must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection_: which words interpret the _bearing of witness_, mentioned by St. John. There is in the same place mentioned another Trinity of witnesses in earth.
For (_1 John_ v. 8) he saith, _there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one_: that is to say, the graces of God’s spirit, and the two sacraments, baptism, and the Lord’s supper, which all agree in one testimony to assure the consciences of believers, of eternal life; of which testimony he saith (verse 10) _He that believeth on the Son of man hath the witness in himself_. In this Trinity on earth, the unity is not of the thing; for the spirit, the water, and the blood, are not the same substance, though they give the same testimony: but in the Trinity of heaven, the persons are the persons of one and the same God, though represented in three different times and occasions. To conclude, the doctrine of the Trinity, as far as can be gathered directly from the Scripture, is in substance this, that the God who is always one and the same, was the person represented by Moses; the person represented by his Son incarnate; and the person represented by the apostles. As represented by the apostles, the Holy Spirit, by which they spake, is God; as represented by his Son, that was God and man, the Son is that God; as represented by Moses and the high-priests, the Father, that is to say, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is that God. From whence we may gather the reason why those names _Father_, _Son_, and _Holy Spirit_, in the signification of the Godhead, are never used in the Old Testament: for they are persons, that is, they have their names from representing; which could not be, till divers men had represented God’s person in ruling or in directing under him.
Thus we see how the power ecclesiastical was left by our Saviour to the apostles; and how they were, to the end they might the better exercise that power, endued with the Holy Spirit, which is therefore called sometimes in the New Testament _paracletus_, which signifieth an _assister_, or one called to for help, though it be commonly translated a _comforter_. Let us now consider the power itself, what it was, and over whom.
[Sidenote: The power ecclesiastical is but the power to teach.]
Cardinal Bellarmine, in his third general controversy, hath handled a great many questions concerning the ecclesiastical power of the pope of Rome; and begins with this, whether it ought to be monarchical, aristocratical, or democratical: all which sorts of power are sovereign and coercive. If now it should appear, that there is no coercive power left them by our Saviour, but only a power to proclaim the kingdom of Christ, and to persuade men to submit themselves thereunto; and by precepts and good counsel, to teach them that have submitted, what they are to do, that they may be received into the kingdom of God when it comes; and that the apostles, and other ministers of the Gospel, are our schoolmasters, and not our commanders, and their precepts not laws, but wholesome counsels: then were all that dispute in vain.
[Sidenote: An argument thereof, the power of Christ himself.]
I have shown already, in the last chapter, that the kingdom of Christ is not of this world: therefore neither can his ministers, unless they be kings, require obedience in his name. For if the supreme king have not his regal power in this world; by what authority can obedience be required to his officers? _As my Father sent me_, so saith our Saviour, (_John_ xx. 21) _I send you_. But our Saviour was sent to persuade the Jews to return to, and to invite the Gentiles to receive, the kingdom of his Father, and not to reign in majesty, no not as his Father’s lieutenant, till the day of judgment.
[Sidenote: From the name of regeneration.]
The time between the ascension and the general resurrection, is called, not a reigning, but a regeneration; that is, a preparation of men for the second and glorious coming of Christ, at the day of judgment; as appeareth by the words of our Saviour, (_Matth._ xix. 28,) _You that have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, you shall also sit upon twelve thrones_; and of St. Paul (_Ephes._ vi. 15) _Having your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace_.
[Sidenote: From the comparison of it, with fishing, leaven, seed.]
And is compared by our Saviour, to fishing, that is, to winning men to obedience, not by coercion and punishing, but by persuasion: and therefore he said not to his apostles, he would make them so many Nimrods, _hunters of men; but fishers of men_. It is compared also to leaven, to sowing of seed, and to the multiplication of a grain of mustard-seed; by all which compulsion is excluded; and consequently there can in that time be no actual reigning. The work of Christ’s ministers, is evangelization; that is, a proclamation of Christ, and a preparation for his second coming, as the evangelization of John the Baptist was a preparation to his first coming.
[Sidenote: From the nature of faith.]
Again, the office of Christ’s ministers in this world, is to make men believe and have faith in Christ; but faith hath no relation to, nor dependance at all upon compulsion or commandment; but only upon certainty or probability of arguments drawn from reason, or from something men believe already. Therefore the ministers of Christ in this world, have no power, by that title, to punish any man for not believing or for contradicting what they say; they have I say no power by that title of Christ’s ministers, to punish such; but if they have sovereign civil power, by politic institution, then they may indeed lawfully punish any contradiction to their laws whatsoever: and St. Paul, of himself and other the then preachers of the gospel, saith in express words (_2 Cor._ i. 24), _We have no dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy_.
[Sidenote: From the authority Christ hath left to civil princes.]
Another argument, that the ministers of Christ in this present world have no right of commanding, may be drawn from the lawful authority which Christ hath left to all princes, as well Christians as infidels.
St. Paul saith (_Col._ iii. 20) _Children obey your parents in all things; for this is well pleasing to the Lord_: and (verse 22) _Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, as fearing the Lord_; this is spoken to them whose masters were infidels; and yet they are bidden to obey them _in all things_. And again, concerning obedience to princes (_Rom._ xiii. the first six verses), exhorting _to be subject to the higher powers_, he saith, _that all power is ordained of God_; and _that we ought to be subject to them, not only for fear of incurring their wrath, but also for conscience sake_.
ordinance of man, for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as to them that be sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well; for so is the will of God_. And again St. Paul (_Titus_ iii. 1), _Put men in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, and to obey magistrates_. These princes and powers, whereof St. Peter and St. Paul here speak, were all infidels: much more therefore we are to observe those Christians, whom God hath ordained to have sovereign power over us. How then can we be obliged to obey any minister of Christ, if he should command us to do anything contrary to the command of the king, or other sovereign representant of the commonwealth whereof we are members, and by whom we look to be protected? It is therefore manifest, that Christ hath not left to his ministers in this world, unless they be also endued with civil authority, any authority to command other men.
[Sidenote: What Christians may do to avoid persecution.]
But what, may some object, if a king, or a senate, or other sovereign person forbid us to believe in Christ? To this I answer, that such forbidding is of no effect; because belief and unbelief never follow men’s commands. Faith is a gift of God, which man can neither give, nor take away by promise of rewards, or menaces of torture. And if it be further asked, what if we be commanded by our lawful prince to say with our tongue, we believe not; must we obey such command? Profession with the tongue is but an external thing, and no more than any other gesture whereby we signify our obedience; and wherein a Christian, holding firmly in his heart the faith of Christ, hath the same liberty which the prophet Elisha allowed to Naaman the Syrian. Naaman was converted in his heart to the God of Israel; for he saith (_2 Kings_ v. 17, 18) _Thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the Lord. In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing._ This the prophet approved, and bid him _Go in peace_. Here Naaman believed in his heart; but by bowing before the idol Rimmon, he denied the true God in effect, as much as if he had done it with his lips. But then what shall we answer to our Saviour’s saying, (_Matth._ x. 33) _Whosoever denieth me before men, I will deny him before my Father which is in heaven_. This we may say, that whatsoever a subject, as Naaman was, is compelled to do in obedience to his sovereign, and doth it not in order to his own mind, but in order to the laws of his country, that action is not his, but his sovereign’s; nor is it he that in this case denieth Christ before men, but his governor, and the law of his country. If any man shall accuse this doctrine, as repugnant to true and unfeigned Christianity; I ask him, in case there should be a subject in any Christian commonwealth, that should be inwardly in his heart of the Mahomedan religion, whether if his sovereign command him to be present at the divine service of the Christian church, and that on pain of death, he think that Mahomedan obliged in conscience to suffer death for that cause, rather than obey that command of his lawful prince. If he say, he ought rather to suffer death, then he authorizeth all private men to disobey their princes in maintenance of their religion, true or false: if he say, he ought to be obedient, then he alloweth to himself that which he denieth to another, contrary to the words of our Saviour, (_Luke_ vi. 31) _Whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, that do ye unto them_; and contrary to the law of nature, which is the indubitable everlasting law of God, _Do not to another, that which thou wouldest not he should do unto thee_.
[Sidenote: Of martyrs.]
But what then shall we say of all those martyrs we read of in the history of the Church, that they have needlessly cast away their lives?
For answer hereunto, we are to distinguish the persons that have been for that cause put to death: whereof some have received a calling to preach, and profess the kingdom of Christ openly; others have had no such calling, nor more has been required of them than their own faith.
The former sort, if they have been put to death, for bearing witness to this point, that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, were true martyrs; for a _martyr_ is, (to give the true definition of the word) a witness of the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah; which none can be but those that conversed with him on earth, and saw him after he was risen: for a witness must have seen what he testifieth, or else his testimony is not good. And that none but such can properly be called martyrs of Christ, is manifest out of the words of St. Peter, (_Acts_ i. 21, 22) _Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a martyr_ (that is a witness) _with us of his resurrection_: where we may observe, that he which is to be a witness of the truth of the resurrection of Christ, that is to say, of the truth of this fundamental article of Christian religion, that Jesus was the Christ, must be some disciple that conversed with him, and saw him before and after his resurrection; and consequently must be one of his original disciples: whereas they which were not so, can witness no more but that their antecessors said it, and are therefore but witnesses of other men’s testimony; and are but second martyrs, or martyrs of Christ’s witnesses.
He, that to maintain every doctrine which he himself draweth out of the history of our Saviour’s life, and of the Acts or Epistles of the apostles, or which he believeth upon the authority of a private man, will oppose the laws and authority of the civil state, is very far from being a martyr of Christ, or a martyr of his martyrs. It is one article only, which to die for, meriteth so honourable a name; and that article is this, that _Jesus is the Christ_; that is to say, He that hath redeemed us, and shall come again to give us salvation, and eternal life in his glorious kingdom. To die for every tenet that serveth the ambition or profit of the clergy, is not required; nor is it the death of the witness, but the testimony itself that makes the martyr: for the word signifieth nothing else, but the man that beareth witness, whether he be put to death for his testimony, or not.
Also he that is not sent to preach this fundamental article, but taketh it upon him of his private authority, though he be a witness, and consequently a martyr, either primary of Christ, or secondary of his apostles, disciples, or their successors; yet is he not obliged to suffer death for that cause; because being not called thereto, it is not required at his hands; nor ought he to complain, if he loseth the reward he expecteth from those that never set him on work. None therefore can be a martyr, neither of the first nor second degree, that have not a warrant to preach Christ come in the flesh; that is to say, none, but such as are sent to the conversion of infidels. For no man is a witness to him that already believeth, and therefore needs no witness; but to them that deny, or doubt, or have not heard it. Christ sent his apostles, and his seventy disciples, with authority to preach; he sent not all that believed. And he sent them to unbelievers; _I send you_, saith he, (_Matth._ x. 16) _as sheep amongst wolves_; not as sheep to other sheep.
[Sidenote: Argument from the points of their commission.]
Lastly, the points of their commission, as they are expressly set down in the gospel, contain, none of them, any authority over the congregation.
[Sidenote: To preach;] We have first (_Matth._ x. 6, 7), that the twelve apostles were sent _to the lost sheep of the house of Israel_, and commanded to preach _that the kingdom of God was at hand_. Now preaching, in the original, is that act, which a crier, herald, or other officer useth to do publicly in proclaiming of a king. But a crier hath not right to command any man.
And (_Luke_ x. 2) the seventy disciples are sent out as _Labourers, not as Lords of the harvest_; and are bidden (verse 9) to say, _The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you_; and by kingdom here is meant, not the kingdom of grace, but the kingdom of glory; for they are bidden (verse 11, 12) to denounce it to those cities which shall not receive them, as a threatening _that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for such a city_. And (_Matth._ xx. 28) our Saviour telleth his disciples, that sought priority of place, their office was to minister, _even as the son of man came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister_. Preachers therefore have not magisterial, but ministerial power: _Be not called masters_, saith our Saviour, (_Matth._ xxiii. 10) _for one is your master, even Christ_.
[Sidenote: And teach;] Another point of their commission, is, to _Teach all nations_; as it is in _St. Matth._ xxviii. 19, or as in _St. Mark_, xvi. 15; _Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature_. Teaching therefore, and preaching, is the same thing. For they that proclaim the coming of a king, must withal make known by what right he cometh, if they mean men shall submit themselves unto him: as St. Paul did to the Jews of Thessalonica, when (_Acts_ xvii. 2, 3) _three Sabbath days he reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, opening, and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead, and that this Jesus is Christ_. But to teach out of the Old Testament that Jesus was Christ, that is to say, king, and risen from the dead, is not to say that men are bound, after they believe it, to obey those that tell them so, against the laws and commands of their sovereigns; but that they shall do wisely, to expect the coming of Christ hereafter, in patience and faith, with obedience to their present magistrates.
[Sidenote: To baptize;] Another point of their commission, is to _baptize, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost_. What is baptism? Dipping into water. But what is it to dip a man into the water in the name of anything? The meaning of these words of baptism is this. He that is baptized, is dipped or washed, as a sign of becoming a new man, and a loyal subject to that God, whose person was represented in old time by Moses, and the high-priests, when he reigned over the Jews; and to Jesus Christ his Son, God and Man, that hath redeemed us, and shall in his human nature represent his Father’s person in his eternal kingdom after the resurrection; and to acknowledge the doctrine of the apostles, who, assisted by the spirit of the Father and of the Son, were left for guides to bring us into that kingdom, to be the only and assured way thereunto. This being our promise in baptism; and the authority of earthly sovereigns being not to be put down till the day of judgment; for that is expressly affirmed by St. Paul (_1 Cor._ xv. 22, 23, 24) where he saith, _As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive. But every man in his own order, Christ the first fruits, afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming; then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power_: it is manifest, that we do not in baptism constitute over us another authority, by which our external actions are to be governed in this life; but promise to take the doctrine of the apostles for our direction in the way to life eternal.
[Sidenote: And to forgive, and retain sins.]
The power of _remission and retention of sins_, called also the power of _loosing_ and _binding_, and sometimes the _keys of the kingdom of heaven_, is a consequence of the authority to baptize, or refuse to baptize. For baptism is the sacrament of allegiance of them that are to be received into the kingdom of God; that is to say, into eternal life; that is to say, to remission of sin: for as eternal life was lost by the committing, so it is recovered by the remitting of men’s sins. The end of baptism is remission of sins: and therefore St. Peter, when they that were converted by his sermon on the day of Pentecost, asked what they were to do, advised them (_Acts_ ii. 38) to _repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus, for the remission of sins_. And therefore, seeing to baptize is to declare the reception of men into God’s kingdom; and to refuse to baptize is to declare their exclusion; it followeth, that the power to declare them cast out, or retained in it, was given to the same apostles, and their substitutes and successors. And therefore after our Saviour had breathed upon them, saying (_John_ xx. 22) _Receive the Holy Ghost_, he addeth in the next verse, _Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained_. By which words, is not granted an authority to forgive or retain sins, simply and absolutely, as God forgiveth or retaineth them, who knoweth the heart of man, and truth of his penitence and conversion; but conditionally, to the penitent: and this forgiveness, or absolution, in case the absolved have but a feigned repentance, is thereby, without other act, or sentence of the absolved, made void, and hath no effect at all to salvation, but on the contrary to the aggravation of his sin.
Therefore the apostles, and their successors, are to follow but the outward marks of repentance; which appearing, they have no authority to deny absolution; and if they appear not, they have no authority to absolve. The same also is to be observed in baptism: for to a converted Jew, or Gentile, the apostles had not the power to deny baptism; nor to grant it to the unpenitent. But seeing no man is able to discern the truth of another man’s repentance, further than by external marks, taken from his words and actions, which are subject to hypocrisy; another question will arise, who it is that is constituted judge of those marks?
And this question is decided by our Saviour himself; _If thy brother_, saith he, (_Matth._ xviii. 15, 16, 17) _shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault, between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican._ By which it is manifest, that the judgment concerning the truth of repentance, belonged not to any one man, but to the Church, that is, to the assembly of the faithful, or to them that have authority to be their representant. But besides the judgment, there is necessary also the pronouncing of sentence. And this belonged always to the apostle, or some pastor of the Church, as prolocutor; and of this our Saviour speaketh in the 18th verse, _Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven_. And conformable hereunto was the practise of St. Paul, (_1 Cor._ v. 3, 4, 5) where he saith, _For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have determined already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed; in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one to Satan_; that is to say, to cast him out of the Church, as a man whose sins are not forgiven. Paul here pronounceth the sentence; but the assembly was first to hear the cause, for St. Paul was absent, and by consequence to condemn him. But in the same chapter (verses 11, 12), the judgment in such a case is more expressly attributed to the assembly: _But now I have written unto you, not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, &c. with such a one, no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within?_ The sentence therefore by which a man was put out of the Church, was pronounced by the apostle, or pastor; but the judgment concerning the merit of the cause, was in the Church; that is to say, as the times were before the conversion of kings, and men that had sovereign authority in the commonwealth, the assembly of the Christians dwelling in the same city: as in Corinth, in the assembly of the Christians of Corinth.
[Sidenote: Of excommunication.]
This part of the power of the keys, by which men were thrust out from the kingdom of God, is that which is called _excommunication_; and to _excommunicate_, is in the original, ἀποσυνάγωγον ποιεῖν, _to cast out of the synagogue_; that is, out of the place of divine service; a word drawn from the custom of the Jews, to cast out of their synagogues such as they thought, in manners or doctrine, contagious, as lepers were by the law of Moses separated from the congregation of Israel, till such time as they should be by the priest pronounced clean.
[Sidenote: The use of excommunication without civil power.]
The use and effect of excommunication, whilst it was not yet strengthened with the civil power, was no more than that they, who were not excommunicate, were to avoid the company of them that were. It was not enough to repute them as heathen, that never had been Christians; for with such they might eat and drink; which with excommunicate persons they might not do; as appeareth by the words of St. Paul, (_1 Cor._ v.
9, 10, &c.) where he telleth them, he had formerly forbidden them to _company with fornicators_; but, because that could not be without going out of the world, he restraineth it to such fornicators, and otherwise vicious persons, as were of the brethren; _with such a one_, he saith, they ought not to keep company, _no not to eat_. And this is no more than our Saviour saith (_Matth._ xviii. 17), _Let him be to thee as a heathen, and as a publican_. For publicans, which signifieth farmers and receivers of the revenue of the commonwealth, were so hated and detested by the Jews that were to pay it, as that _publican_ and _sinner_ were taken amongst them for the same thing: insomuch, as when our Saviour accepted the invitation of Zacchæus a publican; though it were to convert him, yet it was objected to him as a crime. And therefore, when our Saviour to _heathen_ added _publican_, he did forbid them to eat with a man excommunicate.
As for keeping them out of their synagogues, or places of assembly, they had no power to do it, but that of the owner of the place, whether he were Christian, or heathen. And because all places are by right in the dominion of the commonwealth; as well he that was excommunicated, as he that never was baptized, might enter into them by commission from the civil magistrate; as Paul before his conversion entered into their synagogues at Damascus, (_Acts_ ix. 2) to apprehend Christians, men and women, and to carry them bound to Jerusalem, by commission from the high-priest.
[Sidenote: Of no effect upon an apostate;] By which it appears, that upon a Christian, that should become an apostate, in a place where the civil power did persecute, or not assist the Church, the effect of excommunication had nothing in it, neither of damage in this world, nor of terror: not of terror, because of their unbelief; nor of damage, because they are returned thereby into the favour of the world; and in the world to come were to be in no worse estate, than they which never had believed. The damage redounded rather to the Church, by provocation of them they cast out, to a freer execution of their malice.
[Sidenote: But upon the faithful only.]
Excommunication therefore had its effect only upon those, that believed that Jesus Christ was to come again in glory, to reign over and to judge both the quick and the dead, and should therefore refuse entrance into his kingdom to those whose sins were retained, that is, to those that were excommunicated by the Church. And thence it is, that St. Paul calleth excommunication, a delivery of the excommunicate person to Satan. For without the kingdom of Christ, all other kingdoms, after judgment, are comprehended in the kingdom of Satan. This is it that the faithful stood in fear of, as long as they stood excommunicate, that is to say, in an estate wherein their sins were not forgiven. Whereby we may understand, that excommunication, in the time that Christian religion was not authorized by the civil power, was used only for a correction of manners, not of errors in opinion: for it is a punishment, whereof none could be sensible but such as believed, and expected the coming again of our Saviour to judge the world; and they who so believed, needed no other opinion, but only uprightness of life, to be saved.
[Sidenote: For what fault lieth excommunication.]
There lieth excommunication for injustice; as (_Matth._ xviii.), If thy brother offend thee, tell it him privately; then with witnesses; lastly, tell the Church; and then if he obey not, _Let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican_. And there lieth excommunication for a scandalous life, as (_1 Cor._ v. 11) _If any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one ye are not to eat_. But to excommunicate a man that held this foundation, that _Jesus was the Christ_, for difference of opinion in other points, by which that foundation was not destroyed, there appeareth no authority in the Scripture, nor example in the apostles. There is indeed in St. Paul (_Titus_ iii. 10) a text that seemeth to be to the contrary; _A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject_. For an _heretic_, is he, that being a member of the Church, teacheth nevertheless some private opinion, which the Church has forbidden: and such a one, St. Paul adviseth Titus, after the first and second admonition, to _reject_. But to _reject_, in this place, is not to _excommunicate_ the man; but to _give over admonishing him, to let him alone, to set by disputing with him_, as one that is to be convinced only by himself. The same apostle saith (_2 Tim._ ii. 23) _Foolish and unlearned questions avoid_: the word _avoid_ in this place, and _reject_ in the former, is the same in the original, παραιτοῦ: but foolish questions may be set by without excommunication. And again, (_Titus_ iii. 9) _Avoid foolish questions_, where the original περιΐστασο (_set them by_) is equivalent to the former word _reject_. There is no other place that can so much as colourably be drawn, to countenance the casting out of the Church faithful men, such as believed the foundation, only for a singular superstructure of their own, proceeding perhaps from a good and pious conscience. But on the contrary, all such places as command avoiding such disputes, are written for a lesson to pastors, such as Timothy and Titus were, not to make new articles of faith, by determining every small controversy, which oblige men to a needless burthen of conscience, or provoke them to break the union of the Church. Which lesson the apostles themselves observed well. St. Peter and St. Paul, though their controversy were great, as we may read in _Gal._ ii. 11, yet they did not cast one another out of the Church. Nevertheless, during the apostles’ times, there were other pastors that observed it not; as Diotrephes (_3 John_, 9, &c.) who cast out of the Church such as St.
John himself thought fit to be received into it, out of a pride he took in preeminence. So early it was, that vain glory and ambition had found entrance into the Church of Christ.
[Sidenote: Of persons liable to excommunication.]
That a man be liable to excommunication, there be many conditions requisite; as first, that he be a member of some commonalty, that is to say, of some lawful assembly, that is to say, of some Christian Church, that hath power to judge of the cause for which he is to be excommunicated. For where there is no community, there can be no excommunication; nor where there is no power to judge, can there be any power to give sentence.
From hence it followeth, that one Church cannot be excommunicated by another: for either they have equal power to excommunicate each other, in which case excommunication is not discipline, nor an act of authority, but schism, and dissolution of charity; or one is so subordinate to the other, as that they both have but one voice; and then they be but one Church; and the part excommunicated is no more a Church, but a dissolute number of individual persons.
And because the sentence of excommunication, importeth an advice, not to keep company nor so much as to eat with him that is excommunicate, if a sovereign prince or assembly be excommunicate, the sentence is of no effect. For all subjects are bound to be in the company and presence of their own sovereign, when he requireth it, by the law of nature; nor can they lawfully either expel him from any place of his own dominion, whether profane or holy; nor go out of his dominion without his leave; much less, if he call them to that honour, refuse to eat with him. And as to other princes and states, because they are not parts of one and the same congregation, they need not any other sentence to keep them from keeping company with the state excommunicate: for the very institution, as it uniteth many men into one community, so it dissociateth one community from another: so that excommunication is not needful for keeping kings and states asunder; nor has any further effect than is in the nature of policy itself, unless it be to instigate princes to war upon one another.
Nor is the excommunication of a Christian subject, that obeyeth the laws of his own sovereign, whether Christian or heathen, of any effect. For if he believe that _Jesus is the Christ, he hath the Spirit of God_ (_1 John_ v. 1): _and God dwelleth in him, and he in God_ (_1 John_ iv. 15.)
But he that hath the spirit of God; he that dwelleth in God; he in whom God dwelleth, can receive no harm by the excommunication of men.
Therefore, he that believeth Jesus to be the Christ, is free from all the dangers threatened to persons excommunicate. He that believeth it not, is no Christian. Therefore a true and unfeigned Christian is not liable to excommunication: nor he also that is a professed Christian, till his hypocrisy appear in his manners, that is, till his behaviour be contrary to the law of his sovereign, which is the rule of manners, and which Christ and his apostles have commanded us to be subject to. For the Church cannot judge of manners but by external actions, which actions can never be unlawful, but when they are against the law of the commonwealth.
If a man’s father, or mother, or master, be excommunicate, yet are not the children forbidden to keep them company, nor to eat with them: for that were, for the most part, to oblige them not to eat at all, for want of means to get food; and to authorize them to disobey their parents and masters, contrary to the precept of the apostles.
In sum, the power of excommunication cannot be extended further than to the end for which the apostles and pastors of the Church have their commission from our Saviour; which is not to rule by command and co-action, but by teaching and direction of men in the way of salvation in the world to come. And as a master in any science may abandon his scholar, when he obstinately neglecteth the practise of his rules; but not accuse him of injustice, because he was never bound to obey him: so a teacher of Christian doctrine may abandon his disciples that obstinately continue in an unchristian life; but he cannot say, they do him wrong, because they are not obliged to obey him. For to a teacher that shall so complain, may be applied the answer of God to Samuel in the like place, (_1 Sam._ viii. 7) _They have not rejected thee, but