by the Church; sometimes for the Elect onely, as when it is called holy, and without blemish, Ephes. 5.
vers. 27. But the Elect, as they are militant, are not properly called a Church; for they know not how to
assemble, but they are a future Church, namely in that day when sever'd from the reprobate, they shall
bee triumphant. Againe a Church may bee sometimes taken (for all Christians collectively,) as when
Christ is called the head of his Church, and the head of his body the Church, Eph. 5. vers. 23. Colos. 1.
vers. 18. sometimes for its parts, as the Church of Ephesus, The Church which is in his house, the
seven Churches, &c. Lastly, a Church as it is taken for a Company actually assembled, according to the divers ends of their meeting, signifies sometimes those who are met together to deliberate, and
judge, in which sense it is also called a Councell, & a Synod; sometimes those who meet together in
the house of prayer to worship God, in which signification it is taken in the 1 Cor. 14. vers. 4, 5. 23. 28.
&c.
XX. Now a Church which hath personall Rights, and proper actions attributed to it, and of which that
same must necessarily be understood, Tell it to the church, and, he that obeys not the church, and all such like formes of speech, is to be defin'd so, as by that word may be understood, A Multitude of men
who have made a new Covenant with God in Christ, (that is to say, a multitude of them who have taken
upon them the Sacrament of Baptisme) which multitude, may both lawfully be call'd together by some
one into one place, and he so calling them, are bound to be present either in Person, or by others. For
a multitude of men, if they cannot meet in assembly, when need requires, is not to be call'd a Person;
For a Church can neither speak, nor discerne, nor heare, but as it is a congregation. Whatsoever is
spoken by particular men, (to wit, as many opinions almost as heads) that's the speech of one man, not
of the Church; farthermore, if an assembly be made, and it be unlawfull, it shall be considered as null.
Not any one of these therefore who are present in a tumult shall be tyed to the decree of the rest, but
specially if he dissent; and therefore neither can such a Church make any decree; for then a multitude
is sayd to decree somewhat, when every man is oblig'd by the decree of the major part. We must
therefore grant to the definition of a Church (to which we attribute things belonging to a Person) not
onely a possibility of assembling, but also of doing it lawfully. Besides, although there be some one
who may lawfully call the rest together, yet if they who are called may lawfully not appeare (which may
happen among men who are not subject one to another) that same Church is not one Person. For by what Right they, who being call'd to a certaine time, and place, doe meet together, are one Church; by
the same, others flocking to another place appointed by them, are another Church. And every number
of men of one opinion is a Church, and by Consequence there will be as many Churches as there are
divers opinions, that is to say, the same multitude of men will at once prove to be one, and many
Churches. Wherefore a Church is not one, except there be a certaine, and known, that is to say, a
lawfull power, by meanes whereof every man may be oblig'd to be present in the Congregation, either
himselfe in person, or by Proxie. And that becomes One, and is capable of personall functions, by the union of a lawfull power of convocating Synods, and assemblies of Christians; not by uniformity of
Doctrine: and otherwise, it is a multitude, and Persons in the plurall, howsoever agreeing in opinions.
XXI. It followes what hath beene already said by necessary connexion, that a City of Christian men,
and a Church, is altogether the same thing, of the same men, term'd by two names, for two causes: For
the matter of a City & a Church is one, to wit the same Christian men. And the forme which consists in a Lawfull power of assembling them is the same too; for 'tis manifest that every Subject is oblig'd to
come thither, whither he is summon'd by his City. Now that which is call'd a City, as it is made up of men, the same, as it consists of Christians, is styled a Church.
XXII. This too is very cohaerent with the same points, If there be many Christian Cities, they are not
altogether personally one church. They may indeed by mutuall consent become one Church, but no otherwise, than as they must also become one City; For they cannot assemble but at some certaine
time, and to some place appointed. But Persons, places, and times, belong to civill Right; neither can
any Subject or stranger lawfully set his foot on any place, but by the permission of the City, which is
Lord of the place. But the things which cannot lawfully be done but by the permission of the City, those,
if they be lawfully done, are done by the Cities authority. The Universall church is indeed one mysticall body, whereof CHRIST is the head, but in the same manner, that all men together acknowledging God
for the Ruler of the world, are one Kingdome, and one City, which notwithstanding is neither one
Person, nor hath it one common action, or determination. Farthermore where it is said that CHRIST is the head of his body the Church, it manifestly appeares, that that was spoken by the Apostle of the
Elect, who as long as they are in this world, are a Church onely in potentia, but shall not actually be so before they be separated from the reprobate, and gather'd together among themselves, in the day of
Judgement. The Church of Rome of old was very great, but she went not beyond the bounds of her
Empire; and therefore neither was she Universall, unlesse it were in that sense, wherein it was also
said of the City of Rome, Orbem jam totum victor Romanus habebat, when as yet he had not the
twentieth part of it. But after that the civill Empire was divided into parts, the single Cities thence arising were so many Churches; and that power which the Church of Rome had over them, might perhaps
wholy depend on the authority of those Churches, who having cast off the Emperours were yet content
to admit the Doctours of Rome.
XXIII. They may be called Church-men who exercise a publique office in the Church. But of offices
there was one a Ministery, another a Maistery; The office of the Ministers was to serve Tables, to take care of the temporall goods of the Church, and to distribute (at that time when all propriety of riches
being abolisht, they were fed in common) to each man his portion; The Maisters according to their
order, were called some Apostles, some Bishops, some Presbyters, that is to say Elders; yet not so, as that by the name of Presbyter, the age, but the office might be distinguisht; For Timothy was a Presbyter although a young man; but because for the most part the Elders were receiv'd into the Maistership, the word, denoting age, was us'd to signifie the office. The same Maisters, according to the diversity of their employments were called some of them Apostles, some Prophets, some
Evangelists, some Pastors or Teachers. And the Apostolicall worke indeed was universall; the Propheticall to declare their owne revelations in the Church; the Evangelicall to preach, or to be publishers of the Gospell among the infidels; that of the Pastors to teach, confirme, and rule the minds of those who already beleev'd.
XXIV. In the Election of Church-men two things are to be considered, the Election of the Persons, and
their consecration, or institution, which also is called ordination. The first twelve Apostles CHRIST
himselfe both elected, and ordain'd. After CHRISTS ascension Matthias was elected in the roome of
Judas the Traitour, the Church (which at that time consisted of a Congregation of about one hundred
and twenty men) choosing two men: And they appointed two, Joseph and Matthias; but God himselfe
by lot approving of Mathias. And Saint Paul calls these twelve the first, and great Apostles, also the
Apostles of the Circumcision. Afterward were added two other Apostles, Paul, and Barnabas; ordain'd
indeed by the Doctours, and Prophets of the Church of Antioch, (which was a particular Church) by the
imposition of hands, but elected by the command of the Holy Ghost. That they were both Apostles is
manifest in the 13. of the Acts v. 2, 3. That they receiv'd their Apostleship from hence, namely because
they were separated by command of the spirit for the work of God, from the rest of the Prophets, and
Doctours of the Church of Antioch, Saint Paul himselfe shewes, who calls himselfe for distinctions sake
an Apostle separated unto the Gospell of God, Rom. 1. ver. 1. But if it be demanded further; by what authority it came to passe that that was receiv'd for the command of the Holy Ghost, which those
Prophets and Doctours did say proceeded from him, it must necessarily be answer'd; by the Authority
of the church of Antioch. For the Prophets & Doctours must be examined by the Church before they be admitted; For Saint John saith, Beleeve not every Spirit, but try the Spirits, whether they are of God,
because many false Prophets are gone out into the world; but by what Church, but that to which that
Epistle was written? In like manner Saint Paul reprooves the Churches of Galatia, because they
Judaized, Gal. 2. v. 14. although they seemed to doe so by the Authority of Peter; for when he had told
them that he had, reprehended Peter himselfe with these words, If thou being a Jew, livest after the
manner of Gentiles, and not as doe the Jewes, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as doe the
Jewes? Not long after he questions them, saying, This onely would I learne of you: Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith? Gal. 3. ver. 2. Where it is evident, that it was Judaisme which he reprehended the Galathians for, notwithstanding that the Apostle Peter compelled
them to Judaize. Seeing therefore it belonged to the Church, and not to Peter, and therefore also not to
any man, to determine what Doctors they should follow, it also pertained to the authority of the Church
of Antioch to elect their Prophets and Doctors. Now because the Holy Ghost separated to himself the
Apostles Paul & Barnabas, by the imposition of hands from Doctors thus elected; its manifest, that
imposition of hands, & consecration, of the prime Doctors in each Church, belongs to the Doctors of the same Church. But Bishops, who were also called Presbyters, although all Presbyters were not Bishops, were ordain'd somtimes by Apostles (for Paul & Barnabas when they had taught in Derbe, Lystra, and
Iconium, ordained Elders in every Church, Acts 14. v. 23.) sometimes by other Bishops, for Titus was
by Paul left in Crete, that he should ordain Elders in every City, Tit. 1. v. 5. And Timothy was advised not to neglect the gift that was in him, which was given him by Prophesy with the laying on of the hands
of the Presbytery, 1. Tim. 4. v. 14. And he had rules given him concerning the Election of Presbyters.
But that cannot be understood otherwise, than of the ordination of those who were elected by the
Church; for no man could constitute a Doctor in the Church, but by the Churches permission. For the
duty of the Apostles themselves was not to command, but to teach; and although they who were
recommended by the Apostles, or Presbyters, were not rejected, for the esteem that was had of the
recommenders, yet seeing they could not be elected without the will of the Church, they were also
suppos'd elected by the authority of the Church. In like manner Ministers, who are called Deacons, were ordained by the Apostles; yet elected by the Church. For when the seven Deacons were to bee elected, and ordained, the Apostles elected them not, but look yee out, (say they) among you Brethren seven men of honest report, &c. And they chose Stephen, &c. And they set them before the Apostles, Acts 6. vers. 3, 5, 6. It is apparent therefore by the custome of the Primitive Church under the Apostles,
that the ordination, or consecration of all Church-men, which is done by Prayer, and imposition of hands, belonged to the Apostles, and Doctors; but the Election of those who were to be consecrated, to the Church.
XXV. Concerning the power of binding, and loosing, that is to say of remitting, and retaining of sinnes, there is no doubt, but it was given by Christ to the Pastors then yet for to come, in the same manner as
it was to the present Apostles. Now the Apostles had all the power of remitting of sins given them,
which Christ himselfe had; As the Father hath sent me (sayes Christ) so send I you, John 20. vers. 21.
and he addes, Whose soever sins yee remit, they are remitted, and whose soever sins ye retain, they
are retained. vers. 23. But what binding and loosing, or remitting and retaining of sinnes, is, admits of some scruple. For first, to retain his sinnes who being baptized into remission of sins, is truly penitent, seems to be against the very Covenant it selfe of the new Testament, and therefore could not be done
by Christ himselfe, much lesse by his Pastors. And to remit the impenitent, seems to be against the will of God the Father, from whom Christ was sent to convert the world, and to reduce men unto obedience.
Furthermore, if each Pastor had an authority granted him to remit and retain sinnes in this manner, al awe of Princes, and civill Magistrates, together with all kind of civill Government would be utterly
destroyed. For Christ hath said it, nay even nature it selfe dictates, that we should not feare them who
slay the body, but cannot kill the soule; but rather feare him who can cast both soule and body into hell, Mat. 10. vers. 28. Neither is any man so mad as not to choose to yeeld obedience rather to them who
can remit, and retain their sinnes, than to the powerfullest Kings. Nor yet on the other side, it is to be
imagined, that remission of sinnes is nothing else but an exemption from Ecclesiasticall punishments;
for what evill hath excommunication in it, beside the eternall pains which are consequent to it? Or what
benefit is it to be received into the Church if there were salvation out of it? We must therefore hold,
That Pastors have Power, truly, and absolutely to forgive sinnes, but, to the penitent; and to retain
them, but, of the impenitent. But while men think that to Repent, is nothing else but that every one
condemn his Actions, and change those Counsels which to himselfe seem sinfull, and blameable,
there is an opinion risen, that there may be repentance before any Confession of sinnes to men, and
that repentance is not an effect, but a cause of Confession; and thence, the difficulty of those who say
that the sins of the penitent are already forgiven in Baptisme, and theirs who repent not, cannot be
forgiven at al, is against Scripture, and contrary to the words of Christ, Whose soever sins ye remit, &c.
We must therefore to resolve this difficulty know in the first place, that a true acknowledgement of sin is
Repentance; for he that knows he hath sinned, knows he hath erred, but to will an errour is impossible;
therefore he that knowes he hath sinned, wishes he had not done it, which is to repent. Farther, where
it may be doubtfull, whether that which is done be a sin or not, we must consider, that repentance doth
not precede confession of sins, but is subsequent to it: for there is no repentance but of sinnes
acknowledged. The penitent therefore must both acknowledge the fact, and know it to be a sinne, that
is to say, against the Law. If a man therefore think, that what he hath done, is not against the Law; its
impossible he should repent of it. Before repentance therefore, its necessary there be an application of
the facts unto the Law. But its in vain to apply the facts unto the Law without an Interpreter; for not the
words of the Law, but the sentence of the Law-giver is the rule of mens actions; but surely either one
man, or some men are the Interpreters of the Law, for every man is not judge of his own fact whether it
be a sin or not; wherefore the fact of which we doubt whether it be a sinne or not, must be unfolded
before some man or men, and the doing of this is confession. Now when the Interpreter of the Law hath
judged the fact to bee a sinne, if the sinner submit to his judgement, and resolve with himselfe not to do
so any more, tis repentance; and thus, either it is not true repentance, or else it is not antecedent, but
subsequent to confession. These things being thus explained, it is not hard to understand what kinde of
power that of binding and loosing is. For seeing in remission of sinnes there are two things
considerable, one the Judgement or Condemnation whereby the fact is judged to be a sinne; the other, (when the Party condemned does acquiesce, and obey the sentence, that is to say, Repents) the
remission of the sinne, or, (if he repent not) the Retention: The first of these, that is to say, the Judging whether it be a sinne or not, belongs to the Interpreter of the Law, that is, the Soveraign Judge; the second, namely Remission, or retention of the sinne, to the Pastor, and it is that concerning which the power of binding and loosing is conversant. And that this was the true meaning of our Saviour Christ in the institution of the same power, is apparent in the 18 of Mat. vers. 15, 16, 17, 18. thus, He there
speaking to his Disciples, sayes, If thy Brother sinne against thee, goe, and tell him his fault betweene
thee and him alone, (where we must observe by the way, that if thy Brother sinne against thee, is the same with, if he doe thee injury; and therefore Christ spake of those matters which belonged to the
civill Tribunall) he addes, if he heare thee not (that is to say, if he deny that he hath done it, or if having confest the fact, he denies it to be unjustly done) take with thee yet one or two, and if he refuse to
heare them, tell it the Church. But why to the Church, except that she might judge whether it were a
sinne or not? But if he refuse to hear the Church, that is, if he doe not submit to the Churches
sentence, but shall maintain that to be no sin, which She Judges to be a sinne, that is to say, if he
repent not (for certain it is that no man repents himselfe of that action which She conceives not to be a
sinne) he saith not, Tell it to the Apostles, that we might know that the definitive sentence in the
question, whether it were a sin or not, was not left unto them, but to the Church; but let him be unto
thee (sayes he) as an Heathen, or Publican, that is, as one out of the Church, as one that is not baptized, that is to say, as one whose sinnes are retained. For all Christians were baptized into
remission of sinnes. But because it might have been demanded who it was that had so great a power,
as that of withholding the benefit of Baptisme from the impenitent, Christ shewes that the same
Persons to whom he had given authority to baptize the penitent into the remission of sinns, and to
make them of heathen men, Christians, had also authority to retain their sins who by the Church should
be adjudged to be impenitent, and to make them of Christian men Heathens; and therefore presently
subjoynes, Verily I say unto you, Whose soever sinnes yee shall binde upon Earth, they shall bee
bound also in Heaven, and whose soever sins yee shall loose upon Earth, they shall be loosed also in
Heaven. Whence we may understand, that the power of binding, and loosing, or of remitting, and
retaining of sinnes, which is called in another place, the power of the keyes, is not different from the
power given in another place in these words, Goe, and teach all Nations, Baptizing them in the Name
of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the Holy Ghost, Mat. 28. ver. 19. And even as the Pastours
cannot refuse to Baptize him whom the Church judges worthy, so neither can they retaine his sinnes
whom the Church holds fitting to be absolv'd, nor yet remit his sinnes whom the Church pronounceth
disobedient. And it is the Churches part to judge of the sinne, the Pastours, to cast out, or to receive
into the Church those that are judg'd. Thus Saint Paul to the Church of Corinth (1 Cor. v. 12): Do not ye
judge, saith he, of those that are within? Yet he himself pronounc't the sentence of Excommunication against the incestuous Person, I indeed (saith he, verse 3) as absent in body, but present in Spirit, &c.
XXVI. The act of retaining sinnes is that which is called by the Church Excommunication, and by Saint
Paul, delivering over to Satan. The word Excommunication, sounding the same with aposunagogon poiein, casting out of the Synagogue, seems to be borrowed from the Mosaicall Law, wherein they who were by the Priest adjudged leprous, were commanded to be kept apart out of the Camp, untill by the
judgement of the Priest they were againe pronounc't cleane, and by certaine rights (among which the
washing of the body was one) were purified, Levit. 13. ver. 46. From hence in processe of time it
became a custome of the Jewes, not to receive those who passed from Gentilisme to Judaisme,
(supposing them to be uncleane) unlesse they were first washed; and those who dissented from the
Doctrine of the Synagogue, they cast out of the Synagogue. By resemblance of this custome, those
that came to Christianity, (whether they were Jewes, or Gentiles) were not receiv'd into the Church
without Baptisme; and those that dissented from the Church were depriv'd of the Churches
Communion. Now, they were therefore said to be deliver'd over to Satan, because all that was out of
the Church, was comprehended within his Kingdome. The end of this kind of Discipline was, that being
destitute for a time of the grace and spirituall priviledges of the Church, they might be humbled to
salvation. But the effect in regard to secular matters, that being excommunicated, they should not onely be prohibited all Congregations, or Churches, and the participation of the mysteries, but as being
contagious they should be avoided by all other Christians, even more than Heathen: for the Apostle
allowed to accompany with Heathen, but with these not so much as to eate, 1 Cor. 5. ver. 10, 11.
Seeing then the effect of Excommunication is such, it is manifest in the first place, that a Christian city cannot be excommunicated. For a Christian City is a Christian Church, as hath been declar'd above in
the 21. Art. and of the same extension. But a Church cannot be excommunicated; For either she must
excommunicate her selfe, which is impossible; or she must be excommunicated by some other Church,
and this, either universall, or particular. But seeing an Universall Church is no Person, (as hath been prov'd in the 22. Artic.) and therefore neither acts, nor does any thing, it cannot excommunicate any
man. And a particular church by excommunicating another Church doth nothing; for where there is not
one common Congregation, there cannot be any Excommunication. Neither if some one Church
(suppose that of Jerusalem) should have excommunicated an other (suppose that of Rome) would it
any more have excommunicated this, than her selfe: for he that deprives another of his Communion,
deprives himselfe also of the Communion of that other. Secondly, No man can excommunicate the
subjects of any absolute government all at once, or forbid them the use of their Temples, or their
publique worship of God. For they can