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 Iure Civili in the Right of the Civill Soveraign not Iure 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 those 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 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 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 three 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 Iohn the Baptist some Elias and others Ieremias or one of the Prophets Then ver 15. he asked them all again not Peter onely Whom say yee that I am Therefore S. 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 Vpon 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 S. 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 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 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 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 the 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. Iohn in his 1 Epist. 4. ch 3. ver Every Spirit that confesseth not that Iesus 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 Lâ—…e 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 Iesus to be the Christ and to affirm himselfe to be the Christ it followeth that he must also be an Adversary of Iesus the true Christ which is another usuall signification of the word Antichrist But of these many Antichrists there is one speciall one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 bee 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 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 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 he 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 For the Infallibility of his Judgments he alledgeth the Scriptures and
alteri ne feceris To lay downe a mans Right to any thing is to devest himselfe of the Liberty of hindring another of the benefit of his own Right to the same For he that renounceth or passeth away his Right giveth not to any other man a Right which he had not before because there is nothing to which every man had not Right by Nature but onely standeth out of his way that he may enjoy his own originall Right without hindrance from him not without hindrance from another So that the efect which redoundeth to one man by another mans defect of Right is but so much diminution of impediments to the use of his own Right originall Right is layd aside either by simply Renouncing it or by Transferring it to another By Simply RENOUNCING when he cares not to whom the benefit thereof redoundeth By TRANSFERRING when he intendeth the benefit thereof to some certain person or persons And when a man hath in either manner abandoned or granted away his Right then is he said to be OBLIGED or BOUND not to hinder those to whom such Right is granted or abandoned from the benefit of it and that he Ought and it is his DUTY not to make voyd that voluntary act of his own and that such hindrance is INIUSTICE and INIURY as being Sine Jure the Right being before renounced or transferred So that Injury or Injustice in the controversies of the world is somewhat like to that which in the disputations of Scholers is called Absurdity For as it is there called an Absurdity to contradict what one maintained in the Beginning so in the world it is called Injustice and Injury voluntarily to undo that which from the beginning he had voluntarily done The way by which a man either simply Renounceth or Transferreth his Right is a Declaration or Signification by some voluntary and sufficient signe or signes that he doth so Renounce or Transferre or hath so Renounced or Transferred the same to him that accepteth it And these Signes are either Words onely or Actions onely or as it happeneth most often both Words and Actions And the same are the BONDS by which men are bound and obliged Bonds that have their strength not from their own Nature for nothing is more easily broken then a mans word but from Feare of some evill consequence upon the rupture Whensoever a man Transferreth his Right or Renounceth it it is either in consideration of some Right reciprocally transferred to himselfe or for some other good he hopeth for thereby For it is a voluntary act and of the voluntary acts of every man the object is some Good to himselfe And therefore there be some Rights which no man can be understood by any words or other signes to have abandoned or transferred As first a man cannot lay down the right of resisting them that assault him by force to take away his life because he cannot be understood to ayme thereby at any Good to himselfe The same may be sayd of Wounds and Chayns and Imprisonment both because there is no benefit consequent to such patience as there is to the patience of suffering another to be wounded or imprisoned as also because a man cannot tell when he seeth men proceed against him by violence whether they intend his death or not And lastly the motive and end for which this renouncing and transferring of Right is introduced is nothing else but the security of a mans person in his life and in the means of so preserving life as not to be weary of it And therefore if a man by words or other signes seem to despoyle himselfe of the End for which those signes were intended he is not to be understood as if he meant it or that it was his will but that he was ignorant of how such words and actions were to be interpreted The mutuall transferring of Right is that which men call CONTRACT There is difference between transferring of Right to the Thing and transferring or tradition that is delivery of the Thing it selfe For the Thing may be delivered together with the Translation of the Right as in buying and selling with ready mony or exchange of goods or lands and it may be delivered some time after Again one of the Contractors may deliver the Thing contracted for on his part and leave the other to perform his part at some determinate time after and in the mean time be trusted and then the Contract on his part is called PACT or COVENANT Or both parts may contract now to performe hereafter in which cases he that is to performe in time to come being trusted his performance is called Keeping of Promise or Faith and the fayling of performance if it be voluntary Violation of Faith When the transferring of Right is not mutuall but one of the parties transferreth in hope to gain thereby friendship or service from another or from his friends or in hope to gain the reputation of Charity or Magnanimity or to deliver his mind from the pain of compassion or in hope of reward in heaven This is not Contract but GIFT FREE-GIFT GRACE which words signifie one and the same thing Signes of Contract are either Expresse or by Inference Expresse are words spoken with understanding of what they signifie And such words are either of the time Present or Past as I Give I Grant I have Given I have Granted I will that this be yours Or of the future as I will Give I will Grant which words of the future are called PROMISE Signes by Inference are sometimes the consequence of Words sometimes the consequence of Silence sometimes the consequence of Actions somtimes the consequence of Forbearing an Action and generally a signe by Inference of any Contract is whatsoever sufficiently argues the will of the Contractor Words alone if they be of the time to come and contain a bare promise are an insufficient signe of a Free-gift and therefore not obligatory For if they be of the time to Come as To morrow I will Give they are a signe I have not given yet and consequently that my right is not transferred but remaineth till I transferre it by some other Act. But if the words be of the time Present or Past as I have given or do give to be delivered to morrow then is my to morrows Right given away to day and that by the vertue of the words though there were no other argument of my will And there is a great difference in the signification of these words Volo hoc tuum esse cras and Cras dabo that is between I will that this be thine to morrow and I will give it thee to morrow For the word I will in the former manner of speech signifies an act of the will Present but in the later it fignifies a promise of an act of the will to Come and therefore the former words being of the Present transferre
and Evill Whereupon having both eaten they did indeed take upon them Gods office which is Judicature of Good and Evill but acquired no new ability to distinguish between them aright And whereas it is sayd that having eaten they saw they were naked no man hath so interpreted that place as if they had been formerly blind and saw not their own skins the meaning is plain that it was then they first judged their nakednesse wherein it was Gods will to create them to be uncomely and by being ashamed did tacitely censure God himselfe And thereupon God saith Hast thou eaten c. as if he should say doest thou that owest me obedience take upon thee to judge of my Commandements Whereby it is cleerly though Allegorically signified that the Commands of them that have the right to command are not by their Subjects to be censured nor disputed So that it appeareth plainly to my understanding both from Reason and Scripture that the Soveraign Power whether placed in One Man as in Monarchy or in one Assembly of men as in Popular and Aristocraticall Common-wealths is as great as possibly men can be imagined to make it And though of so unlimited a Power men may fancy many evill consequences yet the consequences of the want of it which is perpetuall warre of every man against his neighbour are much worse The condâ—…tion of man in this life shall never be without Inconveniences but there happeneth in no Common-wealth any great Inconvenience but what proceeds from the Subjects disobedience and breach of those Covenants from which the Common-wealth hath its being And whosoever thinking Soveraign Power too great will seek to make it lesse must subject himselfe to the Power that can limit it that is to say to a greater The greatest objection is that of the Practise when men ask where and when such Power has by Subjects been acknowledged But one may ask them again when or where has there been a Kingdome long free from Sedition and Civill Warre In those Nations whose Common-wealths have been long-lived and not been destroyed but by forraign warre the Subjects never did dispute of the Soveraign Power But howsoever an argument from the Practise of men that have not sifted to the bottom and with exact reason weighed the causes and nature of Common-wealths and suffer daily those miseries that proceed from the ignorance thereof is invalid For though in all places of the world men should lay the foundation of their houses on the sand it could not thence be inferred that so it ought to be The skill of making and maintaining Common-wealths consisteth in certain Rules as doth Arithmetique and Geometry not as Tennis-play on Practise onely which Rules neither poor men have the leisure nor men that have had the leisure have hitherto had the curiosity or the method to find out CHAP. XXI Of the LIBERTY of Subjects LIBERTY or FREEDOME signifieth properly the absence of Opposition by Opposition I mean externall Impediments of motion and may be applyed no lesse to Irrationall and Inanimate creatures than to Rationall For whatsoever is so tyed or environed as it cannot move but within a certain space which space is determined by the opposition of some externall body we say it hath not Liberty to go further And so of all living creatures whilest they are imprisoned or restrained with walls or chayns and of the water whilest it is kept in by banks or vessels that otherwise would spread it selfe into a larger space we use to say they are not at Liberty to move in such manner as without those externall impediments they would But when the impediment of motion is in the constitution of the thing it selfe we use not to say it wants the Liberty but the Power to move as when a stone lyeth still or a man is fastned to his bed by sicknesse And according to this proper and generally received meaning of the word A FREE-MAN is he that in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindred to doe what he has a will to But when the words Free and Liberty are applyed to any thing but Bodies they are abused for that which is not subject to Motion is not subject to Impediment And therefore when 't is said for example The way is Free no Liberty of the way is signified but of those that walk in it without stop And when we say a Guift is Free there is not meant any Liberty of the Guift but of the Giver that was not bound by any law or Covenant to give it So when we speak Freely it is not the Liberty of voice or pronunciation but of the man whom no law hath obliged to speak otherwise then he did Lastly from the use of the word Free-will no Liberty can be inferred of the will desire or inclination but the Liberty of the man which consisteth in this that he finds no stop in doing what he has the will desire or inclination to doe Feare and Liberty are consistent as when a man throweth his goods into the Sea for feare the ship should sink he doth it neverthelesse very willingly and may refuse to doe it if he will It is therefore the action of one that was free so a man sometimes pays his debt only for feare of Imprisonment which because no body hindred him from detaining was the action of a man at liberty And generally all actions which men doe in Common-wealths for feare of the law are actions which the doers had liberty to omit Liberty and Necessity are Consistent As in the water that hath not only liberty but a necessity of descending by the Channel so likewise in the Actions which men voluntarily doe which because they proceed from their will proceed from liberty and yet because every act of mans will and every desire and inclination proceedeth from some cause and that from another cause in a continuall chaine whose first link is in the hand of God the first of all causes proceed from necessity So that to him that could see the connexion of those causes the necessity of all mens voluntary actions would appeare manifest And therefore God that seeth and disposeth all things seeth also that the liberty of man in doing what he will is accompanied with the necessity of doing that which God will no more nor lesse For though men may do many things which God does not command nor is therefore Author of them yet they can have no passion nor appetite to any thing of which appetite Gods will is not the cause And did not his will assure the necessity of mans will and consequently of all that on mans will dependeth the liberty of men would be a contradiction and impediment to the omnipotence and liberty of God And this shall suffice as to the matter in hand of that naturall liberty which only is properly called liberty But as men for the atteyning of peace and conservation
therefore Aristotle puts it down in his Politiques lib. 6. cap. 2. In democracy Liberty is to be supposed for 't is commonly held that no man is Free in any other Government And as Aristotle so Cicero and other Writers have grounded their Civill doctrine on the opinions of the Romans who were taught to hate Monarchy at first by them that having deposed their Soveraign shared amongst them the Soveraignty of Rome and afterwards by their Successors And by reading of these Greek and Latine Authors men from their childhood have gotten a habit under a false shew of Liberty of favouring tumults and of licentious controlling the actions of their Soveraigns and again of controlling those controllers with the effusion of so much blood as I think I may truly say there was never any thing so deerly bought as these Western parts have bought the learning of the Greek and Latine tongues To come now to the particulars of the true Liberty of a Subject that is to say what are the things which though commanded by the Soveraign he may neverthelesse without Injustice refuse to do we are to consider what Rights we passe away when we make a Common-wealth or which is all one what Liberty we deny our selves by owning all the Actions without exception of the Man or Assembly we make our Soveraign For in the act of our Submission consisteth both our Obligation and our Liberty which must therefore be inferred by arguments taken from thence there being no Obligation on any man which ariseth not from some Act of his own for all men equally are by Nature Free. And because such arguments must either be drawn from the expresse words I Authorise all his Actions or from the Intention of him that submitteth himselfe to his Power which Intention is to be understood by the End for which he so submitteth The Obligation and Liberty of the Subject is to be derived either from those Words or others equivalent or else from the End of the Institution of Soveraignty namely the Peace of the Subjects within themselves and their Defence against a common Enemy First therefore seeing Soveraignty by Institution is by Covenant of every one to every one and Soveraignty by Acquisition by Covenants of the Vanquished to the Victor or Child to the Parent It is manifest that every Subject has Liberty in all those things the right whereof cannot by Covenant be transferred I have shewn before in the 14. Chapter that Covenants not to defend a mans own body are voyd Therefore If the Soveraign command a man though justly condemned to kill wound or mayme himselfe or not to resist those that assault him or to abstain from the use of food ayre medicine or any other thing without which he cannot live yet hath that man the Liberty to disobey If a man be interrogated by the Soveraign or his Authority concerning a crime done by himselfe he is not bound without assurance of Pardon to confesse it because no man as I have shewn in the same Chapter can be obliged by Covenant to accuse himselfe Again the Consent of a Subject to Soveraign Power is contained in these words I Authorise or take upon me all his actions in which there is no restriction at all of his own former naturall Liberty For by allowing him to kill me I am not bound to kill my selfe when he commands me 'T is one thing to say Kill me or my fellow if you please another thing to say I will kill my selfe or my fellow It followeth therefore that No man is bound by the words themselves either to kill himselfe or any other man And consequently that the Obligation a man may sometimes have upon the Command of the Soveraign to execute any dangerous or dishonourable Office dependeth not on the Words of our Submission but on the Intention which is to be understood by the End thereof When therefore our refusall to obey frustrates the End for which the Soveraignty was ordained then there is no Liberty to refuse otherwise there is Upon this ground a man that is commanded as a Souldier to fight against the enemy though his Soveraign have Right enough to punish his refusall with death may neverthelesse in many cases refuse without Injustice as when he substituteth a sufficient Souldier in his place for in this case he deserteth not the service of the Common-wealth And there is allowance to be made for naturall timorousnesse not onely to women of whom no such dangerous duty is expected but also to men of feminine courage When Armies fight there is on one side or both a running away yet when they do it not out of trechery but fear they are not esteemed to do it unjustly but dishonourably For the same reason to avoyd battell is not Injustice but Cowardise But he that inrowleth himselfe a Souldier or taketh imprest mony taketh away the excuse of a timorous nature and is obliged not onely to go to the battell but also not to run from it without his Captaines leave And when the Defence of the Common-wealth requireth at once the help of all that are able to bear Arms every one is obliged because otherwise the Institution of the Common-wealth which they have not the purpose or courage to preserve was in vain To resist the Sword of the Common-wealth in defence of another man guilty or innocent no man hath Liberty because such Liberty takes away from the Soveraign the means of Protecting us and is therefore destructive of the very essence of Government But in case a great many men together have already resisted the Soveraign Power unjustly or committed some Capitall crime for which every one of them expecteth death whether have they not the Liberty then to joyn together and assist and defend one another Certainly they have For they but defend their lives which the Guilty man may as well do as the Innocent There was indeed injustice in the first breach of their duty Their bearing of Arms subsequent to it though it be to maintain what they have done is no new unjust act And if it be onely to defend their persons it is not unjust at all But the offer of pardon taketh from them to whom it is offered the plea of self-defence and maketh their perseverance in assisting or defending the rest unlawfull As for other Lyberties they depend on the Silence of the Law In cases where the Soveraign has prescribed no rule there the Subject hath the Liberty to do or forbeare according to his own discretion And therefore such Liberty is in some places more and in some lesse and in some times more in other times lesse according as they that have the Soveraignty shall think most convenient As for Example there was a time when in England a man might enter in to his own Land and dispossesse such as wrongfully possessed it by force But in after-times that Liberty of Forcible Entry was taken away by a Statute made by the
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 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 râ—…sen again from the dead and that this Iesus 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 alledgâ—…d 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 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 Let us now consider the Conversion it sâ—…lf 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 jâ—…dg 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 Iohn 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 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 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 That part of the Scripture which was first Law was the Ten Commandements written in two Tables of Stone
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 Damasus and Vrsicinus which Ammianus Marcellinus saith was so great that Iuventius 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 own successors I think I may reasonably conclude they had no right to appoint the successors of other Bishops without receiving some new power which none could take from the Church to bestow on them but such as had a lawfull authority not onely to Teach but to Command the Church which none could doe but the Civill Soveraign The word Minister in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Gospell 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 Iohn 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 signes 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 Ministérs 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. 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 is it which is meant where God saith I am thine inheritance And therefore to the Levites might not unfitly be attributed the name of Clergy from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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