CHAPTER XVII.. Of the Kingdom of God by the New Covenant.

OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD BY THE NEW COVENANT.

1. The prophecies concerning Christ’s dignity. 2. The prophecies concerning his humility and passion. 3. That Jesus was that Christ. 4. That the kingdom of God by the new covenant, was not the kingdom of Christ, as Christ, but as God. 5. That the kingdom by the new covenant is heavenly, and shall begin from the day of judgment. 6. That the government of Christ in this world was not a sovereignty, but counsel, or a government by the way of doctrine and persuasion. 7. What the promises of the new covenant are, on both parts. 8. That no laws are added by Christ, beside the institution of the sacraments. 9. Repent ye, be baptized, keep the commandments, and the like forms of speech, are not laws. 10. It pertains to the civil authority, to define what the sin of injustice is. 11. It pertains to the civil authority, to define what conduces to the peace and defence of the city. 12. It pertains to the civil authority, to judge (when need requires) what definitions and what inferences are true. 13. It belongs to the office of Christ, to teach morally, not by the way of speculation, but as a law; to forgive sins, and to teach all things whereof there is no science, properly so called. 14. A distinction of things temporal from spiritual. 15. In how many several sorts the word of God may be taken. 16. That all which is contained in Holy Scripture, belongs not to the canon of Christian faith. 17. That the word of a lawful interpreter of Holy Scriptures, is the word of God. 18. That the authority of interpreting Scriptures, is the same with that of determining controversies of faith. 19. Divers significations of a Church. 20. What a Church is, to which we attribute rights, actions, and the like personal capacities. 21. A Christian city is the same with a Christian Church. 22. Many cities do not constitute one Church. 23. Who are ecclesiastical persons. 24. That the election of ecclesiastical persons belongs to the Church, their consecration to pastors. 25. That the power of remitting the sins of the penitent, and retaining those of the impenitent, belongs to the pastors; but that of judging concerning repentance belongs to the Church. 26. What excommunication is, and on whom it cannot pass. 27. That the interpretation of Scripture depends on the authority of the city. 28. That a Christian city ought to interpret Scriptures by ecclesiastical pastors.

1. There are many clear prophecies extant in the Old Testament concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ, who was to restore the kingdom of God by a new covenant; partly foretelling his regal dignity, partly his humility and passion. Among others concerning his dignity, these. God, blessing Abraham, makes him a promise of his son Isaac; and adds (Gen. xvii. 16): And kings of people shall be of him. Jacob blessing his son Judah (Gen. xlix. 10): The sceptre, quoth he, shall not depart from Judah. God to Moses (Deut. xviii. 18): A prophet, saith he, will I raise them up from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him; and it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words, which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Isaiah (Isai. vii. 14): The Lord himself shall give thee a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel. The same prophet (Isaiah ix. 6): Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulders; and his name shall be called wonderful, counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. And again (Isaiah xi. 1-5): There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots; the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, &c.; He shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears; but with righteousness shall he judge the poor, &c.; And he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. Furthermore in the same Isaiah (chapters li. to lxii.), there is almost nothing else contained but a description of the coming and the works of Christ. Jeremiah (Jerem. xxxi. 31): Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. And Baruch (Bar. iii. 35-37): This is our God, &c. Afterward did he show himself upon earth, and conversed with men. Ezekiel (Ezek. xxxiv. 23-25): I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them; even my servant David. And I will make with them a covenant of peace, &c. Daniel (Dan. vii. 13-14): I saw in the night visions; and behold one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the ancient of days; and they brought him near before him; and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, &c. Haggai (Haggai ii. 6-7): Yet once it is a little while, and I will shake the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake all nations; and the desire of all nations shall come. Zachariah, under the type of Joshua the high-priest (Zach. iii. 8): I will bring forth my servant the branch, &c. And again (Zach. vi. 12): Behold the man whose name is the Branch. And again (Zach. ix. 9): Rejoice greatly O daughter of Zion, shout O daughter of Jerusalem; behold thy king cometh to thee; he is just, having salvation. The Jews moved by these and other prophecies, expected Christ their king to be sent from God; who should redeem them, and furthermore bear rule over all nations. Yea, this prophecy had spread over the whole Roman empire; which Vespasian too, though falsely, interpreted in favour of his own enterprises; that out of Judea should come he that should have dominion.

2. Now the prophecies of Christ’s humility and passion, amongst others are these: (Isaiah liii. 4): He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted; and by and by (verse 7): He was oppressed, he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearer is dumb, so opened he not his mouth, &c. And again (verse 8): He was cut out of the land of the living; for the transgression of my people was he stricken, &c. (Verse 12): Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death, and he was numbered with the transgressors, and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. And that of Zachariah (Zach. ix. 9): He is lowly, riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

3. In the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, Jesus our Saviour, a Galilean, began to preach; the son, as was supposed, of Joseph; declaring to the people of the Jews, that the kingdom of God expected by them was now come, and that himself was a king, that is to say, the Christ; explaining the law, choosing twelve apostles and seventy disciples, after the number of the princes of the tribes, and seventy elders (according to the pattern of Moses) to the ministry; teaching the way of salvation by himself and them; purging the temple, doing great signs, and fulfilling all those things which the prophets had foretold of Christ to come. That this man, hated of the Pharisees, whose false doctrine and hypocritical sanctity he had reproved; and by their means, of the people accused of unlawful seeking for the kingdom, and crucified; was the true Christ and king promised by God, and sent from his Father to renew the new covenant between them and God; both the evangelists do show, describing his genealogy, nativity, life, doctrine, death, and resurrection; and by comparing the things which he did with those which were foretold of him, all Christians do consent to.

4. Now from this, that Christ was sent from God his Father to make a covenant between him and the people, it is manifest, that though Christ were equal to his Father according to his nature, yet was he inferior according to the right of the kingdom. For this office, to speak properly, was not that of a king, but of a viceroy; such as Moses’ government was; for the kingdom was not his, but his Father’s. Which Christ himself signified when he was baptized as a subject, and openly professed when he taught his disciples to pray, Our Father, thy kingdom come, &c.: and when he said (Matth. xxvi. 29): I will not drink of the blood of the grape, until that day when I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father. And St. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 22-24): As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive; but every man in his own order; Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s, who believed in his coming; then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even his Father. The same notwithstanding is also called the kingdom of Christ: for both the mother of the sons of Zebedee petitioned Christ, saying (Matth. xx. 21): Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, the other on thy left, in thy kingdom: and the thief on the cross (Luke xxiii. 42): Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom: and St. Paul (Ephes. v. 5): For this know ye, that no whoremonger, &c. shall enter into the kingdom of God, and of Christ: and elsewhere (2 Tim. iv. 1): I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and dead at his appearing, and his kingdom, &c.: (verse 18): And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom. Nor is it to be marveled at, that the same kingdom is attributed to them both; since both the Father and the Son are the same God; and the new covenant concerning God’s kingdom, is not propounded in the name of the Father; but in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, as of one God.

5. But the kingdom of God, for restitution whereof Christ was sent from God his Father, takes not its beginning before his second coming; to wit, from the day of judgment, when he shall come in majesty accompanied with his angel. For it is promised the apostles, that in the kingdom of God they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel, (Matth. xix. 28): Ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel: which is not to be done till the day of judgment. Christ therefore is not yet in the throne of his majesty; nor is that time, when Christ was conversant here in the world, called a kingdom, but a regeneration; that is to say, a renovation or restitution of the kingdom of God, and a calling of them who were hereafter to be received into his kingdom. And where it is said (Matth. xxv. 31-32): When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: we may manifestly gather that there will be no local separation of God’s subjects from his enemies, but that they shall live mixed together until Christ’s second coming. Which is also confirmed by the comparison of the kingdom of heaven with wheat mingled with darnell, and with a net containing all sorts of fish. But a multitude of men, enemies and subjects, living promiscuously together, cannot properly be termed a kingdom. Besides, the apostles, when they asked our Saviour, whether he would at that time when he ascended into heaven, restore the kingdom unto Israel; did openly testify, that they then, when Christ ascended, thought the kingdom of God not to be yet come. Furthermore, the words of Christ, My kingdom is not of this world: and, I will not drink, &c. till the kingdom of God come: and, God hath not sent his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world through him might be saved: and, If any man hear my words, and keep them not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world: and, Man, who made me a judge or divider between you? and the very appellation of the kingdom of heaven testifies as much. The same thing is gathered out of the words of the prophet Jeremiah, speaking of the kingdom of God by the new covenant (Jer. xxxi. 34): They shall teach no more every man his neighbour; saying, Know the Lord. For they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, saith the Lord: which cannot be understood of a kingdom in this world. The kingdom of God therefore, for the restoring whereof Christ came into the world; of which the prophets did prophecy, and of which praying we say, Thy kingdom come; if it is to have subjects locally separated from enemies, if judicature, if majesty, according as hath been foretold; shall begin from that time, wherein God shall separate the sheep from the goats; wherein the apostles shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel; wherein Christ shall come in majesty and glory; wherein lastly, all men shall so know God, that they shall not need to be taught; that is to say, at Christ’s second coming, or the day of judgment. But if the kingdom of God were now already restored, no reason could be rendered why Christ, having completed the work for which he was sent, should come again; or why we should pray, Thy kingdom come.

6. Now, although the kingdom of God by Christ to be established with a new covenant, were heavenly; we must not therefore think, that they, who believing in Christ would make that covenant, were not so to be governed here on the earth too, as that they should persevere in their faith and obedience promised by that covenant. For in vain had the kingdom of heaven been promised, if we were not to have been led into it; but none can be led, but those who are directed in the way. Moses, when he had instituted the priestly kingdom, himself though he were no priest, yet ruled and conducted the people all the time of their peregrination, until their entrance into the promised land. In the same manner is it our Saviour’s office, (whom God in this thing would have like unto Moses), as he was sent from his Father, so to govern the future subjects of his heavenly kingdom in this life, that they might attain to and enter into that; although the kingdom were not properly his, but his Father’s. But the government whereby Christ rules the faithful ones in this life, is not properly a kingdom or dominion, but a pastoral charge, or the right of teaching; that is to say, God the Father gave him not a power to judge of meum and tuum, as he doth to the kings of the earth; nor a coercive power, nor legislative; but of showing to the world, and teaching them the way and knowledge of salvation; that is to say, of preaching and declaring what they were to do, who would enter into the kingdom of heaven. That Christ had received no power from his Father to judge in questions of meum and tuum, that is to say, in all questions of right among those who believed not, those words above cited do sufficiently declare: Man, who made me a judge or divider between you? And it is confirmed by reason. For seeing Christ was sent to make a covenant between God and men; and no man is obliged to perform obedience before the contract be made; if he should have judged of questions of right, no man had been tied to obey his sentence. But that the discerning of right was not committed to Christ in this world, neither among the faithful nor among infidels, is apparent in this; that that right without all controversy belongs to princes, as long as it is not by God himself derogated from their authority. But it is not derogated before the day of judgment; as appears by the words of St. Paul, speaking of the day of judgment (1 Cor. xv. 24): Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power. Secondly, the words of our Saviour reproving James and John, when they had said (Luke ix. 54): Wilt thou that we call for fire from heaven, that it may consume them? (namely the Samaritans, who had denied to receive him going up to Jerusalem): and replying (verse 56), The Son of man is not come to destroy souls, but to save them; and those words: Behold I send you as sheep among wolves; Shake off the dust of your feet; and the like; and those words, God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world through him might be saved; and those: If any man hear my words, and keep them not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, &c.: do all show, that he had no power given him to condemn or punish any man. We read indeed, that the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son; but since that both may, and must be understood of the day of future judgment, it doth not at all repugn what hath been said before. Lastly, that he was not sent to make new laws, and that therefore by his office and mission he was no legislator properly so called, nor Moses neither, but a bringer and publisher of his Father’s laws, (for God only, and neither Moses nor Christ, was a king by covenant), is collected hence; that he said, I came not to destroy, (to wit, the laws before given from God by Moses, which he presently interprets), but to fulfil; and, He that shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Christ therefore had not a royal or sovereign power committed to him from his Father in this world, but councillary and doctrinal only; which himself signifies, as well then when he calls his apostles not hunters, but fishers of men; as when he compares the kingdom of God to a grain of mustard-seed, and to a little leaven hid in meal.

7. God promised unto Abraham, first, a numerous seed, the possession of the land of Canaan, and a blessing upon all nations in his seed, on this condition; that he and his seed should serve him: next, unto the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, a priestly kingdom, a government most free, in which they were to be subject to no human power, on this condition; that they should serve the God of Abraham on that fashion which Moses should teach: lastly, both to them and to all nations, a heavenly and eternal kingdom, on condition that they should serve the God of Abraham on that manner which Christ should teach. For by the new, that is to say, the Christian covenant, it is covenanted on men’s part, to serve the God of Abraham on that manner which Jesus should teach: on God’s part, to pardon their sins, and bring them into his celestial kingdom. We have already spoken of the quality of the heavenly kingdom, above in art. 5; but it is usually called, sometimes the kingdom of heaven, sometimes the kingdom of glory, sometimes the life eternal. What is required on men’s part, namely, to serve God as Christ should teach, contains two things; obedience to be performed to God, (for this is to serve God); and faith in Jesus, to wit, that we believe Jesus to be that Christ who was promised by God; for that only is the cause why his doctrine is to be followed, rather than any other’s. Now in holy Scriptures, repentance is often put instead of obedience; because Christ teacheth everywhere, that with God the will is taken for the deed; but repentance is an infallible sign of an obedient mind. These things being understood, it will most evidently appear out of many places of sacred Scripture, that those are the conditions of the Christian covenant which we have named; to wit, giving remission of sins and eternal life on God’s part; and repenting and believing in Jesus Christ, on men’s part. First, the words, (Mark i. 15): The kingdom of God is at hand; Repent ye and believe the gospel, contain the whole covenant. In like manner those (Luke xxiv. 46-47): Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And those (Acts iii. 19): Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come, &c. And sometimes one part is expressly propounded, and the other understood, as here (John iii. 36): He that believeth in the Son, hath everlasting life; He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him: where faith is expressed, repentance not mentioned; and in Christ’s preaching (Matth. iv. 17): Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand: where repentance is expressed, faith is understood. But the parts of this new contract are most manifestly and formally set down there, where a certain ruler, bargaining as it were for the kingdom of God, asketh our Saviour (Luke xviii. 18): Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? But Christ first propounds one part of the price, namely, observation of the commandments, or obedience; which when he answered that he had kept, he adjoins the other, saying (verse 22): Yet lackest thou one thing; Sell all that thou hast, and distribute to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. This was matter of faith. He therefore not giving sufficient credit to Christ and his heavenly treasures, went away sorrowful. The same covenant is contained in these words (Mark xvi. 16): He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned: where faith is expressed, repentance is supposed in those that are baptized. And in these words (John iii. 5): Except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven: where, to be born of water, is the same with regeneration, that is to say, conversion to Christ. Now that baptism is required in the two places cited just before, and in divers others, we must understand, that what circumcision was to the old covenant, that baptism is to the new. Seeing therefore that was not of the essence, but served for a memorial of the old covenant, as a ceremony or sign, (and was omitted in the wilderness); in like manner this also is used, not as pertaining to the essence, but in memory and for a sign of the new covenant which we make with God. And provided the will be not wanting, the act through necessity may be omitted; but repentance and faith, which are of the essence of the covenant, are always required.

8. In the kingdom of God after this life, there will be no laws; partly, because there is no room for laws, where there is none for sins; partly, because laws were given us from God, not to direct us in heaven, but unto heaven. Let us now therefore inquire what laws Christ established not himself; for he would not take upon him any legislative authority, as hath been declared above in art. 6; but propounded to us for his Father’s. We have a place in Scripture, where he contracts all the laws of God published till that time, into two precepts. (Matth. xxii. 37, 38, 39, 40): Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind; this is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. The first of these was given before by Moses in the same words (Deut. vi. 5); and the second even before Moses; for it is the natural law, having its beginning with rational nature itself: and both together is the sum of all laws. For all the laws of divine natural worship, are contained in these words, Thou shalt love God; and all the laws of divine worship due by the old covenant, in these words, Thou shalt love thy God, that is to say, God, as being the peculiar King of Abraham and his seed; and all the laws natural and civil, in these words, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. For he that loves God and his neighbour, hath a mind to obey all laws, both divine and human. But God requires no more than a mind to obey. We have another place where Christ interprets the laws, namely, the fifth, sixth, and seventh entire chapters of St. Matthew’s Gospel. But all those laws are set down either in the decalogue or in the moral law, or are contained in the faith of Abraham; as that law of not putting away a wife is contained in the faith of Abraham. For that same, two shall be one flesh, was not delivered, either by Christ first, or by Moses, but by Abraham, who first preached the creation of the world. The laws therefore which Christ contracts in one place, and explains in another, are no other than those to which all mortal men are obliged, who acknowledge the God of Abraham. Beside these, we read not of any law given by Christ, beside the institution of the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist.

9. What may be said then of these kind of precepts, Repent, Be baptized, Keep the Commandments, Believe the Gospel, Come unto me, Sell all that thou hast, Give to the poor, Follow me; and the like? We must say that they are not laws, but a calling of us to the faith: such as is that of Isaiah (lv. 1): Come; buy wine and milk without money and without price. Neither if they come not, do they therefore sin against any law, but against prudence only; neither shall their infidelity be punished, but their former sins. Wherefore St. John saith of the unbeliever, The wrath of God abideth on him; he saith not, The wrath of God shall come upon him. And, He that believeth not, is already judged; he saith not, shall be judged, but is already judged. Nay, it cannot be well conceived, that remission of sins should be a benefit arising from faith, unless we understand also on the other side, that the punishment of sins is an hurt proceeding from infidelity.

10. From hence, that our Saviour hath prescribed no distributive laws to the subjects of princes, and citizens of cities; that is to say, hath given no rules whereby a subject may know and discern what is his own, what another man’s, nor by what forms, words, or circumstances a thing must be given, delivered, invaded, possessed, that it may be known by right to belong to the receiver, invader, or possessor: we must necessarily understand that each single subject (not only with unbelievers, among whom Christ himself denied himself to be a judge and distributor, but even with Christians) must take those rules from his city, that is to say, from that man or council which hath the supreme power. It follows therefore, that by those laws; Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Honour thy father and mother; nothing else was commanded, but that subjects, and citizens, should absolutely obey their princes in all questions concerning meum and tuum, their own and others’ right. For by that precept, Thou shalt not kill, all slaughter is not prohibited; for he that said, Thou shalt not kill, said also, (Exod. xxxv. 2): Whosoever doth work upon the sabbath, shall be put to death. No, nor yet all slaughter, the cause not being heard; for he said, (Exod. xxxii. 27): Slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. (Verse 28): And there fell of the people about three thousand men. Nor yet all slaughter of an innocent person; for Jephtha vowed (Judges xi. 31): Whosoever cometh forth, &c. I will offer him up for a burnt offering unto the Lord; and his vow was accepted of God. What then is forbidden? Only this: that no man kill another, who hath not a right to kill him; that is to say, that no man kill, unless it belong to him to do so. The law of Christ therefore concerning killing, and consequently all manner of hurt done to any man, and what penalties are to be set, commands us to obey the city only. In like manner, by that precept, Thou shalt not commit adultery, all manner of copulation is not forbidden; but only that of lying with another man’s wife. But the judgment, which is another man’s wife, belongs to the city; and is to be determined by the rules which the city prescribes. This precept therefore commands both male and female to keep that faith entire, which they have mutually given according to the statutes of the city. So also by the precept, thou shalt not steal, all manner of invasion or secret surreption is not forbidden; but of another man’s only. The subject therefore is commanded this only, that he invade not nor take away aught which the city prohibits to be invaded or taken away; and universally, not to call anything murder, adultery, or theft, but what is done contrary to the civil laws. Lastly, seeing Christ hath commanded us to honour our parents, and hath not prescribed with what rites, what appellations, and what manner of obedience they are to be honoured; it is to be supposed that they are to be honoured with the will indeed, and inwardly, as kings and lords over their children, but outwardly, not beyond the city’s permission, which shall assign to every man, as all things else, so also his honour. But since the nature of justice consists in this, that every man have his own given him; it is manifest, that it also belongs to a Christian city to determine what is justice, what injustice, or a sin against justice. Now what belongs to a city, that must be judged to belong to him or them who have the sovereign power of the city.

11. Moreover, because our Saviour hath not showed subjects any other laws for the government of a city, beside those of nature, that is to say, beside the command of obedience; no subject can privately determine who is a public friend, who an enemy, when war, when peace, when truce is to be made, nor yet what subjects, what authority and of what men, are commodious or prejudicial to the safety of the commonweal. These and all like matters therefore are to be learned, if need be, from the city, that is to say, from the sovereign powers.

12. Furthermore, all these things, to build castles, houses, temples; to move, carry, take away mighty weights; to send securely over seas; to contrive engines, serving for all manner of uses; to be well acquainted with the face of the whole world, the courses of the stars, the seasons of the year, the accounts of the times, and the nature of all things; to understand perfectly all natural and civil rights; and all manner of sciences, which, comprehended under the title of philosophy, are necessary partly to live, partly to live well; I say, the understanding of these (because Christ hath not delivered it) is to be learnt from reasoning; that is to say, by making necessary consequences, having first taken the beginning from experience. But men’s reasonings are sometimes right, sometimes wrong; and consequently, that which is concluded and held for a truth, is sometimes truth, sometimes error. Now errors, even about these philosophical points, do sometimes public hurt, and give occasions of great seditions and injuries. It is needful therefore, as oft as any controversy ariseth in these matters contrary to public good and common peace, that there be somebody to judge of the reasoning, that is to say, whether that which is inferred, be rightly inferred or not; that so the controversy may be ended. But there are no rules given by Christ to this purpose, neither came he into the world to teach logic. It remains therefore that the judges of such controversies, be the same with those whom God by nature had instituted before, namely, those who in each city are constituted by the sovereign. Moreover, if a controversy be raised of the accurate and proper signification, that is, the definition of those names or appellations which are commonly used; insomuch as it is needful for the peace of the city, or the distribution of right, to be determined; the determination will belong to the city. For men, by reasoning, do search out such kind of definitions in their observation of diverse conceptions, for the signification whereof those appellations were used at diverse times and for diverse causes. But the decision of the question, whether a man do reason rightly, belongs to the city. For example, if a woman bring forth a child of an unwonted shape, and the law forbid to kill a man; the question is, whether the child be a man. It is demanded therefore, what a man is. No man doubts but the city shall judge it, and that without taking an account of Aristotle’s definition, that man is a rational creature. And these things, namely, right, policy, and natural sciences, are subjects concerning which Christ denies that it belongs to his office to give any precepts, or teach any thing beside this only; that in all controversies about them, every single subject should obey the laws and determinations of his city. Yet must we remember this, that the same Christ, as God, could not only have taught, but also commanded what he would.

13. The sum of our Saviour’s office was, to teach the way and all the means of salvation and eternal life. But justice and civil obedience, and observation of all the natural laws, is one of the means to salvation. Now these may be taught two ways; one, as theorems, by the way of natural reason, by drawing right and the natural laws from human principles and contracts; and this doctrine thus delivered, is subject to the censure of civil powers. The other, as laws, by divine authority, in showing the will of God to be such; and thus to teach, belongs only to him to whom the will of God is supernaturally known, that is to say, to Christ. Secondly, it belonged to the office of Christ to forgive sins to the penitent; for that was necessary for the salvation of men who had already sinned. Neither could it be done by any other. For remission of sins follows not repentance naturally, as a debt; but it depends, as a free gift, on the will of God supernaturally to be revealed. Thirdly, it belongs to the office of Christ to teach all those commandments of God, whether concerning his worship, or those points of faith which cannot be understood by natural reason, but only by revelation; of which nature are those, that he was the Christ; that his kingdom was not terrestrial, but celestial; that there are rewards and punishments after this life; that the soul is immortal; that there should be such, and so many sacraments; and the like.

14. From what hath been said in the foregoing chapter, it is not hard to distinguish between things spiritual and temporal. For since by spiritual, those things are understood, which have their foundation on the authority and office of Christ, and, unless Christ had taught them, could not have been known; and all other things are temporal; it follows, that the definition and determination of what is just and unjust, the cognizance of all controversies about the means of peace and public defence, and the examination of doctrines and books in all manner of rational science, depends upon the temporal right; but those which are mysteries of faith, depending on Christ’s word and authority only, their judgments belong to spiritual right. But it is reason’s inquisition, and pertains to temporal right to define what is spiritual, and what temporal; because our Saviour hath not made that distinction. For although St. Paul in many places distinguish between spiritual things and carnal things; and call (Rom. viii. 5: 1 Cor. xii. 8-10) those things spiritual, which are of the spirit, to wit, the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, faith, the gift of healing, the working of miracles, prophecy, divers kind of tongues, interpretation of tongues; all supernaturally inspired by the Holy Ghost, and such as the carnal man understands not, but he only who hath known the mind of Christ (2 Cor. ii. 14-16); and those things carnal, which belong to worldly wealth (Rom. xv. 27); and the men carnal men (1 Cor. iii. 1-3): yet hath he not defined, nor given us any rules whereby we may know what proceeds from natural reason, what from supernatural inspiration.

15. Seeing therefore it is plain that our Saviour hath committed to, or rather not taken away from princes, and those who in each city have obtained the sovereignty, the supreme authority of judging and determining all manner of controversies about temporal matters; we must see henceforth to whom he hath left the same authority in matters spiritual. Which because it cannot be known, except it be out of the word of God and the tradition of the Church, we must enquire in the next place what the word of God is, what to interpret it, what a Church is, and what the will and command of the Church. To omit that the word of God is in Scripture taken sometimes for the Son of God, it is used three manner of ways. First, most properly for that which God hath spoken. Thus, whatsoever God spake unto Abraham, the patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets, our Saviour to his disciples, or any others; is the word of God. Secondly, whatsoever hath been uttered by men on the motion or by command of the Holy Ghost; in which sense we acknowledge the Scriptures to be the word of God. Thirdly, in the New Testament indeed, the word of God most frequently signifies the doctrine of the gospel, or the word concerning God, or the word of the kingdom of God by Christ. As where it is said (Matth. iv. 23) that Christ preached the gospel of the kingdom: where the apostles are said to preach the word of God (Acts xiii. 46): where the word of God is called the word of life (Acts v. 20): of the word of the gospel (Acts xv. 7): the word of faith (Rom. x. 8): the word of truth, that is to say, (adding an interpretation) the gospel of salvation, (Eph. i. 13): and where it is called the word of the apostles; for St. Paul says (2 Thess. iii. 14): If any man obey not our word, &c. Which places cannot be otherwise meant than of the doctrine evangelical. In like manner, where the word of God is said to be sown, to increase, and to be multiplied (Acts xii. 24: and xiii. 49): it is very hard to conceive this to be spoken of the voice of God or of his apostles; but of their doctrine, easy. And in this third acception is all that doctrine of the Christian faith, which at this day is preached in pulpits and contained in the books of divines, the word of God.

16. Now the sacred Scripture is entirely the word of God in this second acception, as being that which we acknowledge to be inspired from God; and innumerable places of it, in the first. And seeing the greatest part of it is conversant either in the prediction of the kingdom of heaven, or in prefigurations before the incarnation of Christ, or in evangelization and explication after; the sacred Scripture is also the word of God, and therefore the canon and rule of all evangelical doctrine, in this third signification; where the word of God is taken for the word concerning God, that is to say, for the gospel. But because in the same Scriptures we read many things political, historical, moral, physical, and others which nothing at all concern the mysteries of our faith; those places, although they contain true doctrine, and are the canon of such kind of doctrines, yet can they not be the canon of the mysteries of Christian religion.

17. And truly, it is not the dead voice or letter of the word of God, which is the canon of Christian doctrine; but a true and genuine determination. For the mind is not governed by Scriptures, unless they be understood. There is need therefore of an interpreter to make the Scriptures canon, and hence follows one of these two things; that either the word of the interpreter is the word of God, or that the canon of Christian doctrine is not the word of God. The last of these must necessarily be false; for the rule of that doctrine which cannot be known by any human reason, but by divine revelation only, cannot be less than divine; for whom we acknowledge not to be able to discern whether some doctrine be true or not, it is impossible to account his opinion for a rule in the same doctrine. The first therefore is true, that the word of an interpreter of Scriptures is the word of God.

The authority of interpreting Scriptures, is the same with that of determining controversies of faith.

18. Now that interpreter whose determination hath the honour to be held for the word of God, is not every one that translates the Scriptures out of the Hebrew and Greek tongue, to his Latin auditors in Latin, to his French in French, and to other nations in their mother tongue; for this is not to interpret. For such is the nature of speech in general, that although it deserve the chief place among those signs whereby we declare our conceptions to others, yet cannot it perform that office alone without the help of many circumstances. For the living voice hath its interpreters present, to wit, time, place, countenance, gesture, the counsel of the speaker, and himself unfolding his own meaning in other words as oft as need is. To recall these aids of interpretation, so much desired in the writings of old time, is neither the part of an ordinary wit, nor yet of the quaintest, without great learning and very much skill in antiquity. It sufficeth not therefore for interpretation of Scriptures, that a man understand the language wherein they speak. Neither is every one an authentic interpreter of Scriptures, who writes comments upon them. For men may err; they may also either bend them to serve their own ambition; or even resisting, draw them into bondage by their forestallings; whence it will follow, that an erroneous sentence must be held for the word of God. But although this might not happen, yet as soon as these commentators are departed, their commentaries will need explications; and in process of time, those explications expositions; those expositions new commentaries, without any end. So as there cannot, in any written interpretation whatsoever, be a canon or rule of Christian doctrine, whereby the controversies of religion may be determined. It remains, that there must be some canonical interpreter, whose legitimate office it is to end controversies begun, by explaining the word of God in the judgments themselves; and whose authority therefore must be no less obeyed, than theirs who first recommended the Scripture itself to us for a canon of faith; and that one and the same person be an interpreter of Scripture, and a supreme judge of all manner of doctrines.

19. What concerns the word ecclesia, or Church, originally it signifies the same thing that concio or a congregation does in Latin; even as ecclesiastes or churchman, the same that concionator or preacher, that is to say, he who speaks to the congregation. In which sense we read in the Acts of the Apostles, of a Church confused, and of a lawful Church (Acts xix, 32-39): that, taken for a concourse of people meeting in way of tumult; this, for a convocated assembly. But in holy writ by a Church of Christians, is sometimes understood the assembly, and sometimes the Christians themselves, although not actually assembled, if they be permitted to enter into the congregation and to communicate with them. For example, Tell it to the Church, (Matth. xviii. 17), is meant of a Church assembled; for otherwise it is impossible to tell any thing to the Church. But He laid waste the Church, (Acts viii. 3), is understood of a Church not assembled. Sometimes a Church is taken for those who are baptized, or for the professors of the Christian faith, whether they be Christians inwardly or feignedly; as when we read of somewhat said or written to the Church, or said, or decreed, or done by the Church. Sometimes for the elect only, as when it is called holy and without blemish (Ephes. v. 27). But the elect, as they are militant, are not properly called a Church; for they know not how to assemble; but they are a future Church, namely, in that day when severed from the reprobate they shall be triumphant. Again, a Church may be sometimes taken for all Christians collectively; as when Christ is called the head of his Church (Ephes. v. 23); and the head of his body the Church (Coloss. i. 18). Sometimes for its parts; as the Church of Ephesus, the Church which is in his house, the seven Churches, &c. Lastly, a Church, as it is taken for a company actually assembled, according to the divers ends of their meeting, signifies sometimes those who are met together to deliberate and judge; in which sense it is also called a council and a synod; sometimes those who meet together in the house of prayer to worship God, in which signification it is taken in the 1 Cor. xiv. 4, 5, 23, 28, &c.

20. Now a Church, which hath personal rights and proper actions attributed to it, and of which that same must necessarily be understood, Tell it to the Church, and he that obeys not the Church, and all such like forms of speech, is to be defined so as by that word may be understood a multitude of men, who have made a new covenant with God in Christ, that is to say, a multitude of them who have taken upon them the sacrament of baptism; which multitude may both lawfully be called together by some one into one place, and, he so calling them, are bound to be present either in person or by others. For a multitude of men, if they cannot meet in assembly when need requires, is not to be called a person. For a Church can neither speak, nor discern, nor hear, but as it is a congregation. Whatsoever is spoken by particular men, (to wit, as many opinions almost as heads), that is the speech of one man, not of the Church. Furthermore, if an assembly be made, and it be unlawful, it shall be considered as null. Not any one of these therefore who are present in a tumult, shall be tied to the decree of the rest; but specially if he dissent. And therefore neither can such a Church make any decree; for then a multitude is said to decree somewhat, when every man is obliged by the decree of the major part. We must therefore grant to the definition of a Church, to which we attribute things belonging to a person, not only a possibility of assembling, but also of doing it lawfully. Besides, although there be some one who may lawfully call the rest together; yet if they who are called, may lawfully not appear; which may happen among men who are not subject one to another; that same Church is not one person. For by what right they, who being called to a certain time and place do meet together, are one Church; by the same, others flocking to another place appointed by them, are another Church. And every number of men of one opinion is a Church; and by consequence, there will be as many Churches as there are divers opinions; that is to say, the same multitude of men will at once prove to be one, and many Churches. Wherefore a Church is not one, except there be a certain and known, that is to say, a lawful power, by means whereof every man may be obliged to be present in the congregation, either himself in person, or by proxy; and that becomes one, and is capable of personal functions, by the union of a lawful power of convocating synods and assemblies of Christians; not by uniformity of doctrine; and otherwise it is a multitude, and persons in the plural, howsoever agreeing in opinions.

21. It follows what hath been already said by necessary connexion, that a city of Christian men and a Church is altogether the same thing, of the same men, termed by two names, for two causes. For the matter of a city and a Church is one, to wit, the same Christian men. And the form, which consists in a lawful power of assembling them, is the same too; for it is manifest that every subject is obliged to come thither, whither he is summoned by his city. Now that which is called a city, as it is made up of men, the same, as it consists of Christians, is styled a Church.

22. This too is very coherent with the same points: if there be many Christian cities, they are not altogether personally one Church. They may indeed by mutual consent become one Church, but no otherwise than as they must also become one city. For they cannot assemble but at some certain time, and to some place appointed. But persons, places, and times, belong to civil right; neither can any subject or stranger lawfully set his foot on any place, but by the permission of the city, which is lord of the place. But the things which cannot lawfully be done but by the permission of the city, those, if they be lawfully done, are done by the city’s authority. The universal Church is indeed one mystical body, whereof Christ is the head; but in the same manner that all men together, acknowledging God for the ruler of the world, are one kingdom and one city; which notwithstanding is neither one person, nor hath it one common action or determination. Furthermore, where it is said that Christ is the head of his body the Church, it manifestly appears that that was spoken by the Apostle of the elect; who, as long as they are in this world, are a Church only in potentia; but shall not actually be so before they be separated from the reprobate, and gathered together among themselves in the day of judgment. The Church of Rome of old was very great, but she went not beyond the bounds of her empire, and therefore neither was she universal; unless it were in that sense, wherein it was also said of the city of Rome, Orbem jam totum victor Romanus habebat; when as yet he had not the twentieth part of it. But after that the civil empire was divided into parts, the single cities thence arising were so many Churches: and that power which the Church of Rome had over them, might perhaps wholly depend on the authority of those Churches, who having cast off the emperors, were yet content to admit the doctors of Rome.

23. They may be called churchmen, who exercise a public office in the Church. But of offices, there was one a ministery, another a maistery. The offices of the ministers, was to serve tables, to take care of the temporal goods of the Church, and to distribute, at that time when all propriety of riches being abolished they were fed in common, to each man his portion. The maisters, according to their order, were called some apostles, some bishops, some presbyters, that is to say, elders; yet not so, as that by the name of presbyter, the age, but the office might be distinguished. For Timothy was a presbyter, although a young man. But because for the most part the elders were received into the maistership, the word, denoting age, was used to signify the office. The same maisters, according to the diversity of their employments, were called some of them apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors or teachers. And the apostolical work indeed was universal; the prophetical, to declare their own revelations in the Church; the evangelical, to preach or to be publishers of the gospel among the infidels; that of the pastors, to teach, confirm, and rule the minds of those who already believed.

24. In the election of churchmen two things are to be considered; the election of the persons, and their consecration or institution, which also is called ordination. The first twelve apostles Christ himself both elected and ordained. After Christ’s ascension, Matthias was elected in the room of Judas the traitor; the Church, which at that time consisted of a congregation of about one hundred and twenty men, choosing two men: and they appointed two, Joseph and Matthias: but God himself by lot approving of Matthias. And St. Paul calls these twelve the first and great apostles; also the apostles of the circumcision. Afterward were added two other apostles, Paul and Barnabas; ordained indeed by the doctors and prophets of the Church of Antioch (which was a particular Church) by the imposition of hands; but elected by the command of the Holy Ghost. That they were both apostles, is manifest in Acts xiii. 2, 3. That they received their apostleship from hence, namely, because they were separated, by command of the spirit, for the work of God from the rest of the prophets and doctors of the Church of Antioch, St. Paul himself shows; who calls himself, for distinction sake (Rom. i. 1), an apostle separated unto the Gospel of God. But if it be demanded further, by what authority it came to pass, that that was received for the command of the Holy Ghost, which those prophets and doctors did say proceeded from him; it must necessarily be answered, by the authority of the Church of Antioch. For the prophets and doctors must be examined by the Church, before they be admitted. For St. John (1 Epist. iv. 1) saith: Believe not every spirit; but try the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. But by what Church, but that to which that epistle was written? In like manner St. Paul (Gal. ii. 14) reproves the Churches of Galatia, because they Judaized; although they seemed to do so by the authority of Peter. For when he had told them, that he had reprehended Peter himself in these words: If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews; why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews: not long after he questions them, saying (Gal. iii. 2): This only would I learn of you: received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Where it is evident, that it was Judaism which he reprehended the Galatians for, notwithstanding that the apostle Peter compelled them to Judaize. Seeing therefore it belonged to the Church, and not to Peter, and therefore also not to any man, to determine what doctors they should follow; it also pertained to the authority of the Church of Antioch, to elect their prophets and doctors. Now, because the Holy Ghost separated to himself the apostles Paul and Barnabas by the imposition of hands from doctors thus elected, it is manifest, that imposition of hands and consecration of the prime doctors in each Church, belongs to the doctors of the same Church. But bishops, who were also called presbyters, although all presbyters were not bishops, were ordained sometimes by apostles; for Paul and Barnabas, when they had taught in Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium, ordained elders in every Church (Acts xiv. 23): sometimes by other bishops; for Titus was by Paul left in Crete, that he should ordain elders in every city (Tit. i. 5). And Timothy was advised (1 Tim. iv. 14) Not to neglect the gift that was in him, which was given him by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. And he had rules given him concerning the election of presbyters. But that cannot be understood otherwise, than of the ordination of those who were elected by the Church; for no man can constitute a doctor in the Church, but by the Church’s permission. For the duty of the apostles themselves was not to command, but to teach. And although they who were recommended by the apostles or presbyters, were not rejected, for the esteem that was had of the recommenders; yet seeing they could not be elected without the will of the Church, they were also supposed elected by the authority of the Church. In like manner ministers, who are called deacons, were ordained by the apostles; yet elected by the Church. For when the seven deacons were to be elected and ordained, the apostles elected them not: but, look ye out, say they (Acts vi. 3, 5, 6), among you, brethren, seven men of honest report, &c.: and they chose Stephen, &c.: and they set them before the apostles. It is apparent therefore by the custom of the primitive Church under the apostles, that the ordination or consecration of all churchmen, which is done by prayer and imposition of hands, belonged to the apostles and doctors; but the election of those who were to be consecrated, to the Church.

25. Concerning the power of binding and loosing, that is to say, of remitting and retaining of sins; there is no doubt but it was given by Christ to the pastors then yet for to come, in the same manner as it was to the present apostles. Now the apostles had all the power of remitting of sins given them, which Christ himself had. As the Father hath sent me, says Christ, (John xx. 21), so send I you; and he adds (verse 23): Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. But what binding and loosing, or remitting and retaining of sins, is, admits of some scruple. For first, to retain his sins, who being baptized into remission of sins, is truly penitent, seems to be against the very covenant itself of the New Testament; and therefore could not be done by Christ himself, much less by his pastors. And to remit the impenitent, seems to be against the will of God the Father, from whom Christ was sent to convert the world and to reduce men unto obedience. Furthermore, if each pastor had an authority granted him to remit and retain sins in this manner, all awe of princes and civil magistrates, together with all kind of civil government would be utterly destroyed. For Christ hath said it, nay even nature itself dictates, that we should not fear them who slay the body, but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear him, who can cast both soul and body into hell (Matth. x. 28). Neither is any man so mad, as not to choose to yield obedience rather to them who can remit and retain their sins, than to the powerfulest kings. Nor yet on the other side is it to be imagined, that remission of sins is nothing else but an exemption from ecclesiastical punishments. For what evil hath excommunication in it, beside the eternal pains which are consequent to it? Or what benefit is to be received into the Church, if there were salvation out of it? We must therefore hold, that pastors have power truly and absolutely to forgive sins; but to the penitent: and to retain them; but of the impenitent. But while men think that to repent, is nothing else, but that every one condemn his actions and change those counsels which to himself seem sinful and blameable; there is an opinion risen, that there may be repentance before any confession of sins to men, and that repentance is not an effect, but a cause of confession. And thence the difficulty of those, who say that the sins of the penitent are already forgiven in baptism, and theirs who repent not, cannot be forgiven at all, is against Scripture, and contrary to the words of Christ, whose soever sins ye remit, &c. We must therefore, to resolve this difficulty, know in the first place, that a true acknowledgment of sin is repentance. For he that knows he hath sinned, knows he hath erred; but to will an error, is impossible; therefore he that knows he hath sinned, wishes he had not done it; which is to repent. Further, where it may be doubtful whether that which is done be a sin or not, we must consider, that repentance doth not precede confession of sins, but is subsequent to it: for there is no repentance but of sins acknowledged. The penitent therefore must both acknowledge the fact, and know it to be a sin, that is to say, against the law. If a man therefore think, that what he hath done is not against the law, it is impossible he should repent of it. Before repentance therefore, it is necessary there be an application of the facts unto the law. But it is in vain to apply the facts unto the law without an interpreter: for not the words of the law, but the sentence of the law-giver is the rule of men’s actions. But surely either one man, or some men are the interpreters of the law; for every man is not judge of his own fact, whether it be a sin or not. Wherefore the fact, of which we doubt whether it be a sin or not, must be unfolded before some man or men; and the doing of this is confession. Now when the interpreter of the law hath judged the fact to be a sin, if the sinner submit to his judgment and resolve with himself not to do so any more, it is repentance; and thus, either it is not true repentance, or else it is not antecedent, but subsequent to confession. These things being thus explained, it is not hard to understand what kind of power that of binding and loosing is. For seeing in remission of sins there are two things considerable; one, the judgment or condemnation whereby the fact is judged to be a sin; the other, when the party condemned does acquiesce and obey the sentence, that is to say, repents, the remission of the sin; or, if he repent not, the retention: the first of these, that is to say, the judging whether it be a sin or not, belongs to the interpreter of the law, that is, the sovereign judge; the second, namely, remission or retention of the sin, to the pastor; and it is that, concerning which the power of binding and loosing is conversant. And that this was the true meaning of our Saviour Christ in the institution of the same power, is apparent in Matth. xviii. 15-18, thus. He there speaking to his disciples, says: If thy brother sin against thee, go and tell him his fault between him and thee alone. Where we must observe by the way, that if thy brother sin against thee, is the same with, if he do thee injury; and therefore Christ spake of those matters which belonged to the civil tribunal. He adds; if he hear thee not, (that is to say, if he deny that he hath done it, or if having confessed the fact, he denies it to be unjustly done), take with thee yet one or two; and if he refuse to hear them, tell it to the Church. But why to the Church, except that she might judge whether it were a sin or not? But if he refuse to hear the Church; that is, if he do not submit to the Church’s sentence, but shall maintain that to be no sin, which she judges to be a sin; that is to say, if he repent not; (for certain it is, that no man repents himself of the action which he conceives not to be a sin); he saith not, Tell it to the apostles; that we might know that the definitive sentence in the question, whether it were a sin or not, was not left unto them; but to the Church. But let him be unto thee, says he, as an heathen, or publican; that is, as one out of the Church, as one that is not baptized, that is to say, as one whose sins are retained. For all Christians were baptized into remission of sins. But because it might have been demanded, who it was that had so great a power, as that of withholding the benefit of baptism from the impenitent; Christ shows that the same persons, to whom he had given authority to baptize the penitent into the remission of sins, and to make them of heathen men Christians, had also authority to retain their sins who by the Church should be adjudged to be impenitent, and to make them of Christian men heathens: and therefore presently subjoins: Verily I say unto you, whose soever sins ye shall bind upon earth, they shall be bound also in heaven; and whose soever sins ye shall loose upon earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven. Whence we may understand, that the power of binding and loosing, or of remitting and retaining of sins, which is called in another place the power of the keys, is not different from the power given in another place in these words (Matth. xxviii. 19): Go, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And even as the pastors cannot refuse to baptize him whom the Church judges worthy, so neither can they retain his sins whom the Church holds fitting to be absolved, nor yet remit his sins whom the Church pronounceth disobedient. And it is the Church’s part to judge of the sin, the pastor’s to cast out or to receive into the Church those that are judged. Thus St. Paul to the Church of Corinth (1 Cor. v. 12): Do not ye judge, saith he, of those that are within? Yet he himself pronounced the sentence of excommunication against the incestuous person. I indeed, saith he (verse 3), as absent in body, but present in Spirit, &c.

26. The act of retaining sins is that which is called by the Church excommunication, and by St. Paul delivering over to Satan. The word excommunication sounding the same with ἀποσυάγωγον poiein], casting out of the synagogue, seems to be borrowed from the Mosaical law; wherein they who were by the priest adjudged leprous, were commanded (Levit. xiii. 46) to be kept apart out of the camp, until by the judgment of the priest they were again pronounced clean, and by certain rites, among which the washing of the body was one, were purified. From hence in process of time it become a custom of the Jews, not to receive those who passed from Gentilism to Judaism, supposing them to be unclean, unless they were first washed; and those who dissented from the doctrine of the synagogue, they cast out of the synagogue. By resemblance of this custom, those that came to Christianity, whether they were Jews or Gentiles, were not received into the Church without baptism; and those that dissented from the Church, were deprived of the Church’s communion. Now, they were therefore said to be delivered over to Satan, because all that was out of the Church, was comprehended within his kingdom. The end of this kind of discipline was, that being destitute for a time of the grace and spiritual privileges of the Church, they might be humbled to salvation; but the effect in regard of secular matters, that being excommunicated, they should not only be prohibited all congregations or churches, and the participation of the mysteries, but as being contagious they should be avoided by all other Christians, even more than heathen. For the apostle allowed to accompany with heathen; but with these, not so much as to eat (1 Cor. v. 10-11). Seeing then the effect of excommunication is such, it is manifest, in the first place, that a Christian city cannot be excommunicated. For a Christian city is a Christian Church, (as hath been declared above, in art. 21), and of the same extension; but a Church cannot be excommunicated. For either she must excommunicate herself, which is impossible; or she must be excommunicated by some other Church; and this, either universal or particular. But seeing an universal Church is no person, (as hath been proved in art. 22), and therefore neither acts nor does any thing, it cannot excommunicate any man; and a particular Church by excommunicating another Church, doth nothing. For where there is not one common congregation, there cannot be any excommunication. Neither if some one Church (suppose that of Jerusalem), should have excommunicated another, (suppose that of Rome), would it any more have excommunicated this, than herself: for he that deprives another of his communion, deprives himself also of the communion of that other. Secondly, no man can excommunicate the subjects of any absolute government all at once, or forbid them the use of their temples or their public worship of God. For they cannot be excommunicated by a Church, which themselves do constitute. For if they could, there would not only not remain a Church, but not so much as a commonweal, and they would be dissolved of themselves; and this were not to be excommunicated or prohibited. But if they be excommunicated by some other Church, that Church is to esteem them as heathen. But no Christian Church, by the doctrine of Christ, can forbid the heathen to gather together and communicate among themselves, as it shall seem good to their cities; especially if they meet to worship Christ, although it be done in a singular custom and manner: therefore also not the excommunicated, who are to be dealt with as heathen. Thirdly, a prince who hath the sovereign power, cannot be excommunicated. For by the doctrine of Christ, neither one nor many subjects together can interdict their prince any public or private places, or deny him entrance into any assembly whatsoever, or prohibit him the doing of what he will with his own jurisdiction. For it is treason among all cities, for any one or many subjects jointly to arrogate to themselves any authority over the whole city. But they who arrogate to themselves an authority over him who hath the supreme power of the city, do arrogate the same authority over the city itself. Besides, a sovereign prince, if he be a Christian, hath this further advantage; that the city whose will is contained in his, is that very thing which we call a Church. The Church therefore excommunicates no man, but whom it excommunicates by the authority of the prince. But the prince excommunicates not himself; his subjects therefore cannot do it. It may be indeed, that an assembly of rebellious citizens or traitors may pronounce the sentence of excommunication against their prince; but not by right. Much less can one prince be excommunicated by another; for this would prove not an excommunication, but a provocation to war by the way of affront. For since that is not one Church, which is made up of citizens belonging to two absolute cities, for want of power of lawfully assembling them, (as hath been declared before, in art. 22); they who are of one Church are not bound to obey another, and therefore cannot be excommunicated for their disobedience. Now, what some may say, that princes, seeing they are members of the universal Church, may also by the authority of the universal Church be excommunicated, signifies nothing: because the universal Church, (as hath been showed in art. 22), is not one person, of whom it may be said that she acted, decreed, determined, excommunicated, absolved, and the like personal attributes; neither hath she any governor upon earth, at whose command she may assemble and deliberate. For to be guide of the universal Church, and to have the power of assembling her, is the same thing as to be governor and lord over all the Christians in the world; which is granted to none, but God only.

27. It hath been showed above in art. 18, that the authority of interpreting the Holy Scriptures consisted not in this, that the interpreter might without punishment expound and explicate his sentence and opinion taken thence unto others, either by writing or by his own voice; but that others have not a right to do or teach aught contrary to his sentence; insomuch as the interpretation we speak of, is the same with the power of defining in all manner of controversies to be determined by sacred Scriptures. Now we must show that that power belongs to each Church; and depends on his or their authority who have the supreme command, provided that they be Christians. For if it depend not on the civil authority, it must either depend on the opinion of each private subject, or some foreign authority. But among other reasons, the inconveniences that must follow private opinions, cannot suffer its dependance on them. Of which this is the chief; that not only all civil obedience would be taken away (contrary to Christ’s precept); but all human society and peace would be dissolved (contrary to the laws of nature). For seeing every man is his own interpreter of Scripture, that is to say, since every man makes himself judge of what is pleasing and displeasing unto God; they cannot obey their princes, before that they have judged whether their commands be conformable to the word of God, or not. And thus either they obey not, or they obey for their own opinion’s sake; that is to say, they obey themselves, not their sovereign; civil obedience therefore is lost. Again, when every man follows his own opinion, it is necessary that the controversies which rise among them, should become innumerable and indeterminable; whence there will breed among men, who by their own natural inclinations do account all dissensions an affront, first hatred, then brawls and wars; and thus all manner of peace and society would vanish. We have furthermore for an example, that which God under the old law required to be observed concerning the book of the law; namely, that it should be transcribed and publicly used; and he would have it to be the canon of divine doctrine, but the controversies about it not to be determined by private persons, but only by the priests. Lastly, it is our Saviour’s precept, that if there be any matter of offence between private persons, they should hear the Church. Wherefore it is the Church’s duty to define controversies; it therefore belongs not to private men, but to the Church to interpret Scriptures. But that we may know that the authority of interpreting God’s Word, that is to say, of determining all questions concerning God and religion, belongs not to any foreign person whatsoever; we must consider, first, what weight such a power has in the minds of the citizens, and their actions. For no man can be ignorant that the voluntary actions of men, by a natural necessity, do follow those opinions which they have concerning good and evil, reward and punishment. Whence it happens, that necessarily they would choose rather to obey those, by whose judgment they believe that they shall be eternally happy or miserable. Now, by whose judgment it is appointed what doctrines are necessary to salvation, by their judgment do men expect their eternal bliss or perdition; they will therefore yield them obedience in all things. Which being thus, most manifest it is, that those subjects, who believe themselves bound to acquiesce to a foreign authority in those doctrines which are necessary to salvation, do not per se constitute a city, but are the subjects of that foreign power. Nor therefore, although some sovereign prince should by writing grant such an authority to any other, yet so as he would be understood to have retained the civil power in his own hands, shall such a writing be valid, or transfer aught necessary for the retaining or good administration of his command. For by chap. II. art. 4, no man is said to transfer his right, unless he give some proper sign, declaring his will to transfer it. But he who hath openly declared his will to keep his sovereignty, cannot have given a sufficient sign of transferring the means necessary for the keeping it. This kind of writing therefore will not be a sign of will, but of ignorance in the contractors. We must consider next, how absurd it is for a city or sovereign to commit the ruling of his subjects’ consciences to an enemy; for they are, as hath been showed above in chap. V. art. 6, in an hostile state, whosoever have not joined themselves into the unity of one person. Nor contradicts it this truth, that they do not always fight: for truces are made between enemies. It is sufficient for an hostile mind, that there is suspicion; that the frontiers of cities, kingdoms, empires, strengthened with garrisons, do with a fighting posture and countenance, though they strike not, yet as enemies mutually behold each other. Lastly, how unequal is it to demand that, which by the very reason of your demand you confess to be the right of another. I am the interpreter of Scriptures to you, who are the subject of another state. Why? By what covenants passed between you and me? By divine authority. Whence known? Out of holy Scripture: behold the book, read it. In vain, unless I may also interpret the same for myself. That interpretation therefore doth by right belong to me, and the rest of my private fellow-subjects; which we both deny. It remains therefore that in all Christian Churches, that is to say, in all Christian cities, the interpretation of sacred Scripture, that is to say, the right of determining all controversies, depends on and derives from the authority of that man or council, which hath the sovereign power of the city.

28. Now because there are two kinds of controversies: the one about spiritual matters, that is to say, questions of faith, the truth whereof cannot be searched into by natural reason; such are the questions concerning the nature and office of Christ, of rewards and punishments to come, of the sacraments, of outward worship, and the like: the other, about questions of human science, whose truth is sought out by natural reason and syllogisms, drawn from the covenants of men, and definitions, that is to say, significations received by use and common consent of words; such as are all questions of right and philosophy; for example, when in matter of right it is questioned, whether there be a promise and covenant, or not, that is nothing else but to demand whether such words, spoken in such a manner, be by common use and consent of the subjects a promise or covenant; which if they be so called, then it is true that a contract is made; if not, then it is false: that truth therefore depends on the compacts and consents of men. In like manner, when it is demanded in philosophy, whether the same thing may entirely be in divers places at once; the determination of the question depends on the knowledge of the common consent of men, about the signification of the word entire. For if men, when they say a thing is entirely somewhere, do signify by common consent that they understand nothing of the same to be elsewhere; it is false that the same thing is in divers places at once. That truth therefore depends on the consents of men, and by the same reason, in all other questions concerning right and philosophy. And they who do judge that anything can be determined, contrary to this common consent of men concerning the appellations of things, out of obscure places of Scripture; do also judge that the use of speech, and at once all human society, is to be taken away. For he who hath sold a whole field, will say he meant one whole ridge; and will retain the rest as unsold. Nay, they take away reason itself; which is nothing else but a searching out of the truth made by such consent. This kind of questions, therefore, need not be determined by the city by way of interpretation of Scriptures; for they belong not to God’s Word, in that sense wherein the Word of God is taken for the Word concerning God; that is to say, for the doctrine of the gospel. Neither is he who hath the sovereign power in the Church, obliged to employ any ecclesiastical doctors for the judging of any such kind of matters as these. But for the deciding of questions of faith, that is to say, concerning God, which transcend human capacity, we stand in need of a divine blessing, (that we may not be deceived at least in necessary points), to be derived from Christ himself by the imposition of hands. For, seeing to the end we may attain to eternal salvation we are obliged to a supernatural doctrine, and which therefore it is impossible for us to understand; to be left so destitute as that we can be deceived in necessary points, is repugnant to equity. This infallibility our Saviour Christ promised (in those things which are necessary to salvation) to his apostles until the day of judgment; that is to say, to the apostles, and pastors succeeding the apostles, who were to be consecrated by the imposition of hands. He therefore, who hath the sovereign power in the city, is obliged as a Christian, where there is any question concerning the mysteries of faith, to interpret the Holy Scriptures by clergymen lawfully ordained. And thus in Christian cities, the judgment both of spiritual and temporal matters belongs unto the civil authority. And that man or council who hath the supreme power, is head both of the city and of the Church; for a Church and a Christian city is but one thing.

-------