work is the duty of a bishop. Therefore, this passage strongly supports joining supreme authority over the Church to civil sovereignty. This is the opposite of what Cardinal Bellarmine cites the passage to support.

The fift place is Acts 15.28. “It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden, than these necessary things, that yee abstaine from meats offered to Idols, and from bloud, and from things strangled, and from fornication.” Here hee notes the word Laying Of Burdens for the Legislative Power. But who is there, that reading this Text, can say, this stile of the Apostles may not as properly be used in giving Counsell, as in making Laws? The stile of a Law is, We Command: But, We Think Good, is the ordinary stile of them, that but give Advice; and they lay a Burthen that give Advice, though it bee conditionall, that is, if they to whom they give it, will attain their ends: And such is the Burthen, of abstaining from things strangled, and from bloud; not absolute, but in case they will not erre. I have shewn before (chap. 25.) that Law, is distinguished from Counsell, in this, that the reason of a Law, is taken from the designe, and benefit of him that prescribeth it; but the reason of a Counsell, from the designe, and benefit of him, to whom the Counsell is given. But here, the Apostles aime onely at the benefit of the converted Gentiles, namely their Salvation; not at their own benefit; for having done their endeavour, they shall have their reward, whether they be obeyed, or not. And therefore the Acts of this Councell, were not Laws, but Counsells.

The fifth passage is Acts 15:28. “The Holy Spirit and we have thought it good to place no greater burden on you than these necessary things. You must abstain from food offered to Idols, from blood, from strangled animals, and from sexual immorality.” Here he takes the phrase Laying Of Burdens to mean legislative power. But who, reading this passage, can say the Apostles’ wording is not equally suited to giving advice and making laws? The language of a law is, We Command. But We Think Good is the usual language of those who merely give advice. Those who give advice also impose a burden, though a conditional one. The condition applies if those receiving the advice wish to achieve their goals. Such is the burden of abstaining from strangled animals and from blood. The burden is not absolute, but applies if those advised wish to avoid error. I have shown before (chapter 25) how law differs from advice. The reason for a law comes from the aims and benefit of the person who prescribes it. But the reason for advice comes from the aims and benefit of the person receiving it. Here, however, the Apostles seek only the benefit of the converted Gentiles, namely their salvation, not their own benefit. For once the Apostles have done their best, they will receive their reward whether they are obeyed or not. Therefore, the decisions of this Council were not laws, but advice.

The sixt place is that of Rom. 13. “Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers, for there is no Power but of God;” which is meant, he saith not onely of Secular, but also of Ecclesiasticall Princes. To which I answer, first, that there are no Ecclesiasticall Princes but those that are also Civill Soveraignes; and their Principalities exceed not the compasse of their Civill Soveraignty; without those bounds though they may be received for Doctors, they cannot be acknowledged for Princes. For if the Apostle had meant, we should be subject both to our own Princes, and also to the Pope, he had taught us a doctrine, which Christ himself hath told us is impossible, namely, “to serve two Masters.” And though the Apostle say in another place, “I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpnesse, according to the Power which the Lord hath given me;” it is not, that he challenged a Power either to put to death, imprison, banish, whip, or fine any of them, which are Punishments; but onely to Excommunicate, which (without the Civill Power) is no more but a leaving of their company, and having no more to doe with them, than with a Heathen man, or a Publican; which in many occasions might be a greater pain to the Excommunicant, than to the Excommunicate.

The sixth passage is Rom. 13. “Let everyone submit to the higher authorities, for no authority exists except from God.” He says this means not only secular rulers but also church rulers. My first answer is that no one is a church ruler unless he is also a civil sovereign. Such rulers have no authority beyond the boundaries of their civil sovereignty. Outside those boundaries, they may be accepted as teachers, but they cannot be recognized as rulers. For if the Apostle meant we should obey both our own rulers and the Pope, his teaching would be impossible. Christ himself told us that we cannot “serve two masters.” And although the Apostle says elsewhere, “I write these things while absent, so that when present I need not act harshly. I would act according to the authority the Lord has given me,” he claimed no power to impose punishments. He did not claim the power to execute, imprison, banish, whip, or fine any of them. He claimed only the power to excommunicate. Without civil authority, excommunication means no more than withdrawing from their company. It means having no more dealings with them than with a heathen or a tax collector. On many occasions, such withdrawal might cause greater pain to the person excommunicating than to the person excommunicated.

The seventh place is 1 Cor. 4.21. “Shall I come unto you with a Rod, or in love, and the spirit of lenity?” But here again, it is not the Power of a Magistrate to punish offenders, that is meant by a Rod; but onely the Power of Excommunication, which is not in its owne nature a Punishment, but onely a Denouncing of punishment, that Christ shall inflict, when he shall be in possession of his Kingdome, at the day of Judgment. Nor then also shall it bee properly a Punishment, as upon a Subject that hath broken the Law; but a Revenge, as upon an Enemy, or Revolter, that denyeth the Right of our Saviour to the Kingdome: And therefore this proveth not the Legislative Power of any Bishop, that has not also the Civill Power.

The seventh passage is 1 Cor. 4.21. “Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love and a gentle spirit?” But here again, the rod does not mean a magistrate’s power to punish offenders. It means only the power of excommunication. Excommunication is not itself a punishment, but only an announcement of the punishment Christ will inflict. Christ will inflict that punishment when he takes possession of his Kingdom on the day of Judgment. Even then, Christ’s action will not properly be punishment, as for a subject who has broken the law. Instead, Christ’s action will be revenge, as against an enemy or rebel who denies our Saviour’s right to the Kingdom. Therefore, this passage does not prove that any bishop has lawmaking power unless he also has civil power.

The eighth place is, Timothy 3.2. “A Bishop must be the husband but of one wife, vigilant, sober, &c.” which he saith was a Law. I thought that none could make a Law in the Church, but the Monarch of the Church, St. Peter. But suppose this Precept made by the authority of St. Peter; yet I see no reason why to call it a Law, rather than an Advice, seeing Timothy was not a Subject, but a Disciple of St. Paul; nor the flock under the charge of Timothy, his Subjects in the Kingdome, but his Scholars in the Schoole of Christ: If all the Precepts he giveth Timothy, be Laws, why is not this also a Law, “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy healths sake”? And why are not also the Precepts of good Physitians, so many Laws? but that it is not the Imperative manner of speaking, but an absolute Subjection to a Person, that maketh his Precept Laws.

The eighth passage is Timothy 3.2: “A Bishop must be the husband of only one wife, watchful, sober, etc.” He says this was a law. I thought no one could make a law in the Church except its Monarch, St. Peter. But suppose this instruction came with St. Peter’s authority. Even so, I see no reason to call it a law rather than advice. Timothy was not St. Paul’s subject, but his disciple. Nor was the flock in Timothy’s care made up of his subjects in the Kingdom. They were his students in the school of Christ. If all St. Paul’s instructions to Timothy are laws, why is this not a law too: “Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine for your health’s sake”? And why are the instructions of good physicians not laws as well? The reason is that giving orders does not make someone’s instructions laws. Only absolute subjection to that person makes those instructions laws.

In like manner, the ninth place, 1 Tim. 5. 19. “Against an Elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three Witnesses,” is a wise Precept, but not a Law.

Similarly, the ninth passage, 1 Tim. 5. 19, says: “Do not accept an accusation against an elder except before two or three witnesses.” This is a wise instruction, but not a law.

The tenth place is, Luke 10.16. “He that heareth you, heareth mee; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me.” And there is no doubt, but he that despiseth the Counsell of those that are sent by Christ, despiseth the Counsell of Christ himself. But who are those now that are sent by Christ, but such as are ordained Pastors by lawfull Authority? and who are lawfully ordained, that are not ordained by the Soveraign Pastor? and who is ordained by the Soveraign Pastor in a Christian Common-wealth, that is not ordained by the authority of the Soveraign thereof? Out of this place therefore it followeth, that he which heareth his Soveraign being a Christian, heareth Christ; and hee that despiseth the Doctrine which his King being a Christian, authorizeth, despiseth the Doctrine of Christ (which is not that which Bellarmine intendeth here to prove, but the contrary). But all this is nothing to a Law. Nay more, a Christian King, as a Pastor, and Teacher of his Subjects, makes not thereby his Doctrines Laws. He cannot oblige men to beleeve; though as a Civill Soveraign he may make Laws suitable to his Doctrine, which may oblige men to certain actions, and sometimes to such as they would not otherwise do, and which he ought not to command; and yet when they are commanded, they are Laws; and the externall actions done in obedience to them, without the inward approbation, are the actions of the Soveraign, and not of the Subject, which is in that case but as an instrument, without any motion of his owne at all; because God hath commanded to obey them.

The tenth passage is Luke 10.16. “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me.” There is no doubt that whoever rejects the advice of those sent by Christ rejects Christ’s own advice. But who today is sent by Christ except those ordained as pastors by lawful authority? And who is lawfully ordained unless ordained by the supreme pastor? In a Christian Commonwealth, who is ordained by the supreme pastor without the authority of that Commonwealth’s sovereign? This passage therefore implies that whoever listens to his sovereign, if the sovereign is Christian, listens to Christ. And whoever rejects the teaching authorized by his king, if the king is Christian, rejects Christ’s teaching. (This is not what Bellarmine intends to prove here, but the opposite.) But none of this establishes a law. Moreover, a Christian king does not make his teachings laws merely by acting as his subjects’ pastor and teacher. He cannot compel people to believe. Yet as a civil sovereign, he may make laws consistent with his teaching that require people to perform certain actions. Sometimes these are actions they would not otherwise perform, and which he ought not to command. Yet once commanded, these requirements are laws. Outward actions performed in obedience to these laws, without inward approval, are the sovereign’s actions, not the subject’s. In such cases, the subject is merely an instrument, acting entirely without any impulse of his own. This is because God has commanded subjects to obey their sovereigns.

The eleventh, is every place, where the Apostle for Counsell, putteth some word, by which men use to signifie Command; or calleth the following of his Counsell, by the name of Obedience. And therefore they are alledged out of 1 Cor. 11.2. “I commend you for keeping my Precepts as I delivered them to you.” The Greek is, “I commend you for keeping those things I delivered to you, as I delivered them.” Which is far from signifying that they were Laws, or any thing else, but good Counsell. And that of 1 Thess. 4.2. “You know what commandements we gave you:” where the Greek word is paraggelias edokamen, equivalent to paredokamen, what wee delivered to you, as in the place next before alledged, which does not prove the Traditions of the Apostles, to be any more than Counsells; though as is said in the 8th verse, “he that despiseth them, despiseth not man, but God”: For our Saviour himself came not to Judge, that is, to be King in this world; but to Sacrifice himself for Sinners, and leave Doctors in his Church, to lead, not to drive men to Christ, who never accepteth forced actions, (which is all the Law produceth,) but the inward conversion of the heart; which is not the work of Laws, but of Counsell, and Doctrine.

The eleventh concerns every passage where the Apostle uses a word suggesting a command when giving advice. It also includes passages where he calls following his advice obedience. Thus, they cite 1 Cor. 11.2: “I praise you for keeping my instructions as I gave them to you.” The Greek says, “I praise you for keeping the things I handed down to you, as I handed them down.” This is far from meaning that those things were laws, or anything other than good advice. They also cite 1 Thess. 4.2: “You know what commandments we gave you.” Here the Greek phrase is paraggelias edokamen, equivalent to paredokamen, meaning what we handed down to you. This is the same meaning as in the passage just cited. It does not prove that the Apostles’ traditions are anything more than advice. This remains true even though verse 8 says, “whoever rejects them rejects not man, but God.” For our Saviour himself did not come to judge, that is, to be King in this world. Instead, he came to sacrifice himself for sinners and leave teachers in his Church. Those teachers were to lead people to Christ, not drive them to him. Christ never accepts forced actions, which are all that law produces. Instead, he accepts the inward conversion of the heart. Such conversion is not the work of laws, but of advice and teaching.

And that of 2 Thess. 3.14. “If any man Obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may bee ashamed”: where from the word Obey, he would inferre, that this Epistle was a Law to the Thessalonians. The Epistles of the Emperours were indeed Laws. If therefore the Epistle of S. Paul were also a Law, they were to obey two Masters. But the word Obey, as it is in the Greek upakouei, signifieth Hearkening To, or Putting In Practice, not onely that which is Commanded by him that has right to punish, but also that which is delivered in a way of Counsell for our good; and therefore St. Paul does not bid kill him that disobeys, nor beat, nor imprison, nor amerce him, which Legislators may all do; but avoid his company, that he may bee ashamed: whereby it is evident, it was not the Empire of an Apostle, but his Reputation amongst the Faithfull, which the Christians stood in awe of.

And consider 2 Thess. 3.14: “If anyone does not obey our message in this letter, take note of that person. Keep no company with him, so that he may be ashamed.” From the word “obey,” he would infer that this letter was a law for the Thessalonians. The Emperors’ letters were indeed laws. So if St. Paul’s letter was also a law, the Thessalonians had to obey two masters. But the Greek word upakouei, translated as “obey,” means listening to or putting into practice. It applies not only to commands from someone with the right to punish, but also to advice for our good. Therefore, St. Paul does not tell Christians to kill anyone who disobeys, or to beat, imprison, or fine him. Lawmakers may do all these things. Instead, St. Paul tells Christians to avoid the disobedient person’s company, so that he may be ashamed. This makes it clear that Christians stood in awe not of an Apostle’s ruling power, but of his reputation among the faithful.

The last place is that of Heb. 13.17. “Obey your Leaders, and submit your selves to them, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account:” And here also is intended by Obedience, a following of their Counsell: For the reason of our Obedience, is not drawn from the will and command of our Pastors, but from our own benefit, as being the Salvation of our Souls they watch for, and not for the Exaltation of their own Power, and Authority. If it were meant here, that all they teach were Laws, then not onely the Pope, but every Pastor in his Parish should have Legislative Power. Again, they that are bound to obey, their Pastors, have no power to examine their commands. What then shall wee say to St. John who bids us (1 Epist. chap. 4. ver. 1.) “Not to beleeve every Spirit, but to try the Spirits whether they are of God, because many false Prophets are gone out into the world”? It is therefore manifest, that wee may dispute the Doctrine of our Pastors; but no man can dispute a Law. The Commands of Civill Soveraigns are on all sides granted to be Laws: if any else can make a Law besides himselfe, all Common-wealth, and consequently all Peace, and Justice must cease; which is contrary to all Laws, both Divine and Humane. Nothing therefore can be drawn from these, or any other places of Scripture, to prove the Decrees of the Pope, where he has not also the Civill Soveraignty, to be Laws.

The final passage is Hebrews 13:17. “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they watch over your souls as people who must give account.” Here too, obedience means following their advice. For our reason to obey is not our pastors’ will or command, but our own benefit. Our pastors watch over us to save our souls, not to increase their own power and authority. If this passage meant that everything pastors teach is law, then not only the Pope would have lawmaking power. Every pastor would have that power in his own parish. Moreover, people who are bound to obey their pastors have no right to question their commands. What, then, should we say to St. John, who tells us in his first epistle (4:1): “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God. For many false prophets have gone out into the world”? Clearly, then, we may question our pastors’ teachings, but no one can question a law. Everyone agrees that the commands of civil sovereigns are laws. If anyone besides the sovereign can make a law, all commonwealths must cease to exist. Consequently, all peace and justice must also end. Such an outcome violates all laws, both divine and human. Therefore, neither these passages nor any other Scripture can prove that the Pope’s decrees are laws where he lacks civil sovereignty.

The Question Of Superiority Between The Pope And Other Bishops The last point hee would prove, is this, “That our Saviour Christ has committed Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction immediately to none but the Pope.” Wherein he handleth not the Question of Supremacy between the Pope and Christian Kings, but between the Pope and other Bishops. And first, he sayes it is agreed, that the Jurisdiction of Bishops, is at least in the generall De Jure Divino, that is, in the Right of God; for which he alledges S. Paul, Ephes. 4.11. where hee sayes, that Christ after his Ascension into heaven, “gave gifts to men, some Apostles, some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors, and some Teachers:” And thence inferres, they have indeed their Jurisdiction in Gods Right; but will not grant they have it immediately from God, but derived through the Pope. But if a man may be said to have his Jurisdiction De Jure Divino, and yet not immediately; what lawfull Jurisdiction, though but Civill, is there in a Christian Common-wealth, that is not also De Jure Divino? For Christian Kings have their Civill Power from God immediately; and the Magistrates under him exercise their severall charges in vertue of his Commission; wherein that which they doe, is no lesse De Jure Divino Mediato, than that which the Bishops doe, in vertue of the Popes Ordination. All lawfull Power is of God, immediately in the Supreme Governour, and mediately in those that have Authority under him: So that either hee must grant every Constable in the State, to hold his Office in the Right of God; or he must not hold that any Bishop holds his so, besides the Pope himselfe.

The Question of Superiority Between the Pope and Other Bishops The last point he would prove is this: “Our Saviour Christ has given church jurisdiction directly to the Pope alone.” Here he addresses not supremacy between the Pope and Christian Kings, but supremacy between the Pope and other Bishops. First, he says everyone agrees that Bishops’ jurisdiction is, at least in general, De Jure Divino, meaning by divine right. To support this, he cites S. Paul in Ephesians 4:11. There Paul says that Christ, after ascending to heaven, “gave gifts to men, some Apostles, some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors, and some Teachers.” From this he concludes that Bishops do indeed hold their jurisdiction by divine right. But he will not admit that Bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from God, rather than through the Pope. But suppose someone can hold jurisdiction De Jure Divino without receiving it directly from God. What lawful jurisdiction in a Christian Commonwealth, even civil jurisdiction, is not also De Jure Divino? For Christian Kings receive their civil power directly from God. The magistrates under a King carry out their various duties under his authority. Their actions are no less De Jure Divino Mediato, or indirectly by divine right, than Bishops’ actions under the Pope’s ordination. All lawful power comes from God, directly to the supreme ruler and indirectly to those holding authority under him. So he must either admit that every Constable in the State holds office by divine right, or abandon his claim. Otherwise, he cannot maintain that any Bishop besides the Pope himself holds office by divine right.

But this whole Dispute, whether Christ left the Jurisdiction to the Pope onely, or to other Bishops also, if considered out of these places where the Pope has the Civill Soveraignty, is a contention De Lana Caprina: For none of them (where they are not Soveraigns) has any Jurisdiction at all. For Jurisdiction is the Power of hearing and determining Causes between man and man; and can belong to none, but him that hath the Power to prescribe the Rules of Right and Wrong; that is, to make Laws; and with the Sword of Justice to compell men to obey his Decisions, pronounced either by himself, or by the Judges he ordaineth thereunto; which none can lawfully do, but the Civill Soveraign.

But did Christ give jurisdiction to the Pope alone, or to other Bishops too? Outside places where the Pope holds civil sovereignty, this whole dispute is an argument over nothing. For neither the Pope nor other Bishops have any jurisdiction where they are not sovereigns. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and decide disputes between people. This power can belong only to whoever has the authority to set the rules of right and wrong. That means the authority to make laws and use the sword of justice to enforce decisions. Those decisions may be given by the lawmaker himself or by judges he appoints for that purpose. Only the civil sovereign can lawfully exercise this authority.

Therefore when he alledgeth out of the 6 of Luke, that our Saviour called his Disciples together, and chose twelve of them which he named Apostles, he proveth that he Elected them (all, except Matthias, Paul and Barnabas,) and gave them Power and Command to Preach, but not to Judge of Causes between man and man: for that is a Power which he refused to take upon himselfe, saying, “Who made me a Judge, or a Divider, amongst you?” and in another place, “My Kingdome is not of this world.” But hee that hath not the Power to hear, and determine Causes between man and man, cannot be said to have any Jurisdiction at all. And yet this hinders not, but that our Saviour gave them Power to Preach and Baptize in all parts of the world, supposing they were not by their own lawfull Soveraign forbidden: For to our own Soveraigns Christ himself, and his Apostles have in sundry places expressely commanded us in all things to be obedient.

Therefore, he cites Luke 6, where our Saviour called his disciples together and chose twelve, whom he named Apostles. This proves that our Saviour chose them (all except Matthias, Paul and Barnabas) and gave them authority and orders to preach. But he did not give them authority to judge disputes between people. For our Saviour refused to take that authority himself, saying, “Who made me a judge or divider among you?” Elsewhere he says, “My kingdom is not of this world.” But someone without authority to hear and decide disputes between people cannot be said to have any jurisdiction at all. Yet this does not prevent our Saviour from giving the Apostles authority to preach and baptize throughout the world. That authority depended on their own lawful sovereign not forbidding them to do so. For Christ himself and his Apostles have expressly commanded us in several places to obey our own sovereigns in all things.

The arguments by which he would prove, that Bishops receive their Jurisdiction from the Pope (seeing the Pope in the Dominions of other Princes hath no Jurisdiction himself,) are all in vain. Yet because they prove, on the contrary, that all Bishops receive Jurisdiction when they have it from their Civill Soveraigns, I will not omit the recitall of them.

He argues that Bishops receive their authority from the Pope, but all his arguments are in vain. For the Pope himself has no authority in the territories of other Princes. Yet these arguments prove the opposite: all Bishops, when they have authority, receive it from their civil sovereigns. Because his arguments prove this, I will not leave them out.

The first, is from Numbers 11. where Moses not being able alone to undergoe the whole burthen of administring the affairs of the People of Israel, God commanded him to choose Seventy Elders, and took part of the spirit of Moses, to put it upon those Seventy Elders: by which it is understood, not that God weakened the spirit of Moses, for that had not eased him at all; but that they had all of them their authority from him; wherein he doth truly, and ingenuously interpret that place. But seeing Moses had the entire Soveraignty in the Common-wealth of the Jews, it is manifest, that it is thereby signified, that they had their Authority from the Civill Soveraign: and therefore that place proveth, that Bishops in every Christian Common-wealth have their Authority from the Civill Soveraign; and from the Pope in his own Territories only, and not in the Territories of any other State.

The first example comes from Numbers 11. Moses could not manage the affairs of the People of Israel alone. So God commanded him to choose Seventy Elders. God took part of Moses’ spirit and placed it upon those Seventy Elders. This does not mean that God weakened Moses’ spirit, since weakening his spirit would not have eased his burden. Rather, it means that all the Elders received their authority from Moses. In explaining the passage this way, he interprets it accurately and honestly. But Moses held complete sovereign power in the Commonwealth of the Jews. So the passage clearly means that the Elders received their authority from the civil sovereign. Therefore, the passage proves that bishops in every Christian Commonwealth receive their authority from the civil sovereign. They receive their authority from the Pope only in his own territories, not in the territories of any other State.

The second argument, is from the nature of Monarchy; wherein all Authority is in one Man, and in others by derivation from him: But the Government of the Church, he says, is Monarchicall. This also makes for Christian Monarchs. For they are really Monarchs of their own people; that is, of their own Church (for the Church is the same thing with a Christian people;) whereas the Power of the Pope, though hee were S. Peter, is neither Monarchy, nor hath any thing of Archicall, nor Craticall, but onely of Didacticall; For God accepteth not a forced, but a willing obedience.

The second argument comes from the nature of monarchy. In a monarchy, all authority rests in one man, and others receive their authority from him. But he says that Church government is a monarchy. This argument also supports Christian monarchs. For they truly are monarchs of their own people, that is, of their own Church. (The Church is the same thing as a Christian people.) By contrast, the Pope’s power, even if he were St. Peter, is not that of a monarch. Nor does the Pope have any power to rule or govern, but only to teach. For God accepts not forced obedience, but willing obedience.

The third, is, from that the Sea of S. Peter is called by S. Cyprian, the Head, the Source, the Roote, the Sun, from whence the Authority of Bishops is derived. But by the Law of Nature (which is a better Principle of Right and Wrong, than the word of any Doctor that is but a man) the Civill Soveraign in every Common-wealth, is the Head, the Source, the Root, and the Sun, from which all Jurisdiction is derived. And therefore, the Jurisdiction of Bishops, is derived from the Civill Soveraign.

The third argument rests on S. Cyprian’s description of the See of S. Peter. He calls that See the head, source, root, and sun from which bishops derive their authority. But the law of nature is a better standard of right and wrong than any merely human scholar’s word. Under that law, the civil sovereign in every commonwealth is the head, source, root, and sun of all jurisdiction. Therefore, bishops derive their jurisdiction from the civil sovereign.

The fourth, is taken from the Inequality of their Jurisdictions: For if God (saith he) had given it them immediately, he had given aswell Equality of Jurisdiction, as of Order: But wee see, some are Bishops but of own Town, some of a hundred Towns, and some of many whole Provinces; which differences were not determined by the command of God; their Jurisdiction therefore is not of God, but of Man; and one has a greater, another a lesse, as it pleaseth the Prince of the Church. Which argument, if he had proved before, that the Pope had had an Universall Jurisdiction over all Christians, had been for his purpose. But seeing that hath not been proved, and that it is notoriously known, the large Jurisdiction of the Pope was given him by those that had it, that is, by the Emperours of Rome, (for the Patriarch of Constantinople, upon the same title, namely, of being Bishop of the Capitall City of the Empire, and Seat of the Emperour, claimed to be equal to him,) it followeth, that all other Bishops have their Jurisdiction from the Soveraigns of the place wherein they exercise the same: And as for that cause they have not their Authority De Jure Divino; so neither hath the Pope his De Jure Divino, except onely where hee is also the Civill Soveraign.

The fourth argument rests on the unequal extent of the bishops’ jurisdictions. For, he says, if God had given bishops their jurisdiction directly, he would have made their jurisdictions equal, just as their rank is equal. But some bishops have authority over only their own town, some over a hundred towns, and some over many whole provinces. These differences were not established by God’s command. Their jurisdiction therefore comes not from God but from human authority. One bishop has more authority, another less, as the Prince of the Church pleases. This argument would have served his purpose if he had already proved that the Pope had universal jurisdiction over all Christians. But he has not proved that claim. And it is widely known that the Pope received his extensive jurisdiction from those who possessed it, the Emperors of Rome. (The Patriarch of Constantinople claimed equality with the Pope on the same grounds: he was Bishop of the Empire’s capital city and the Emperor’s seat.) It follows that all other bishops receive their jurisdiction from the sovereigns of the places where they exercise it. And just as those bishops therefore lack authority by divine right, so does the Pope, except where he is also the civil sovereign.

His fift argument is this, “If Bishops have their Jurisdiction immediately from God, the Pope could not take it from them, for he can doe nothing contrary to Gods ordination;” And this consequence is good, and well proved. “But, (saith he) the Pope can do this, and has done it.” This also is granted, so he doe it in his own Dominions, or in the Dominions of any other Prince that hath given him that Power; but not universally, in Right of the Popedome: For that power belongeth to every Christian Soveraign, within the bounds of his owne Empire, and is inseparable from the Soveraignty. Before the People of Israel had (by the commandment of God to Samuel) set over themselves a King, after the manner of other Nations, the High Priest had the Civill Government; and none but he could make, nor depose an inferiour Priest: But that Power was afterwards in the King, as may be proved by this same argument of Bellarmine; For if the Priest (be he the High Priest or any other) had his Jurisdiction immediately from God, then the King could not take it from him; “for he could do nothing contrary to Gods ordinance: But it is certain, that King Solomon (1 Kings 2.26.) deprived Abiathar the High Priest of his office, and placed Zadok (verse 35.) in his room. Kings therefore may in the like manner Ordaine, and Deprive Bishops, as they shall thinke fit, for the well governing of their Subjects.

His fifth argument is this: “If Bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from God, the Pope could not take that jurisdiction from them. For the Pope can do nothing contrary to what God has ordained.” This conclusion is sound and well proved. “But,” he says, “the Pope can do this, and has done so.” This too is granted, provided the Pope acts within his own territories. The same holds within another Prince’s territories, if that Prince has given the Pope that power. But the Pope does not have this power everywhere by virtue of his office. For this power belongs to every Christian Sovereign within the boundaries of his own realm, and is inseparable from sovereignty. Before the people of Israel appointed a King, the High Priest held civil authority. They appointed their King in the manner of other nations, following God’s command to Samuel. Before then, only the High Priest could appoint or remove a lower-ranking Priest. But afterward, that power belonged to the King, as Bellarmine’s own argument can prove. For if a Priest received his jurisdiction directly from God, the King could not take that jurisdiction from him. This applies whether the Priest is the High Priest or any other Priest. “For the King could do nothing contrary to what God has ordained. But it is certain that King Solomon (1 Kings 2:26) removed Abiathar the High Priest from office. Solomon then appointed Zadok (verse 35) in Abiathar’s place.” Kings therefore may likewise ordain and remove Bishops as they think fit, for the good government of their subjects.

His sixth argument is this, If Bishops have their Jurisdiction De Jure Divino (that is, immediately from God,) they that maintaine it, should bring some Word of God to prove it: But they can bring none. The argument is good; I have therefore nothing to say against it. But it is an argument no lesse good, to prove the Pope himself to have no Jurisdiction in the Dominion of any other Prince.

His sixth argument is this: If Bishops receive their authority directly from God, those who claim this should provide proof from God's Word. But they can provide none. The argument is sound, so I have nothing to say against it. But the same argument is equally sound as proof that the Pope himself has no authority in another Prince's territory.

Lastly, hee bringeth for argument, the testimony of two Popes, Innocent, and Leo; and I doubt not but hee might have alledged, with as good reason, the testimonies of all the Popes almost since S. Peter: For considering the love of Power naturally implanted in mankind, whosoever were made Pope, he would be tempted to uphold the same opinion. Neverthelesse, they should therein but doe, as Innocent, and Leo did, bear witnesse of themselves, and therefore their witness should not be good.

Lastly, he supports his argument with the testimony of two Popes, Innocent and Leo. I have no doubt he could, with equally good reason, have cited almost every Pope since S. Peter. For the love of power is natural to humankind, so anyone made Pope would be tempted to uphold that opinion. Nevertheless, those Popes would only be testifying on their own behalf, just as Innocent and Leo did. Their testimony should therefore not be accepted as valid.

In the fift Book he hath four Conclusions. The first is, “That the Pope in not Lord of all the world:” the second, “that the Pope is not Lord of all the Christian world:” The third, “That the Pope (without his owne Territory) has not any Temporall Jurisdiction DIRECTLY:” These three Conclusions are easily granted. The fourth is, “That the Pope has (in the Dominions of other Princes) the Supreme Temporall Power INDIRECTLY:” which is denyed; unlesse he mean by Indirectly, that he has gotten it by Indirect means; then is that also granted. But I understand, that when he saith he hath it Indirectly, he means, that such Temporall Jurisdiction belongeth to him of Right, but that this Right is but a Consequence of his Pastorall Authority, the which he could not exercise, unlesse he have the other with it: And therefore to the Pastorall Power (which he calls Spirituall) the Supreme Power Civill is necessarily annexed; and that thereby hee hath a Right to change Kingdomes, giving them to one, and taking them from another, when he shall think it conduces to the Salvation of Souls.

In the fifth book, he presents four conclusions. The first is, “The Pope is not lord of the whole world.” The second is, “The Pope is not lord of the whole Christian world.” The third is, “Outside his own territory, the Pope has no DIRECT temporal jurisdiction.” These three conclusions are easily accepted. The fourth is, “The Pope has supreme temporal power INDIRECTLY in the territories of other princes.” This fourth conclusion is denied, unless by indirectly he means that the Pope gained this power through underhanded means. If that is his meaning, then this conclusion is also accepted. But I understand him to mean that the Pope has a right to such temporal jurisdiction. By “indirectly,” he means that this right follows from the Pope’s pastoral authority. The Pope could not exercise his pastoral authority without also having temporal jurisdiction. Therefore, supreme civil power necessarily accompanies pastoral power, which he calls spiritual. Through this connection, the Pope has a right to transfer kingdoms, giving them to one ruler and taking them from another. He may do so whenever he thinks this will help save souls.

Before I come to consider the Arguments by which hee would prove this doctrine, it will not bee amisse to lay open the Consequences of it; that Princes, and States, that have the Civill Soveraignty in their severall Common-wealths, may bethink themselves, whether it bee convenient for them, and conducing to the good of their Subjects, of whom they are to give an account at the day of Judgment, to admit the same.

Before examining his arguments for this doctrine, it is worth explaining the consequences of the doctrine. This will let princes and states holding civil sovereignty in their respective commonwealths consider whether to accept the doctrine. They must consider whether accepting it serves their interests and the good of their subjects. These rulers must answer for their subjects on the day of Judgment.

When it is said, the Pope hath not (in the Territories of other States) the Supreme Civill Power Directly; we are to understand, he doth not challenge it, as other Civill Soveraigns doe, from the originall submission thereto of those that are to be governed. For it is evident, and has already been sufficiently in this Treatise demonstrated, that the Right of all Soveraigns, is derived originally from the consent of every one of those that are to bee governed; whether they that choose him, doe it for their common defence against an Enemy, as when they agree amongst themselves to appoint a Man, or an Assembly of men to protect them; or whether they doe it, to save their lives, by submission to a conquering Enemy. The Pope therefore, when he disclaimeth the Supreme Civill Power over other States Directly, denyeth no more, but that his Right cometh to him by that way; He ceaseth not for all that, to claime it another way; and that is, (without the consent of them that are to be governed) by a Right given him by God, (which hee calleth Indirectly,) in his Assumption to the Papacy. But by what way soever he pretend, the Power is the same; and he may (if it bee granted to be his Right) depose Princes and States, as often as it is for the Salvation of Soules, that is, as often as he will; for he claimeth also the Sole Power to Judge, whether it be to the salvation of mens Souls, or not. And this is the Doctrine, not onely that Bellarmine here, and many other Doctors teach in their Sermons and Books, but also that some Councells have decreed, and the Popes have decreed, and the Popes have accordingly, when the occasion hath served them, put in practise. For the fourth Councell of Lateran held under Pope Innocent the third, (in the third Chap. De Haereticis,) hath this Canon. “If a King at the Popes admonition, doe not purge his Kingdome of Haeretiques, and being Excommunicate for the same, make not satisfaction within a year, his subjects are absolved of their Obedience.” And the practise hereof hath been seen on divers occasions; as in the Deposing of Chilperique, King of France; in the Translation of the Roman Empire to Charlemaine; in the Oppression of John King of England; in Transferring the Kingdome of Navarre; and of late years, in the League against Henry the third of France, and in many more occurrences. I think there be few Princes that consider not this as Injust, and Inconvenient; but I wish they would all resolve to be Kings, or Subjects. Men cannot serve two Masters: They ought therefore to ease them, either by holding the Reins of Government wholly in their own hands; or by wholly delivering them into the hands of the Pope; that such men as are willing to be obedient, may be protected in their obedience. For this distinction of Temporall, and Spirituall Power is but words. Power is as really divided, and as dangerously to all purposes, by sharing with another Indirect Power, as with a Direct one. But to come now to his Arguments.

When people say the Pope has no direct supreme civil power in other states, they mean something specific. He does not claim that power as other civil sovereigns do, through the original submission of those governed. As this treatise has already sufficiently demonstrated, every sovereign’s right originally comes from the consent of everyone governed. People may choose a ruler for their common defense against an enemy. In that case, they agree among themselves to appoint a man or an assembly to protect them. Or they may submit to a conquering enemy to save their lives. So when the Pope denies having direct supreme civil power over other states, he denies only this source of authority. He still claims the same power through another source, without the consent of those governed. He claims a right given by God when he becomes Pope, and calls this authority indirect. But whatever basis he claims, the power is the same. If his right is accepted, he may depose princes and governments whenever doing so serves the salvation of souls. In other words, he may do so whenever he wishes. For he also claims the sole power to judge whether doing so serves the salvation of people’s souls. This is not merely a doctrine that Bellarmine teaches here, and that many other scholars teach in sermons and books. Some councils and Popes have also decreed it. And Popes have put it into practice when opportunities arose. The fourth Council of Lateran, held under Pope Innocent the third, includes this rule in its third chapter, De Haereticis: “If a King, after the Pope’s warning, does not rid his kingdom of heretics, he is to be excommunicated. If he then fails to make amends within a year, his subjects are released from their duty to obey him.” This doctrine has been put into practice on various occasions. Examples include the removal of Chilperique, King of France, and the transfer of the Roman Empire to Charlemaine. Others include the oppression of John, King of England, and the transfer of the Kingdom of Navarre. More recently, there was the League against Henry the third of France, along with many other instances. I think few princes fail to see this as unjust and harmful. But I wish they would all decide whether to be kings or subjects. Men cannot serve two masters. Princes should therefore relieve their subjects of this burden. They should either keep the reins of government entirely in their own hands or surrender them entirely to the Pope. Then those willing to obey could be protected in their obedience. For this distinction between temporal and spiritual power is nothing but words. Sharing power with someone who claims indirect authority divides power just as truly and dangerously as sharing direct authority. But now let us turn to his arguments.

The first is this, “The Civill Power is subject to the Spirituall: Therefore he that hath the Supreme Power Spirituall, hath right to command Temporall Princes, and dispose of their Temporalls in order to the Spirituall. As for the distinction of Temporall, and Spirituall, let us consider in what sense it may be said intelligibly, that the Temporall, or Civill Power is subject to the Spirituall. There be but two ways that those words can be made sense. For when wee say, one Power is subject to another Power, the meaning either is, that he which hath the one, is subject to him that hath the other; or that the one Power is to the other, as the means to the end. For wee cannot understand, that one Power hath Power over another Power; and that one Power can have Right or Command over another: For Subjection, Command, Right, and Power are accidents, not of Powers, but of Persons: One Power may be subordinate to another, as the art of a Sadler, to the art of a Rider. If then it be granted, that the Civill Government be ordained as a means to bring us to a Spirituall felicity; yet it does not follow, that if a King have the Civill Power, and the Pope the Spirituall, that therefore the King is bound to obey the Pope, more then every Sadler is bound to obey every Rider. Therefore as from Subordination of an Art, cannot be inferred the Subjection of the Professor; so from the Subordination of a Government, cannot be inferred the Subjection of the Governor. When therefore he saith, the Civill Power is Subject to the Spirituall, his meaning is, that the Civill Soveraign, is Subject to the Spirituall Soveraign. And the Argument stands thus, “The Civil Soveraign, is subject to the Spirituall; Therefore the Spirituall Prince may command Temporall Princes.” Where the conclusion is the same, with the Antecedent he should have proved. But to prove it, he alledgeth first, this reason, “Kings and Popes, Clergy and Laity make but one Common-wealth; that is to say, but one Church: And in all Bodies the Members depend one upon another: But things Spirituall depend not of things Temporall: Therefore, Temporall depend on Spirituall. And therefore are Subject to them.” In which Argumentation there be two grosse errours: one is, that all Christian Kings, Popes, Clergy, and all other Christian men, make but one Common-wealth: For it is evident that France is one Common-wealth, Spain another, and Venice a third, &c. And these consist of Christians; and therefore also are severall Bodies of Christians; that is to say, severall Churches: And their severall Soveraigns Represent them, whereby they are capable of commanding and obeying, of doing and suffering, as a natural man; which no Generall or Universall Church is, till it have a Representant; which it hath not on Earth: for if it had, there is no doubt but that all Christendome were one Common-wealth, whose Soveraign were that Representant, both in things Spirituall and Temporall: And the Pope, to make himself this Representant, wanteth three things that our Saviour hath not given him, to Command, and to Judge, and to Punish, otherwise than (by Excommunication) to run from those that will not Learn of him: For though the Pope were Christs onely Vicar, yet he cannot exercise his government, till our Saviours second coming: And then also it is not the Pope, but St. Peter himselfe, with the other Apostles, that are to be Judges of the world.

The first argument is this: “Civil power is subject to spiritual power. Therefore, whoever holds supreme spiritual power has the right to command temporal princes. He may also dispose of their worldly possessions for spiritual purposes.” As for the distinction between temporal and spiritual, consider what it could mean to say that civil power is subject to spiritual power. These words can make sense in only two ways. When we say one power is subject to another, we mean either that one power’s holder is subject to the other’s holder. Or we mean that one power serves as a means to the other’s end. We cannot understand one power as having power, authority, or the right to command over another power. Subjection, command, right, and power are attributes of persons, not of powers. One power may be subordinate to another, as the saddler’s craft is subordinate to the rider’s skill. Suppose, then, we grant that civil government was established as a means of bringing us to spiritual happiness. Suppose also that a King holds civil power and the Pope holds spiritual power. It still does not follow that the King must obey the Pope, any more than every saddler must obey every rider. The subordination of a craft does not imply the subjection of its practitioner. Likewise, the subordination of a government does not imply the subjection of its governor. Therefore, when he says civil power is subject to spiritual power, he means the civil sovereign is subject to the spiritual sovereign. His argument thus becomes: “The civil sovereign is subject to the spiritual sovereign. Therefore, the spiritual prince may command temporal princes.” Here the conclusion is the same as the premise he should have proved. But to prove that premise, he first offers this reason: “Kings and Popes, clergy and laity form just one commonwealth, that is, one Church. And in all bodies, the members depend on one another. But spiritual things do not depend on temporal things. Therefore, temporal things depend on spiritual things, and are therefore subject to them.” This argument contains two serious errors. One is the claim that all Christian Kings, Popes, clergy, and all other Christians form just one commonwealth. For clearly, France is one commonwealth, Spain another, and Venice a third, and so on. These commonwealths consist of Christians. They are therefore also separate bodies of Christians, that is, separate Churches. Their respective sovereigns represent these bodies. Through that representation, these bodies can command and obey, act and be acted upon, just as an individual person can. No general or universal Church can do so until it has a representative, and it has none on Earth. For if it had one, all Christendom would undoubtedly be one commonwealth. That representative would be its sovereign in both spiritual and temporal matters. To make himself this representative, the Pope lacks three powers that our Saviour has not given him. These are the powers to command, to judge, and to punish. His only means of punishment is excommunication, by which he withdraws from those who refuse to learn from him. For even if the Pope were Christ’s only Vicar, he could not exercise his government until our Saviour’s second coming. And even then, the world’s judges will not be the Pope, but St. Peter himself, together with the other Apostles.

The other errour in this his first Argument is, that he sayes, the Members of every Common-wealth, as of a naturall Body, depend one of another: It is true, they cohaere together; but they depend onely on the Soveraign, which is the Soul of the Common-wealth; which failing, the Common-wealth is dissolved into a Civill war, no one man so much as cohaering to another, for want of a common Dependance on a known Soveraign; Just as the Members of the naturall Body dissolve into Earth, for want of a Soul to hold them together. Therefore there is nothing in this similitude, from whence to inferre a dependance of the Laity on the Clergy, or of the Temporall Officers on the Spirituall; but of both on the Civill Soveraign; which ought indeed to direct his Civill commands to the Salvation of Souls; but is not therefore subject to any but God himselfe. And thus you see the laboured fallacy of the first Argument, to deceive such men as distinguish not between the Subordination of Actions in the way to the End; and the Subjection of Persons one to another in the administration of the Means. For to every End, the Means are determined by Nature, or by God himselfe supernaturally: but the Power to make men use the Means, is in every nation resigned (by the Law of Nature, which forbiddeth men to violate their Faith given) to the Civill Soveraign.

The other error in his first argument is his claim that members of every commonwealth depend on one another. He compares them to the parts of a living body. It is true that the members hold together, but they depend only on the sovereign, the soul of the commonwealth. When the sovereign fails, the commonwealth breaks down into civil war. No one remains united with anyone else, because they lack a shared dependence on a recognized sovereign. In just the same way, the parts of a living body crumble into earth without a soul to hold them together. So this comparison gives no reason to conclude that laypeople depend on clergy, or secular officials on spiritual officials. Instead, both depend on the civil sovereign. The sovereign should indeed direct his civil commands toward the salvation of souls. But this duty does not make him subject to anyone except God himself. You can now see the elaborate fallacy in the first argument. It aims to deceive people who fail to distinguish between two kinds of subordination. One concerns how actions serve an ultimate goal. The other concerns how people are subject to one another in carrying out the means to that goal. For every goal, the means are determined by nature, or supernaturally by God himself. But in every nation, the power to make people use those means has been surrendered to the civil sovereign. This surrender follows the law of nature, which forbids people to break their pledged word.

His second Argument is this, “Every Common-wealth, (because it is supposed to be perfect and sufficient in it self,) may command any other Common-wealth, not subject to it, and force it to change the administration of the Government, nay depose the Prince, and set another in his room, if it cannot otherwise defend it selfe against the injuries he goes about to doe them: much more may a Spirituall Common-wealth command a Temporall one to change the administration of their Government, and may depose Princes, and institute others, when they cannot otherwise defend the Spirituall Good.”

His second argument is this: “Every commonwealth is assumed to be complete and self-sufficient. Because of this, every commonwealth may command another commonwealth that is not subject to its authority. It may force the other commonwealth to change how it is governed, or even remove its prince and appoint another. It may do so if no other means can defend it against the harm that prince intends to cause. How much more, then, may a spiritual commonwealth command a temporal commonwealth to change how it is governed. It may also remove princes and appoint others when no other means can defend the spiritual good.”

That a Common-wealth, to defend it selfe against injuries, may lawfully doe all that he hath here said, is very true; and hath already in that which hath gone before been sufficiently demonstrated. And if it were also true, that there is now in this world a Spirituall Common-wealth, distinct from a Civill Common-wealth, then might the Prince thereof, upon injury done him, or upon want of caution that injury be not done him in time to come, repaire, and secure himself by Warre; which is in summe, deposing, killing, or subduing, or doing any act of Hostility. But by the same reason, it would be no lesse lawfull for a Civill Soveraign, upon the like injuries done, or feared, to make warre upon the Spirituall Soveraign; which I beleeve is more than Cardinall Bellarmine would have inferred from his own proposition.

A commonwealth may lawfully do all he has described to defend itself against harm. That is entirely true and has already been sufficiently demonstrated above. And suppose there were also a spiritual commonwealth in the world today, separate from a civil commonwealth. Its ruler could then seek redress and protect himself through war if he suffered harm. He could also do so if he lacked guarantees against future harm. Such war means, in short, deposing, killing, subduing, or committing any act of hostility. But by the same reasoning, a civil sovereign could just as lawfully wage war against the spiritual sovereign. He could do so in response to similar harm, whether suffered or feared. I believe this conclusion goes further than Cardinal Bellarmine would have drawn from his own proposition.

But Spirituall Common-wealth there is none in this world: for it is the same thing with the Kingdome of Christ; which he himselfe saith, is not of this world; but shall be in the next world, at the Resurrection, when they that have lived justly, and beleeved that he was the Christ, shall (though they died Naturall bodies) rise Spirituall bodies; and then it is, that our Saviour shall judge the world, and conquer his Adversaries, and make a Spirituall Common-wealth. In the mean time, seeing there are no men on earth, whose bodies are Spirituall; there can be no Spirituall Common-wealth amongst men that are yet in the flesh; unlesse wee call Preachers, that have Commission to Teach, and prepare men for their reception into the Kingdome of Christ at the Resurrection, a Common-wealth; which I have proved to bee none.

But there is no spiritual commonwealth in this world, because a spiritual commonwealth is the same as Christ’s kingdom. Christ himself says his kingdom is not of this world. Instead, his kingdom will exist in the next world, at the Resurrection. Those who have lived justly and believed that he was the Christ will then rise with spiritual bodies. They will rise with spiritual bodies even though they died with natural bodies. Then our Saviour will judge the world, conquer his enemies, and establish a spiritual commonwealth. Meanwhile, no one on earth has a spiritual body. So there can be no spiritual commonwealth among people who are still in the flesh. The only exception would be if we called preachers a commonwealth. These preachers are authorized to teach and prepare people for entry into Christ’s kingdom at the Resurrection. But I have proved that these preachers do not constitute a commonwealth.

The third Argument is this; “It is not lawfull for Christians to tolerate an Infidel, or Haereticall King, in case he endeavour to draw them to his Haeresie, or Infidelity. But to judge whether a King draw his subjects to Haeresie, or not, belongeth to the Pope. Therefore hath the Pope Right, to determine whether the Prince be to be deposed, or not deposed.”

The third argument is this: “Christians must not tolerate an unbelieving or heretical King if he tries to lead them into his heresy or unbelief. But the Pope alone has the authority to judge whether a King is leading his subjects into heresy. Therefore, the Pope has the right to decide whether the Prince should be removed from power or not.”

To this I answer, that both these assertions are false. For Christians, (or men of what Religion soever,) if they tolerate not their King, whatsoever law hee maketh, though it bee concerning Religion, doe violate their faith, contrary to the Divine Law, both Naturall and Positive: Nor is there any Judge of Haeresie amongst Subjects, but their own Civill Soveraign; for “Haeresie is nothing else, but a private opinion, obstinately maintained, contrary to the opinion which the Publique Person (that is to say, the Representant of the Common-wealth) hath commanded to bee taught.” By which it is manifest, that an opinion publiquely appointed to bee taught, cannot be Haeresie; nor the Soveraign Princes that authorize them, Haeretiques. For Haeretiques are none but private men, that stubbornly defend some Doctrine, prohibited by their lawful Soveraigns.

My answer is that both these claims are false. Christians (or people of any religion) break their pledge of loyalty if they refuse to accept their king’s laws. This is true whatever laws the king makes, even laws about religion. Such disobedience violates divine law, both natural law and God’s explicit commands. Nor can anyone but the civil sovereign judge heresy among subjects. For “heresy is nothing more than a private opinion stubbornly maintained against the opinion ordered to be taught by the public representative. This representative is the person who represents the commonwealth.” It therefore follows that an opinion officially ordered to be taught cannot be heresy. Nor can sovereign rulers who authorize such opinions be heretics. For heretics are only private individuals who stubbornly defend a doctrine forbidden by their lawful sovereigns.

But to prove that Christians are not to tolerate Infidell, or Haereticall Kings, he alledgeth a place in Deut. 17. where God forbiddeth the Jews, when they shall set a King over themselves, to choose a stranger; And from thence inferreth, that it is unlawfull for a Christian, to choose a King, that is not a Christian. And ’tis true, that he that is a Christian, that is, hee that hath already obliged himself to receive our Saviour when he shall come, for his King, shal tempt God too much in choosing for King in this world, one that hee knoweth will endeavour, both by terrour, and perswasion to make him violate his faith. But, it is (saith hee) the same danger, to choose one that is not a Christian, for King, and not to depose him, when hee is chosen. To this I say, the question is not of the danger of not deposing; but of the Justice of deposing him. To choose him, may in some cases bee unjust; but to depose him, when he is chosen, is in no case Just. For it is alwaies violation of faith, and consequently against the Law of Nature, which is the eternal Law of God. Nor doe wee read, that any such Doctrine was accounted Christian in the time of the Apostles; nor in the time of the Romane Emperours, till the Popes had the Civill Soveraignty of Rome. But to this he hath replyed, that the Christians of old, deposed not Nero, nor Diocletian, nor Julian, nor Valens an Arrian, for this cause onely, that they wanted Temporall forces. Perhaps so. But did our Saviour, who for calling for, might have had twelve Legions of immortall, invulnerable Angels to assist him, want forces to depose Caesar, or at least Pilate, that unjustly, without finding fault in him, delivered him to the Jews to bee crucified? Or if the Apostles wanted Temporall forces to depose Nero, was it therefore necessary for them in their Epistles to the new made Christians, to teach them, (as they did) to obey the Powers constituted over them, (whereof Nero in that time was one,) and that they ought to obey them, not for fear of their wrath, but for conscience sake? Shall we say they did not onely obey, but also teach what they meant not, for want of strength? It is not therefore for want of strength, but for conscience sake, that Christians are to tolerate their Heathen Princes, or Princes (for I cannot call any one whose Doctrine is the Publique Doctrine, an Haeretique) that authorize the teaching of an Errour. And whereas for the Temporall Power of the Pope, he alledgeth further, that St. Paul (1 Cor. 6.) appointed Judges under the Heathen Princes of those times, such as were not ordained by those Princes; it is not true. For St. Paul does but advise them, to take some of their Brethren to compound their differences, as Arbitrators, rather than to goe to law one with another before the Heathen Judges; which is a wholsome Precept, and full of Charity, fit to bee practised also in the Best Christian Common-wealths. And for the danger that may arise to Religion, by the Subjects tolerating of an Heathen, or an Erring Prince, it is a point, of which a Subject is no competent Judge; or if hee bee, the Popes Temporall Subjects may judge also of the Popes Doctrine. For every Christian Prince, as I have formerly proved, is no lesse Supreme Pastor of his own Subjects, than the Pope of his.

But to prove that Christians must not tolerate unbelieving or heretical kings, he cites a passage in Deut. 17. There God forbids the Jews to choose a foreigner when they appoint a king. From this he concludes that a Christian cannot lawfully choose a king who is not a Christian. And it is true that a Christian has already committed himself to accepting our Saviour as king when he comes. Such a Christian would test God too far by choosing a certain kind of earthly king. He would do so if he knew that king would use both threats and persuasion to make him abandon his faith. But, he says, choosing a non-Christian king and failing to depose him once chosen pose the same danger. My answer is that the question concerns not the danger of leaving him in power, but the justice of deposing him. Choosing him may be unjust in some cases. But deposing him once he has been chosen is never just. Deposing him always breaks a pledge of loyalty. It therefore violates the law of nature, which is God’s eternal law. Nor do we read that any such teaching was considered Christian in the time of the Apostles. Nor was it considered Christian under the Roman Emperors until the Popes gained civil sovereignty over Rome. But he has replied that early Christians had only one reason for not deposing Nero, Diocletian, Julian, or Valens, an Arian. They lacked worldly military power. Perhaps so. But did our Saviour lack the power to depose Caesar, or at least Pilate? Our Saviour could have called for twelve legions of immortal, invulnerable angels to help him. Pilate unjustly handed him over to the Jews to be crucified, despite finding no fault in him. Or suppose the Apostles lacked the worldly power to depose Nero. Did that lack of power make it necessary to teach obedience in their letters to new Christians? The Apostles did teach Christians to obey the authorities established over them, including Nero at that time. They taught obedience not from fear of the rulers’ anger, but for conscience’s sake. Shall we say that, because they lacked strength, the Apostles not only obeyed but also taught what they did not mean? Christians must therefore tolerate their pagan rulers for conscience’s sake, not because they lack strength. The same applies to rulers who authorize the teaching of error. For I cannot call anyone a heretic whose doctrine is the publicly established doctrine. To support the Pope’s worldly power, he further claims that St. Paul appointed judges under the pagan rulers of his time. He cites 1 Cor. 6., claiming that those rulers had not appointed these judges. But this claim is not true. St. Paul merely advises Christians to choose some fellow believers as arbitrators to settle their disputes. He recommends arbitration rather than lawsuits against one another before pagan judges. This is sound advice, full of charity, and suitable for practice even in the best Christian commonwealths. As for any danger to religion from subjects tolerating a pagan ruler or one who teaches error, subjects cannot competently judge it. Or, if subjects can judge that danger, the Pope’s subjects in worldly affairs may also judge the Pope’s doctrine. For, as I have already proved, every Christian ruler is no less the supreme pastor of his own subjects than the Pope is of his.

The fourth Argument, is taken from the Baptisme of Kings; wherein, that they may be made Christians they submit their Scepters to Christ; and promise to keep, and defend the Christian Faith. This is true; for Christian Kings are no more but Christs Subjects: but they may, for all that, bee the Popes Fellowes; for they are Supreme Pastors of their own Subjects; and the Pope is no more but King, and Pastor, even in Rome it selfe.

The fourth argument comes from the baptism of kings. To become Christians, kings submit their scepters to Christ and promise to uphold and defend the Christian faith. This is true, because Christian kings are no more than Christ’s subjects. But even so, kings may be the Pope’s equals, because they are the supreme pastors of their own subjects. And the Pope is no more than king and pastor, even in Rome itself.

The fifth Argument, is drawn from the words spoken by our Saviour, Feed My Sheep; by which was give all Power necessary for a Pastor; as the Power to chase away Wolves, such as are Haeretiques; the Power to shut up Rammes, if they be mad, or push at the other Sheep with their Hornes, such as are Evill (though Christian) Kings; and Power to give the Flock convenient food: From whence hee inferreth, that St. Peter had these three Powers given him by Christ. To which I answer, that the last of these Powers, is no more than the Power, or rather Command to Teach. For the first, which is to chase away Wolves, that is, Haeretiques, the place hee quoteth is (Matth. 7.15.) “Beware of false Prophets which come to you in Sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravening Wolves.” But neither are Haeretiques false Prophets, or at all Prophets: nor (admitting Haeretiques for the Wolves there meant,) were the Apostles commanded to kill them, or if they were Kings, to depose them; but to beware of, fly, and avoid them: nor was it to St. Peter, nor to any of the Apostles, but to the multitude of the Jews that followed him into the mountain, men for the most part not yet converted, that hee gave this Counsell, to Beware of false Prophets: which therefore if it conferre a Power of chasing away Kings, was given, not onely to private men; but to men that were not at all Christians. And as to the Power of Separating, and Shutting up of furious Rammes, (by which hee meaneth Christian Kings that refuse to submit themselves to the Roman Pastor,) our Saviour refused to take upon him that Power in this world himself, but advised to let the Corn and Tares grow up together till the day of Judgment: much lesse did hee give it to St. Peter, or can S. Peter give it to the Popes. St. Peter, and all other Pastors, are bidden to esteem those Christians that disobey the Church, that is, (that disobey the Christian Soveraigne) as Heathen men, and as Publicans. Seeing then men challenge to the Pope no authority over Heathen Princes, they ought to challenge none over those that are to bee esteemed as Heathen.

The fifth argument comes from our Saviour’s words, Feed My Sheep. These words gave all the power necessary for a pastor. This includes the power to drive away wolves, meaning heretics. It also includes the power to confine rams if they go mad or attack the other sheep with their horns. These rams represent evil kings, even though they are Christians. Finally, it includes the power to give the flock suitable food. From this, he concludes that Christ gave St. Peter these three powers. I answer that the last power is no more than the power, or rather the command, to teach. For the first power, driving away wolves or heretics, he quotes this passage (Matthew 7:15): “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” But heretics are neither false prophets nor prophets at all. Even if we accept that the wolves mean heretics, the apostles were not commanded to kill them. Nor were the apostles commanded to depose them if they were kings. Instead, the apostles were to beware of them, flee from them, and avoid them. Moreover, Jesus did not give this advice to St. Peter or to any of the apostles. He gave it to the crowd of Jews who followed him up the mountain. Most of these people had not yet converted. So if this warning grants the power to drive away kings, that power was given not only to private individuals. It was also given to people who were not Christians at all. Next comes the power to separate and confine furious rams. By these rams, he means Christian kings who refuse to submit to the Roman pastor. Our Saviour himself refused to take on that power in this world. Instead, he advised letting the wheat and weeds grow together until the day of Judgment. Much less, then, did he give that power to St. Peter, nor can St. Peter give it to the Popes. St. Peter and all other pastors are told to regard Christians who disobey the Church as heathens and tax collectors. Disobeying the Church means disobeying the Christian sovereign. People claim no authority for the Pope over heathen princes. Therefore, they ought to claim none over princes who are to be regarded as heathens.

But from the Power to Teach onely, hee inferreth also a Coercive Power in the Pope, over Kings. The Pastor (saith he) must give his flock convenient food: Therefore the Pope may, and ought to compell Kings to doe their duty. Out of which it followeth, that the Pope, as Pastor of Christian men, is King of Kings: which all Christian Kings ought indeed either to Confesse, or else they ought to take upon themselves the Supreme Pastorall Charge, every one in his own Dominion.

But from the power to teach alone, he also infers that the Pope has power to coerce Kings. A pastor, he says, must give his flock suitable food. Therefore, the Pope may, and ought to, compel Kings to do their duty. It follows that the Pope, as pastor of Christians, is King of Kings. All Christian Kings ought indeed either to acknowledge this or to take on the highest pastoral responsibility in their own dominions.

His sixth, and last Argument, is from Examples. To which I answer, first, that Examples prove nothing; Secondly, that the Examples he alledgeth make not so much as a probability of Right. The fact of Jehoiada, in Killing Athaliah (2 Kings 11.) was either by the Authority of King Joash, or it was a horrible Crime in the High Priest, which (ever after the election of King Saul) was a mere Subject. The fact of St. Ambrose, in Excommunicating Theodosius the Emperour, (if it were true hee did so,) was a Capitall Crime. And for the Popes, Gregory 1. Greg. 2. Zachary, and Leo 3. their Judgments are void, as given in their own Cause; and the Acts done by them conformably to this Doctrine, are the greatest Crimes (especially that of Zachary) that are incident to Humane Nature. And thus much of Power Ecclesiasticall; wherein I had been more briefe, forbearing to examine these Arguments of Bellarmine, if they had been his, as a Private man, and not as the Champion of the Papacy, against all other Christian Princes, and States.

His sixth and final argument relies on examples. My first answer is that examples prove nothing. Second, the examples he cites do not even suggest that the actions were probably rightful. Jehoiada’s killing of Athaliah (2 Kings 11.) was either authorized by King Joash or a horrible crime by the High Priest. Since the election of King Saul, the High Priest had been merely a subject. St. Ambrose’s excommunication of Theodosius the Emperor, if he really did excommunicate him, was a crime punishable by death. As for the Popes, Gregory 1., Gregory 2., Zachary, and Leo 3., their judgments are invalid. They were judging their own case. Their actions based on this doctrine are the greatest crimes human beings can commit, especially Zachary’s. That is all I have to say about ecclesiastical power. I would have been briefer and avoided examining Bellarmine’s arguments if he had presented them as a private individual. But he presented them as the champion of the Papacy against all other Christian princes and states.