<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0578" id="link2H_4_0578"></SPAN> Of Excommunication </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0579" id="link2H_4_0579"></SPAN> The Use Of Excommunication Without Civill Power. </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0580" id="link2H_4_0580"></SPAN> Of No Effect Upon An Apostate </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0581" id="link2H_4_0581"></SPAN> But Upon The Faithfull Only </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0582" id="link2H_4_0582"></SPAN> For What Fault Lyeth Excommunication </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0583" id="link2H_4_0583"></SPAN> Of Persons Liable To Excommunication </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0584" id="link2H_4_0584"></SPAN> Of The Interpreter Of The Scriptures Before Civill Soveraigns Became Christians </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0585" id="link2H_4_0585"></SPAN> Of The Power To Make Scripture Law </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0586" id="link2H_4_0586"></SPAN> Of The Ten Commandements </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0587" id="link2H_4_0587"></SPAN> Of The Judicial, And Leviticall Law </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0588" id="link2H_4_0588"></SPAN> The Second Law </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0589" id="link2H_4_0589"></SPAN> The Old Testament, When Made Canonicall </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0590" id="link2H_4_0590"></SPAN> Of The Power Of Councells To Make The Scripture Law </h3>
<p>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.”</p>
<p>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.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />
1 of 2
2 of 2
Previous
Next
Update Required
To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.