No More Learning

"

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.

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

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




Of The Right Of Constituting Ecclesiasticall Officers In The Time

Of The Apostles

Of Ecclesiastical Officers in the time of the Apostles, some were
Magisteriall, some Ministeriall. Magisteriall were the Offices
of preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to Infidels; of
administring the Sacraments, and Divine Service; and of teaching the
Rules of Faith and Manners to those that were converted. Ministeriall
was the Office of Deacons, that is, of them that were appointed to the
administration of the secular necessities of the Church, at such time
as they lived upon a common stock of mony, raised out of the voluntary
contributions of the faithfull.

Amongst the Officers Magisteriall, the first, and principall were the
Apostles; whereof there were at first but twelve; and these were chosen
and constituted by our Saviour himselfe; and their Office was not onely
to Preach, Teach, and Baptize, but also to be Martyrs, (Witnesses of
our Saviours Resurrection. ) This Testimony, was the specificall, and
essentiall mark; whereby the Apostleship was distinguished from other
Magistracy Ecclesiasticall; as being necessary for an Apostle, either to
have seen our Saviour after his Resurrection, or to have conversed with
him before, and seen his works, and other arguments of his Divinity,
whereby they might be taken for sufficient Witnesses. And therefore at
the election of a new Apostle in the place of Judas Iscariot, S. Peter
saith (Acts 1. 21,22. ) "Of these men that have companyed with us, all the
time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the
Baptisme of John unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must
one be ordained to be a Witnesse with us of his Resurrection:" where, by
this word Must, is implyed a necessary property of an Apostle, to have
companyed with the first and prime Apostles in the time that our Saviour
manifested himself in the flesh.




Matthias Made Apostle By The Congregation.

The first Apostle, of those which were not constituted by Christ in the
time he was upon the Earth, was Matthias, chosen in this manner: There
were assembled together in Jerusalem about 120 Christians (Acts 1. 15. )
These appointed two, Joseph the Just, and Matthias (ver. 23. ) and caused
lots to be drawn; "and (ver. 26. ) the Lot fell on Matthias and he was
numbred with the Apostles. " So that here we see the ordination of this
Apostle, was the act of the Congregation, and not of St. Peter, nor of
the eleven, otherwise then as Members of the Assembly.




Paul And Barnabas Made Apostles By The Church Of Antioch

After him there was never any other Apostle ordained, but Paul and
Barnabas, which was done (as we read Acts 13. 1,2,3. ) in this manner.
"There were in the Church that was at Antioch, certaine Prophets, and
Teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of
Cyrene, and Manaen; which had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch,
and Saul. As they ministred unto the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost
said, 'Separate mee Barnabas, and Saul for the worke whereunto I have
called them. ' And when they had fasted, and prayed, and laid their hands
on them, they sent them away. "

By which it is manifest, that though they were called by the Holy Ghost,
their Calling was declared unto them, and their Mission authorized by
the particular Church of Antioch. And that this their calling was to
the Apostleship, is apparent by that, that they are both called (Acts
14. 14. ) Apostles: And that it was by vertue of this act of the Church of
Antioch, that they were Apostles, S. Paul declareth plainly (Rom. 1. 1. )
in that hee useth the word, which the Holy Ghost used at his calling:
For he stileth himself, "An Apostle separated unto the Gospel of God;"
alluding to the words of the Holy Ghost, "Separate me Barnabas and Saul,
&c. " But seeing the work of an Apostle, was to be a Witnesse of
the Resurrection of Christ, and man may here aske, how S. Paul that
conversed not with our Saviour before his passion, could know he was
risen. To which it is easily answered, that our Saviour himself appeared
to him in the way to Damascus, from Heaven, after his Ascension; "and
chose him for a vessell to bear his name before the Gentiles, and Kings,
and Children of Israel;" and consequently (having seen the Lord after
his passion) was a competent Witnesse of his Resurrection: And as for
Barnabas, he was a Disciple before the Passion. It is therefore evident
that Paul, and Barnabas were Apostles; and yet chosen, and authorized
(not by the first Apostles alone, but) by the Church of Antioch; as
Matthias was chosen, and authorized by the Church of Jerusalem.




What Offices In The Church Are Magisteriall

Bishop, a word formed in our language, out of the Greek Episcopus,
signifieth an overseer, or Superintendent of any businesse, and
particularly a Pastor or Shepherd; and thence by metaphor was taken, not
only amongst the Jews that were originally Shepherds, but also amongst
the Heathen, to signifie the Office of a King, or any other Ruler,
or Guide of People, whether he ruled by Laws, or Doctrine. And so
the Apostles were the first Christian Bishops, instituted by Christ
himselfe: in which sense the Apostleship of Judas is called (Acts 1. 20. )
his Bishoprick. And afterwards, when there were constituted Elders in
the Christian Churches, with charge to guide Christs flock by their
doctrine, and advice; these Elders were also called Bishops. Timothy was
an Elder (which word Elder, in the New Testament is a name of Office, as
well as of Age;) yet he was also a Bishop. And Bishops were then content
with the Title of Elders. Nay S. John himselfe, the Apostle beloved of
our Lord, beginneth his Second Epistle with these words, "The Elder to
the Elect Lady. " By which it is evident, that Bishop, Pastor, Elder,
Doctor, that is to say, Teacher, were but so many divers names of
the same Office in the time of the Apostles. For there was then no
government by Coercion, but only by Doctrine, and Perswading. The
Kingdome of God was yet to come, in a new world; so that there could
be no authority to compell in any Church, till the Common-wealth
had embraced the Christian Faith; and consequently no diversity of
Authority, though there were diversity of Employments.

Besides these Magisteriall employments in the Church, namely Apostles,
Bishops, Elders, Pastors, and Doctors, whose calling was to proclaim
Christ to the Jews, and Infidels, and to direct, and teach those that
beleeved we read in the New Testament of no other. For by the names
of Evangelists and Prophets, is not signified any Office, but severall
Gifts, by which severall men were profitable to the Church: as
Evangelists, by writing the life and acts of our Saviour; such as were
S. Matthew and S. John Apostles, and S. Marke and S. Luke Disciples, and
whosoever else wrote of that subject, (as S. Thomas, and S. Barnabas are
said to have done, though the Church have not received the Books
that have gone under their names:) and as Prophets, by the gift of
interpreting the Old Testament; and sometimes by declaring their
speciall Revelations to the Church. For neither these gifts, nor the
gifts of Languages, nor the gift of Casting out Devils, or of Curing
other diseases, nor any thing else did make an Officer in the Church,
save onely the due calling and election to the charge of Teaching.




Ordination Of Teachers

As the Apostles, Matthias, Paul, and Barnabas, were not made by our
Saviour himself, but were elected by the Church, that is, by the
Assembly of Christians; namely, Matthias by the Church of Jerusalem,
and Paul, and Barnabas by the Church of Antioch; so were also the
Presbyters, and Pastors in other Cities, elected by the Churches of
those Cities. For proof whereof, let us consider, first, how S. Paul
proceeded in the Ordination of Presbyters, in the Cities where he had
converted men to the Christian Faith, immediately after he and Barnabas
had received their Apostleship. We read (Acts 14. 23. ) that "they
ordained Elders in every Church;" which at first sight may be taken for
an Argument, that they themselves chose, and gave them their authority:
But if we consider the Originall text, it will be manifest, that they
were authorized, and chosen by the Assembly of the Christians of each
City. For the words there are, "cheirotonesantes autoispresbuterous kat
ekklesian," that is, "When they had Ordained them Elders by the Holding
up of Hands in every Congregation. " Now it is well enough known, that in
all those Cities, the manner of choosing Magistrates, and Officers,
was by plurality of suffrages; and (because the ordinary way of
distinguishing the Affirmative Votes from the Negatives, was by Holding
up of Hands) to ordain an Officer in any of the Cities, was no more
but to bring the people together, to elect them by plurality of Votes,
whether it were by plurality of elevated hands, or by plurality of
voices, or plurality of balls, or beans, or small stones, of which every
man cast in one, into a vessell marked for the Affirmative, or Negative;
for divers Cities had divers customes in that point. It was therefore
the Assembly that elected their own Elders: the Apostles were onely
Presidents of the Assembly to call them together for such Election, and
to pronounce them Elected, and to give them the benediction, which now
is called Consecration. And for this cause they that were Presidents
of the Assemblies, as (in the absence of the Apostles) the Elders were,
were called proestotes, and in Latin Antistities; which words signifie
the Principall Person of the Assembly, whose office was to number the
Votes, and to declare thereby who was chosen; and where the Votes were
equall, to decide the matter in question, by adding his own; which is
the Office of a President in Councell. And (because all the Churches
had their Presbyters ordained in the same manner,) where the word is
Constitute, (as Titus 1. 5. ) "ina katasteses kata polin presbuterous,"
"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest constitute
Elders in every City," we are to understand the same thing; namely, that
hee should call the faithfull together, and ordain them Presbyters by
plurality of suffrages. It had been a strange thing, if in a Town, where
men perhaps had never seen any Magistrate otherwise chosen then by an
Assembly, those of the Town becomming Christians, should so much as have
thought on any other way of Election of their Teachers, and Guides, that
is to say, of their Presbyters, (otherwise called Bishops,) then this of
plurality of suffrages, intimated by S. Paul (Acts 14. 23. ) in the word
Cheirotonesantes: Nor was there ever any choosing of Bishops, (before
the Emperors found it necessary to regulate them in order to the keeping
of the peace amongst them,) but by the Assemblies of the Christians in
every severall Town.

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




Ministers Of The Church What

The word Minister in the Originall Diakonos signifieth one that
voluntarily doth the businesse of another man; and differeth from a
Servant onely in this, that Servants are obliged by their condition,
to what is commanded them; whereas Ministers are obliged onely by
their undertaking, and bound therefore to no more than that they have
undertaken: So that both they that teach the Word of God, and they that
administer the secular affairs of the Church, are both Ministers, but
they are Ministers of different Persons. For the Pastors of the Church,
called (Acts 6. 4. ) "The Ministers of the Word," are Ministers of Christ,
whose Word it is: But the Ministery of a Deacon, which is called (verse
2. of the same Chapter) "Serving of Tables," is a service done to the
Church, or Congregation: So that neither any one man, nor the whole
Church, could ever of their Pastor say, he was their Minister; but of
a Deacon, whether the charge he undertook were to serve tables, or
distribute maintenance to the Christians, when they lived in each City
on a common stock, or upon collections, as in the first times, or to
take a care of the House of Prayer, or of the Revenue, or other worldly
businesse of the Church, the whole Congregation might properly call him
their Minister.

For their employment, as Deacons, was to serve the Congregation; though
upon occasion they omitted not to preach the Gospel, and maintain the
Doctrine of Christ, every one according to his gifts, as S. Steven did;
and both to Preach, and Baptize, as Philip did: For that Philip, which
(Act. 8. 5. ) Preached the Gospel at Samaria, and (verse 38. ) Baptized
the Eunuch, was Philip the Deacon, not Philip the Apostle. For it is
manifest (verse 1. ) that when Philip preached in Samaria, the Apostles
were at Jerusalem, and (verse 14. ) "When they heard that Samaria had
received the Word of God, sent Peter and John to them;" by imposition of
whose hands, they that were Baptized (verse 15. ) received (which before
by the Baptisme of Philip they had not received) the Holy Ghost. For it
was necessary for the conferring of the Holy Ghost, that their Baptisme
should be administred, or confirmed by a Minister of the Word, not by a
Minister of the Church. And therefore to confirm the Baptisme of those
that Philip the Deacon had Baptized, the Apostles sent out of their own
number from Jerusalem to Samaria, Peter, and John; who conferred on them
that before were but Baptized, those graces that were signs of the Holy
Spirit, which at that time did accompany all true Beleevers; which what
they were may be understood by that which S. Marke saith (chap. 16. 17. )
"These signs follow them that beleeve in my Name; they shall cast out
Devills; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up Serpents,
and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; They shall
lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. " This to doe, was it that
Philip could not give; but the Apostles could, and (as appears by this
place) effectually did to every man that truly beleeved, and was by
a Minister of Christ himself Baptized: which power either Christs
Ministers in this age cannot conferre, or else there are very few true
Beleevers, or Christ hath very few Ministers.




And How Chosen What

That the first Deacons were chosen, not by the Apostles, but by a
Congregation of the Disciples; that is, of Christian men of all sorts,
is manifest out of Acts 6. where we read that the Twelve, after the
number of Disciples was multiplyed, called them together, and having
told them, that it was not fit that the Apostles should leave the Word
of God, and serve tables, said unto them (verse 3. ) "Brethren looke you
out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, and of
Wisdome, whom we may appoint over this businesse. " Here it is manifest,
that though the Apostles declared them elected; yet the Congregation
chose them; which also, (verse the fift) is more expressely said, where
it is written, that "the saying pleased the multitude, and they chose
seven, &c. "




Of Ecclesiasticall Revenue, Under The Law Of Moses

Under the Old Testament, the Tribe of Levi were onely capable of the
Priesthood, and other inferiour Offices of the Church. The land
was divided amongst the other Tribes (Levi excepted,) which by the
subdivision of the Tribe of Joseph, into Ephraim and Manasses, were
still twelve. To the Tribe of Levi were assigned certain Cities for
their habitation, with the suburbs for their cattell: but for their
portion, they were to have the tenth of the fruits of the land of their
Brethren. Again, the Priests for their maintenance had the tenth of that
tenth, together with part of the oblations, and sacrifices. For God had
said to Aaron (Numb. 18. 20. ) "Thou shalt have no inheritance in their
land, neither shalt thou have any part amongst them, I am thy part, and
thine inheritance amongst the Children of Israel. " For God being then
King, and having constituted the Tribe of Levi to be his Publique
Ministers, he allowed them for their maintenance, the Publique revenue,
that is to say, the part that God had reserved to himself; which were
Tythes, and Offerings: and that it is which is meant, where God saith, I
am thine inheritance. And therefore to the Levites might not unfitly
be attributed the name of Clergy from Kleros, which signifieth Lot, or
Inheritance; not that they were heirs of the Kingdome of God, more than
other; but that Gods inheritance, was their maintenance. Now seeing
in this time God himself was their King, and Moses, Aaron, and the
succeeding High Priests were his Lieutenants; it is manifest, that the
Right of Tythes, and Offerings was constituted by the Civill Power.

After their rejection of God in the demand of a King, they enjoyed still
the same revenue; but the Right thereof was derived from that, that the
Kings did never take it from them: for the Publique Revenue was at
the disposing of him that was the Publique Person; and that (till the
Captivity) was the King. And again, after the return from the Captivity,
they paid their Tythes as before to the Priest. Hitherto therefore
Church Livings were determined by the Civill Soveraign.




In Our Saviours Time, And After

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

After our Saviours Ascension, the Christians of every City lived in
Common, (Acts 4. 34. ) upon the mony which was made of the sale of their
lands and possessions, and laid down at the feet of the Apostles, of
good will, not of duty; for "whilest the Land remained (saith S. Peter
to Ananias Acts 5. 4. ) was it not thine? and after it was sold, was it
not in thy power? " which sheweth he needed not to have saved his land,
nor his money by lying, as not being bound to contribute any thing at
all, unlesse he had pleased. And as in the time of the Apostles, so also
all the time downward, till after Constantine the Great, we shall
find, that the maintenance of the Bishops, and Pastors of the Christian
Church, was nothing but the voluntary contribution of them that had
embraced their Doctrine. There was yet no mention of Tythes: but
such was in the time of Constantine, and his Sons, the affection of
Christians to their Pastors, as Ammianus Marcellinus saith (describing
the sedition of Damasus and Ursinicus about the Bishopricke,) that it
was worth their contention, in that the Bishops of those times by the
liberality of their flock, and especially of Matrons, lived splendidly,
were carryed in Coaches, and sumptuous in their fare and apparell.

The Ministers Of The Gospel Lived On The Benevolence Of Their Flocks
But here may some ask, whether the Pastor were then bound to live upon
voluntary contribution, as upon almes, "For who (saith S. Paul 1 Cor. 9.
7. ) goeth to war at his own charges? or who feedeth a flock, and eatheth
not of the milke of the flock? " And again, (1 Cor. 9. 13. ) "Doe ye not
know that they which minister about holy things, live of the things of
the Temple; and they which wait at the Altar, partake with the Altar;"
that is to say, have part of that which is offered at the Altar for
their maintenance? And then he concludeth, "Even so hath the Lord
appointed, that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.
From which place may be inferred indeed, that the Pastors of the Church
ought to be maintained by their flocks; but not that the Pastors were to
determine, either the quantity, or the kind of their own allowance, and
be (as it were) their own Carvers. Their allowance must needs therefore
be determined, either by the gratitude, and liberality of every
particular man of their flock, or by the whole Congregation. By the
whole Congregation it could not be, because their Acts were then no
Laws: Therefore the maintenance of Pastors, before Emperours and Civill
Soveraigns had made Laws to settle it, was nothing but Benevolence. They
that served at the Altar lived on what was offered. In what court should
they sue for it, who had no Tribunalls? Or if they had Arbitrators
amongst themselves, who should execute their Judgments, when they had no
power to arme their Officers? It remaineth therefore, that there could
be no certaine maintenance assigned to any Pastors of the Church, but by
the whole Congregation; and then onely, when their Decrees should have
the force (not onely of Canons, but also) of Laws; which Laws could not
be made, but by Emperours, Kings, or other Civill Soveraignes. The Right
of Tythes in Moses Law, could not be applyed to the then Ministers
of the Gospell; because Moses and the High Priests were the Civill
Soveraigns of the people under God, whose Kingdom amongst the Jews was
present; whereas the Kingdome of God by Christ is yet to come.

Hitherto hath been shewn what the Pastors of the Church are; what are
the points of their Commission (as that they were to Preach, to Teach,
to Baptize, to be Presidents in their severall Congregations;) what is
Ecclesiasticall Censure, viz. Excommunication, that is to say, in those
places where Christianity was forbidden by the Civill Laws, a putting
of themselves out of the company of the Excommunicate, and where
Christianity was by the Civill Law commanded, a putting the
Excommunicate out of the Congregations of Christians; who elected the
Pastors and Ministers of the Church, (that it was, the Congregation);
who consecrated and blessed them, (that it was the Pastor); what was
their due revenue, (that it was none but their own possessions,
and their own labour, and the voluntary contributions of devout and
gratefull Christians). We are to consider now, what Office those persons
have, who being Civill Soveraignes, have embraced also the Christian
Faith.




The Civill Soveraign Being A Christian Hath The Right Of Appointing

Pastors

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

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

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

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




The Pastorall Authority Of Soveraigns Only Is De Jure Divino,

That Of Other Pastors Is Jure Civili

If a man therefore should ask a Pastor, in the execution of his Office,
as the chief Priests and Elders of the people (Mat. 21. 23. ) asked our
Saviour, "By what authority dost thou these things, and who gave thee
this authority:" he can make no other just Answer, but that he doth
it by the Authority of the Common-wealth, given him by the King, or
Assembly that representeth it. All Pastors, except the Supreme, execute
their charges in the Right, that is by the Authority of the Civill
Soveraign, that is, Jure Civili. But the King, and every other Soveraign
executeth his Office of Supreme Pastor, by immediate Authority from God,
that is to say, In Gods Right, or Jure Divino. And therefore none but
Kings can put into their Titles (a mark of their submission to God onely
) Dei Gratia Rex, &c. Bishops ought to say in the beginning of their
Mandates, "By the favour of the Kings Majesty, Bishop of such a
Diocesse;" or as Civill Ministers, "In his Majesties Name. " For in
saying, Divina Providentia, which is the same with Dei Gratia, though
disguised, they deny to have received their authority from the Civill
State; and sliely slip off the Collar of their Civill Subjection,
contrary to the unity and defence of the Common-wealth.




Christian Kings Have Power To Execute All Manner Of Pastoral Function

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

There is no doubt but any King, in case he were skilfull in the
Sciences, might by the same Right of his Office, read Lectures of
them himself, by which he authorizeth others to read them in the
Universities. Neverthelesse, because the care of the summe of the
businesse of the Common-wealth taketh up his whole time, it were not
convenient for him to apply himself in Person to that particular. A King
may also if he please, sit in Judgment, to hear and determine all manner
of Causes, as well as give others authority to doe it in his name; but
that the charge that lyeth upon him of Command and Government, constrain
him to bee continually at the Helm, and to commit the Ministeriall
Offices to others under him. In the like manner our Saviour (who surely
had power to Baptize) Baptized none himselfe, but sent his Apostles and
Disciples to Baptize. (John 4. 2. ) So also S. Paul, by the necessity of
Preaching in divers and far distant places, Baptized few: Amongst all
the Corinthians he Baptized only Crispus, Cajus, and Stephanus; (1
Cor. 1. 14,16. ) and the reason was, because his principall Charge was to
Preach. (1 Cor. 1. 17. ) Whereby it is manifest, that the greater Charge,
(such as is the Government of the Church,) is a dispensation for the
lesse. The reason therefore why Christian Kings use not to Baptize, is
evident, and the same, for which at this day there are few Baptized by
Bishops, and by the Pope fewer.

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

Imposition of Hands, was a most ancient publique ceremony amongst the
Jews, by which was designed, and made certain, the person, or other
thing intended in a mans prayer, blessing, sacrifice, consecration,
condemnation, or other speech. So Jacob in blessing the children of
Joseph (Gen. 48. 14. ) "Laid his right Hand on Ephraim the younger, and
his left Hand on Manasseh the first born;" and this he did Wittingly
(though they were so presented to him by Joseph, as he was forced in
doing it to stretch out his arms acrosse) to design to whom he intended
the greater blessing. So also in the sacrificing of the Burnt offering,
Aaron is commanded (Exod. 29. 10. ) "to Lay his Hands on the head of the
bullock;" and (ver. 15. ) "to Lay his Hand on the head of the ramme. "
The same is also said again, Levit. 1. 4. & 8. 14. Likewise Moses when he
ordained Joshua to be Captain of the Israelites, that is, consecrated
him to Gods service, (Numb. 27. 23. ) "Laid his hands upon him, and gave
him his Charge," designing and rendring certain, who it was they were
to obey in war. And in the consecration of the Levites (Numb. 8. 10. ) God
commanded that "the Children of Israel should Put their Hands upon the
Levites. " And in the condemnation of him that had blasphemed the Lord
(Levit. 24. 14. ) God commanded that "all that heard him should Lay their
Hands on his head, and that all the Congregation should stone him. " And
why should they only that heard him, Lay their Hands upon him, and not
rather a Priest, Levite, or other Minister of Justice, but that
none else were able to design, and demonstrate to the eyes of the
Congregation, who it was that had blasphemed, and ought to die? And
to design a man, or any other thing, by the Hand to the Eye is lesse
subject to mistake, than when it is done to the Eare by a Name.

And so much was this ceremony observed, that in blessing the whole
Congregation at once, which cannot be done by Laying on of Hands, yet
"Aaron (Levit. 9. 22. ) did lift up his Hand towards the people when he
blessed them. " And we read also of the like ceremony of Consecration of
Temples amongst the Heathen, as that the Priest laid his Hands on
some post of the Temple, all the while he was uttering the words of
Consecration. So naturall it is to design any individuall thing, rather
by the Hand, to assure the Eyes, than by Words to inform the Eare in
matters of Gods Publique service.

This ceremony was not therefore new in our Saviours time. For Jairus
(Mark 5. 23. ) whose daughter was sick, besought our Saviour (not to heal
her, but) "to Lay his Hands upon her, that shee might bee healed. " And
(Matth. 19. 13. ) "they brought unto him little children, that hee should
Put his Hands on them, and Pray. "

According to this ancient Rite, the Apostles, and Presbyters, and the
Presbytery it self, Laid Hands on them whom they ordained Pastors, and
withall prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost; and that
not only once, but sometimes oftner, when a new occasion was presented:
but the end was still the same, namely a punctuall, and religious
designation of the person, ordained either to the Pastorall Charge
in general, or to a particular Mission: so (Act. 6. 6. ) "The Apostles
Prayed, and Laid their Hands" on the seven Deacons; which was done,
not to give them the Holy Ghost, (for they were full of the Holy Ghost
before thy were chosen, as appeareth immediately before, verse 3. ) but
to design them to that Office. And after Philip the Deacon had converted
certain persons in Samaria, Peter and John went down (Act. 8. 17. )" and
laid their Hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. " And not
only an Apostle, but a Presbyter had this power: For S. Paul adviseth
Timothy (1 Tim. 5. 22. ) "Lay Hands suddenly on no man;" that is, designe
no man rashly to the Office of a Pastor. The whole Presbytery Laid their
Hands on Timothy, as we read 1 Tim. 4. 14. but this is to be understood,
as that some did it by the appointment of the Presbytery, and most
likely their Proestos, or Prolocutor, which it may be was St. Paul
himself. For in his 2 Epist. to Tim. ver. 6. he saith to him, "Stirre up
the gift of God which is in thee, by the Laying on of my Hands:" where
note by the way, that by the Holy ghost, is not meant the third Person
in the Trinity, but the Gifts necessary to the Pastorall Office. We read
also, that St. Paul had Imposition of Hands twice; once from Ananias at
Damascus (Acts 9. 17,18. ) at the time of his Baptisme; and again (Acts
13. 3. ) at Antioch, when he was first sent out to Preach. The use then of
this ceremony considered in the Ordination of Pastors, was to design
the Person to whom they gave such Power. But if there had been then any
Christian, that had had the Power of Teaching before; the Baptizing of
him, that is the making of him a Christian, had given him no new Power,
but had onely caused him to preach true Doctrine, that is, to use
his Power aright; and therefore the Imposition of Hands had been
unnecessary; Baptisme it selfe had been sufficient. But every Soveraign,
before Christianity, had the power of Teaching, and Ordaining Teachers;
and therefore Christianity gave them no new Right, but only directed
them in the way of teaching truth; and consequently they needed
no Imposition of Hands (besides that which is done in Baptisme) to
authorize them to exercise any part of the Pastorall Function, as
namely, to Baptize, and Consecrate. And in the Old Testament, though
the Priest only had right to Consecrate, during the time that the
Soveraignty was in the High Priest; yet it was not so when the
Soveraignty was in the King: For we read (1 Kings 8. ) That Solomon
Blessed the People, Consecrated the Temple, and pronounced that Publique
Prayer, which is the pattern now for Consecration of all Christian
Churches, and Chappels: whereby it appears, he had not only the right
of Ecclesiasticall Government; but also of exercising Ecclesiasticall
Functions.




The Civill Soveraigne If A Christian, Is Head Of The Church

In His Own Dominions

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

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




Cardinal Bellarmines Books De Summo Pontifice Considered

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




The First Book

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

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

For the third Conclusion, which is, that St. Peter was Monarch of the
Church, he bringeth for his chiefe argument the place of S. Matth.
(chap. 16. 18, 19. ) "Thou art Peter, And upon this rock I will build my
Church, &c. And I will give thee the keyes of Heaven; whatsoever thou
shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. " Which place well considered,
proveth no more, but that the Church of Christ hath for foundation one
onely Article; namely, that which Peter in the name of all the Apostles
professing, gave occasion to our Saviour to speak the words here cited;
which that wee may cleerly understand, we are to consider, that our
Saviour preached by himself, by John Baptist, and by his Apostles,
nothing but this Article of Faith, "that he was the Christ;" all other
Articles requiring faith no otherwise, than as founded on that. John
began first, (Mat. 3. 2. ) preaching only this, "The Kingdome of God is at
hand. " Then our Saviour himself (Mat. 4. 17. ) preached the same: And to
his Twelve Apostles, when he gave them their Commission (Mat. 10. 7. )
there is no mention of preaching any other Article but that. This was
the fundamentall Article, that is the Foundation of the Churches Faith.
Afterwards the Apostles being returned to him, he asketh them all, (Mat.
16. 13) not Peter onely, "Who men said he was;" and they answered, that
"some said he was John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias,
or one of the Prophets:" Then (ver. 15. ) he asked them all again, (not
Peter onely) "Whom say yee that I am? " Therefore Peter answered (for
them all) "Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God;" which I said is
the Foundation of the Faith of the whole Church; from which our Saviour
takes the occasion of saying, "Upon this stone I will build my Church;"
By which it is manifest, that by the Foundation-Stone of the Church, was
meant the Fundamentall Article of the Churches Faith. But why then (will
some object) doth our Saviour interpose these words, "Thou art Peter"?
If the originall of this text had been rigidly translated, the reason
would easily have appeared: We are therefore to consider, that the
Apostle Simon, was surnamed Stone, (which is the signification of
the Syriacke word Cephas, and of the Greek word Petrus). Our Saviour
therefore after the confession of that Fundamentall Article, alluding
to his name, said (as if it were in English) thus, Thou art "Stone," and
upon this Stone I will build my Church: which is as much as to say, this
Article, that "I am the Christ," is the Foundation of all the Faith I
require in those that are to bee members of my Church: Neither is this
allusion to a name, an unusuall thing in common speech: But it had been
a strange, and obscure speech, if our Saviour intending to build his
Church on the Person of St. Peter, had said, "thou art a Stone, and
upon this Stone I will build my Church," when it was so obvious without
ambiguity to have said, "I will build my Church on thee; and yet there
had been still the same allusion to his name.

And for the following words, "I will give thee the Keyes of Heaven, &c. "
it is no more than what our Saviour gave also to all the rest of his
Disciples (Matth. 18. 18. ) "Whatsoever yee shall bind on Earth, shall be
bound in Heaven. And whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth, shall be loosed
in Heaven. " But howsoever this be interpreted, there is no doubt but
the Power here granted belongs to all Supreme Pastors; such as are all
Christian Civill Soveraignes in their own Dominions. In so much, as if
St. Peter, or our Saviour himself had converted any of them to beleeve
him, and to acknowledge his Kingdome; yet because his Kingdome is not of
this world, he had left the supreme care of converting his subjects to
none but him; or else hee must have deprived him of the Soveraignty,
to which the Right of Teaching is inseparably annexed. And thus much in
refutation of his first Book, wherein hee would prove St. Peter to have
been the Monarch Universall of the Church, that is to say, of all the
Christians in the world.




The Second Book

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




The Third Book

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

It is evident that the Prophets of the Old Testament foretold, and the
Jews expected a Messiah, that is, a Christ, that should re-establish
amongst them the kingdom of God, which had been rejected by them in
the time of Samuel, when they required a King after the manner of
other Nations. This expectation of theirs, made them obnoxious to the
Imposture of all such, as had both the ambition to attempt the attaining
of the Kingdome, and the art to deceive the People by counterfeit
miracles, by hypocriticall life, or by orations and doctrine plausible.
Our Saviour therefore, and his Apostles forewarned men of False
Prophets, and of False Christs. False Christs, are such as pretend to
be the Christ, but are not, and are called properly Antichrists, in such
sense, as when there happeneth a Schisme in the Church by the election
of two Popes, the one calleth the other Antipapa, or the false Pope.
And therefore Antichrist in the proper signification hath two essentiall
marks; One, that he denyeth Jesus to be Christ; and another that he
professeth himselfe to bee Christ. The first Mark is set down by S. John
in his 1 Epist. 4. ch. 3. ver. "Every Spirit that confesseth not that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; And this is the Spirit
of Antichrist. " The other Mark is expressed in the words of our Saviour,
(Mat. 24. 5. ) "Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ;" and
again, "If any man shall say unto you, Loe, here is Christ, there is
Christ beleeve it not. " And therefore Antichrist must be a False Christ,
that is, some one of them that shall pretend themselves to be Christ.
And out of these two Marks, "to deny Jesus to be the Christ," and to
"affirm himselfe to be the Christ," it followeth, that he must also be
an "Adversary of the true Christ," which is another usuall signification
of the word Antichrist. But of these many Antichrists, there is one
speciall one, O Antichristos, The Antichrist, or Antichrist definitely,
as one certaine person; not indefinitely An Antichrist. Now seeing the
Pope of Rome, neither pretendeth himself, nor denyeth Jesus to be the
Christ, I perceive not how he can be called Antichrist; by which word
is not meant, one that falsely pretendeth to be His Lieutenant, or Vicar
Generall, but to be Hee. There is also some Mark of the time of this
speciall Antichrist, as (Mat. 24. 15. ) when that abominable Destroyer,
spoken of by Daniel, (Dan. 9. 27. ) shall stand in the Holy place, and
such tribulation as was not since the beginning of the world, nor ever
shall be again, insomuch as if it were to last long, (ver. 22. ) "no
flesh could be saved; but for the elects sake those days shall be
shortened" (made fewer). But that tribulation is not yet come; for it
is to be followed immediately (ver. 29. ) by a darkening of the Sun
and Moon, a falling of the Stars, a concussion of the Heavens, and the
glorious coming again of our Saviour, in the cloudes. And therefore The
Antichrist is not yet come; whereas, many Popes are both come and gone.
It is true, the Pope in taking upon him to give Laws to all Christian
Kings, and Nations, usurpeth a Kingdome in this world, which Christ took
not on him: but he doth it not As Christ, but as For Christ, wherein
there is nothing of the Antichrist.




The Fourth Book

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




Texts For The Infallibility Of The Popes Judgement In Points Of Faith

For the Infallibility of his Judgments, he alledgeth the Scriptures: and
first, that of Luke 22. 31.