Representant. But besides the Judgment, there is necessary also the pronouncing of Sentence:
And this belonged alwaies to the Apostle, or some Pastor of the Church, as Prolocutor; and of
this our Saviour speaketh in the 18 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. 5. 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 (ver.
11, 12.) the Judgment in such a case is more expressely 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 judg them that are
without? Do not ye judg 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 Soveraign Authority in the Common-wealth,) the Assembly of the
Christians dwelling in the same City; as in Corinth, in the Assembly of the Christians of
Corinth.
Of Excommunication.
This part of the Power of the Keyes, by which men were thrust out from the Kingdom of God, is
that which is called Excommunication; and to excommunicate, is in the Originall,
to cast out of the Synagogue; that is, out of the place of Divine
service; a word drawn from the custome 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.
The use of Excommunication without Civill Power,
The Use and Effect of Excommunication, whilest it was not yet strengthened with the Civill
Power, was no more, than that they, who were not Excommunicate, were to avoid the
company of them that were. It was not enough to repute them as Heathen, that never had
been Christians; for with such they might eate, and drink; which with Excommunicate persons
they might not do; as appeareth by the words of St. Paul, (1 Cor. 5. ver. 9, 10, &c.) where he telleth them, he had formerly forbidden them to company with Fornicators; but (because that
could not bee without going out of the world,) he restrained it to such Fornicators, and
otherwise vicious persons, as were of the brethren; with such a one (he saith) they ought not to keep company, no not to eat. And this is no more than our Saviour saith ( Mat. 18. 17.) Let him be to thee as a Heathen, and as a Publican. For Publicans (which signifieth Farmers, and Receivers of the revenue of the Common-wealth) were so hated, and detested by the Jews that
were to pay it, as that Publican and Sinner were taken amongst them for the same thing: Insomuch, as when our Saviour accepted the invitation of Zacchœus 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.
Acts 9. 2.
As for keeping them out of their Synagogues, or places of Assembly, they had no Power to do
it, but that of the owner of the place, whether he were Christian, or Heathen. And because all
places are by right, in the Dominion of the Common-wealth; as well hee that was
Excommunicated, as hee that never was Baptized, might enter into them by Commission from
the Civill Magistrate; as Paul before his conversion entred into their Synagogues at Damascus,
to apprehend Christians, men and women, and to carry them bound to Jerusalem, by
Commission from the High Priest.
Of no effect upon an Apostate.
By which it appears, that upon a Christian, that should become an Apostate, in a place where
the Civill Power did persecute, or not assist the Church, the effect of Excommunication had
nothing in it, neither of dammage in this world, nor of terrour: Not of terrour, because of their
unbeleef; nor of dammage, because they returned thereby into the favour of the world; and in
the world to come, were to be in no worse estate, then they which never had beleeved. The
dammage redounded rather to the Church, by provocation of them they cast out, to a freer
execution of their malice.
But upon the faithfull only.
Excommunication therefore had its effect onely upon those, that beleeved that Jesus Christ
was to come again in Glory, to reign over, and to judge both the quick, and the dead, and
should therefore refuse entrance into his Kingdom, to those whose Sins were Retained; that is,
to those that were Excommunicated by the Church. And thence it is that St. Paul calleth
Excommunication, a delivery of the Excommunicate person to Satan. For without the Kingdom
of Christ, all other Kingdomes after Judgment, are comprehended in the Kingdome of Satan.
This is it that the faithfull stood in fear of, as long as they stood Excommunicate, that is to say, in an estate wherein their sins were not Forgiven. Whereby wee may understand, that
Excommunication in the time that Christian Religion was not authorized by the Civill Power,
was used onely for a correction of manners, not of errours in opinion: for it is a punishment,
whereof none could be sensible but such as beleeved, and expected the coming again of our
Saviour to judge the world; and they who so beleeved, needed no other opinion, but onely
uprightnesse of life, to be saved.
For what fault lyeth Excommunication.
There lyeth Excommunication for Injustice; as ( Mat. 18.) If thy Brother offend thee, tell it him privately; then with Witnesses; lastly, tell the Church; and then if he obey not, Let him be to
thee as an Heathen man, and a Publican. And there lieth Excommunication for a Scandalous
Life, as (1 Cor. 5. 11.) If any man that is called a Brother, be a Fornicator, or Covetous, or an Idolater, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner, with such a one yee are not to eat. But to
Excommunicate a man that held this foundation, that Jesus was the Christ, for difference of
opinion in other points, by which that Foundation was not destroyed, there appeareth no
authority in the Scripture, nor example in the Apostles. There is indeed in St. Paul ( Titus 3.
10.) a text that seemeth to be to the contrary. A man that is an Hœretique, after the first and
second admonition, reject. For an Hœretique, is he, that being a member of the Church, teacheth neverthelesse some private opinion, which the Church has forbidden: and such a one,
S. Paul adviseth Titus, after the first, and second admonition, to Reject. But to Reject (in this place) is not to Excommunicate the Man; But to give over admonishing him, to let him alone,
to set by disputing with him, as one that is to be convinced onely by himselfe. The same
Apostle saith (2 Tim. 2. 23.) Foolish and unlearned questions avoid: The word Avoid in this place, and Reject in the former, is the same in the Originall,
: but Foolish questions
may bee set by without Excommunication. And again, ( Tit. 3. 9.) Avoid Foolish questions, where the Originall
, ( set them by) is equivalent to the former word Reject. There
is no other place that can so much as colourably be drawn, to countenance the Casting out of
the Church faithfull men, such as beleeved the foundation, onely for a singular superstructure
of their own, proceeding perhaps from a good & pious conscience. But on the contrary, all such
places as command avoiding such disputes, are written for a Lesson to Pastors, (such as
Timothy and Titus were) not to make new Articles of Faith, by determining every small
controversie, which oblige men to a needlesse burthen of Conscience, or provoke them to
break the union of the Church. Which Lesson the Apostles themselves observed well. S. Peter,
and S. Paul, though their controversie were great, (as we may read in Gal. 2. 11.) yet they did not cast one another out of the Church. Neverthelesse, during the Apostles times, there were
other Pastors that observed it not; As Diotrephes (3 John 9. &c.) who cast out of the Church, such as S. John himself thought fit to be received into it, out of a pride he took in
Præeminence; so early it was, that Vain-glory, and Ambition had found entrance into the
Church of Christ.
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 lawfull Assembly, that is to say, of
some Christian Church, that hath power to judge of the cause for which hee is to bee
Excommunicated. For where there is no Community, there can bee no Excommunication; nor
where there is no power to Judge, can there bee any power to give Sentence.
From hence it followeth, that one Church cannot be Excommunicated by another: For either
they have equall power to Excommunicate each other, in which case Excommunication is not
Discipline, nor an act of Authority, but Schisme, and Dissolution of charity; or one is so
subordinate to the other, as that they both have but one voice, and then they be but one
Church; and the part Excommunicated, is no more a Church, but a dissolute number of
individuall persons.
And because the sentence of Excommunication, importeth an advice, not to keep company, nor
so much as to eat with him that is Excommunicate, if a Soveraign Prince, or Assembly bee
Excommunicate, the sentence is of no effect. For all Subjects are bound to be in the company
and presence of their own Soveraign (when he requireth it) by the law of Nature; nor can they
lawfully either expell him from any place of his own Dominion, whether profane or holy; nor go
out of his Dominion, without his leave; much lesse (if he call them to that honour,) refuse to
eat with him. And as to other Princes and States, because they are not parts of one and the
same congregation, they need not any other sentence to keep them from keeping company
with the State Excommunicate: for the very Institution, as it uniteth many men into one
Community; so it dissociateth one Community from another: so that Excommunication is not
needfull for keeping Kings and States asunder; nor has any further effect then is in the nature
of Policy it selfe; unlesse it be to instigate Princes to warre upon one another.
Nor is the Excommunication of a Christian Subject, that obeyeth the laws of his own Soveraign,
whether Christian, or Heathen, of any effect. For if he beleeve that Jesus is the Christ, he hath the Spirit of God, (1 Joh. 4. 1.) and God dwelleth in him, and he in God, (1 Joh. 4. 15.) But hee that hath the Spirit of God; hee that dwelleth in God; hee in whom God dwelleth, can receive
no harm by the Excommunication of men. Therefore, he that beleeveth Jesus to be the Christ,
is free from all the dangers threatned to persons Excommunicate. He that beleeveth it not, is
no Christian. Therefore a true and unfeigned Christian is not liable to Excommunication: Nor he
also that is a professed Christian, till his Hypocrisy appear in his Manners, that is, till his
behaviour bee contrary to the law of his Soveraign, which is the rule of Manners, and which
Christ and his Apostles have commanded us to be subject to. For the Church cannot judge of
Manners but by externall Actions, which Actions can never bee unlawfull, but when they are
against the Law of the Common-wealth.
If a mans Father, or Mother, or Master bee Excommunicate, yet are not the Children forbidden
to keep them Company, nor to Eat with them; for that were (for the most part) to oblige them
not to eat at all, for want of means to get food; and to authorise them to disobey their Parents,
and Masters, contrary to the Precept of the Apostles.
1 Sam. 8.
In summe, the Power of Excommunication cannot be extended further than to the end for
which the Apostles and Pastors of the Church have their Commission from our Saviour; which
is not to rule by Command and Coaction, but by Teaching and Direction of men in the way of
Salvation in the world to come. And as a Master in any Science, may abandon his Scholar,
when hee obstinately neglecteth the practise of his rules; but not accuse him of Injustice,
because he was never bound to obey him: so a Teacher of Christian doctrine may abandon his
Disciples that obstinately continue in an unchristian life; but he cannot say, they doe him
wrong, because they are not obliged to obey him: For to a Teacher that shall so complain, may
be applyed the Answer of God to Samuel in the like place, They have not rejected thee, but
mee. Excommunication therefore when it wanteth the assistance of the Civill Power, as it doth, when a Christian State, or Prince is Excommunicate by a forain Authority, is without effect; and
consequently ought to be without terrour. The name of Fulmen Excommunicationis (that is, the Thunderbolt of Excommunication) proceeded from an imagination of the Bishop of Rome, which
first used it, that he was King of Kings, as the Heathen made Jupiter King of the Gods; and
assigned him in their Poems, and Pictures, a Thunderbolt, wherewith to subdue, and punish
the Giants, that should dare to deny his power: Which imagination was grounded on two
errours; one, that the Kingdome of Christ is of this world, contrary to our Saviours owne
words, My Kingdome is not of this world; the other, that hee is Christs Vicar, not onely over his owne Subjects, but over all the Christians of the World; whereof there is no ground in
Scripture, and the contrary shall bee proved in its due place.
Of the Interpreter of the Scriptures before Civil Soveraigns became Christians.
St. Paul coming to Thessalonica, where was a Synagogue of the Jews, ( Acts 17. 2, 3.) As his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath dayes reasoned with them out of the
Scriptures, Opening and alledging, that Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from
the dead; and that this Jesus whom he preached was the Christ. The Scriptures here
mentioned were the Scriptures of the Jews, that is, the Old Testament. The men, to whom he
was to prove that Jesus was the Christ, and risen again from the dead, were also Jews, and did
beleeve already, that they were the Word of God. Hereupon (as it is verse 4.) some of them
beleeved, and (as it is in the 5. ver.) some beleeved not. What was the reason, when they all
beleeved the Scripture, that they did not all beleeve alike; but that some approved, others
disapproved the Interpretation of St. Paul that cited them; and every one Interpreted them to
himself? It was this; S. Paul came to them without any Legall Commission, and in the manner
of one that would not Command, but Perswade; which he must needs do, either by Miracles, as
Moses did to the Israelites in Egypt, that they might see his Authority in Gods works; or by
Reasoning from the already received Scripture, that they might see the truth of his doctrine in
Gods Word. But whosoever perswadeth by reasoning from principles written, maketh him to
whom hee speaketh Judge, both of the meaning of those principles, and also of the force of his
inferences upon them. If these Jews of Thessalonica were not, who else was the Judge of what
S. Paul alledged out of Scripture? If S. Paul, what needed he to quote any places to prove his
doctrine? It had been enough to have said, I find it so in Scripture, that is to say, in your Laws,
of which I am Interpreter, as sent by Christ. The Interpreter therefore of the Scripture, to
whose Interpretation the Jews of Thessalonica were bound to stand, could be none: every one
might beleeve, or not beleeve, according as the Allegations seemed to himselfe to be
agreeable, or not agreeable to the meaning of the places alledged. And generally in all cases of
the world, hee that pretendeth any proofe, maketh Judge of his proofe him to whom he
addresseth his speech. And as to the case of the Jews in particular, they were bound by
expresse words ( Deut. 17.) to receive the determination of all hard questions, from the Priests and Judges of Israel for the time being. But this is to bee understood of the Jews that were yet
unconverted.
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 Law of his countrey.
Let us now consider the Conversion it self, and see what there was therein, that could be cause
of such an obligation. Men were converted to no other thing then to the Beleef of that which
the Apostles preached: And the Apostles preached nothing, but that Jesus was the Christ, that
is to say, the King that was to save them, and reign over them eternally in the world to come;
and consequently that hee was not dead, but risen again from the dead, and gone up into
Heaven, and should come again one day to judg the world, (which also should rise again to be
judged,) and reward every man according to his works. None of them preached that himselfe,
or any other Apostle was such an Interpreter of the Scripture, as all that became Christians,
ought to take their Interpretation for Law. For to Interpret the Laws, is part of the
Administration of a present Kingdome; which the Apostles had not. They prayed then, and all
other Pastors ever since, Let thy Kingdome come; and exhorted their Converts to obey their
then Ethnique Princes. The New Testament was not yet published in one Body. Every of the
Evangelists was Interpreter of his own Gospel; and every Apostle of his own Epistle; And of the
Old Testament, our Saviour himselfe saith to the Jews ( John 5. 39.) Search the Scriptures; for in them yee thinke to have eternall life, and they are they that testifie of me. If hee had not meant they should Interpret them, hee would not have bidden them take thence the proof of
his being the Christ: he would either have Interpreted them himselfe, or referred them to the
Interpretation of the Priests.
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.
Of the Power to make Scripture Law.
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.
Of the Ten Commandements.
That part of the Scripture, which was first Law, was the Ten Commandements, written in two
Tables of Stone, and delivered by | God himselfe to Moses; and by Moses made known to the
people. Before that time there was no written Law of God, who as yet having not chosen any
people to bee his peculiar Kingdome, had given no Law to men, but the Law of Nature, that is
to say, the Precepts of Naturall Reason, written in every mans own heart. Of these two Tables,
the first containeth the law of Soveraignty; 1. That they should not obey, nor honour the Gods
of other Nations, in these words, Non habebis Deos alienos coram me, that is, Thou shalt not have for Gods, the Gods that other Nations worship; but onely me: whereby they were
forbidden to obey, or honor, as their King and Governour, any other God, than him that spake
unto them then by Moses, and afterwards by the High Priest. 2. That they should not make
any Image to represent him; that is to say, they were not to choose to themselves, neither in heaven, nor in earth, any Representative of their own fancying, but obey Moses and Aaron,
whom he had appointed to that office. 3. That they should not take the Name of God in vain;
that is, they should not speak rashly of their King, nor dispute his Right, nor the commissions
of Moses and Aaron, his Lieutenants. 4. That they should every Seventh day abstain from their
ordinary labour, and employ that time in doing him Publique Honor. The second Table
containeth the Duty of one man towards another, as To honor Parents; Not to kill; Not to
Commit Adultery; Not to steale; Not to corrupt Judgment by false witnesse; and finally, Not so much as to designe in their heart the doing of any injury one to another. The question now is, Who it was that gave to these written Tables the obligatory force of Lawes. There is no doubt
but they were made Laws by God himselfe: But because a Law obliges not, nor is Law to any,
but to them that acknowledge it to be the act of the Soveraign; how could the people of Israel
that were forbidden to approach the Mountain to hear what God said to Moses, be obliged to
obedience to all those laws which Moses propounded to them? Some of them were indeed the
Laws of Nature, as all the Second Table; and therefore to be acknowledged for Gods Laws; not
to the Israelites alone, but to all people: But of those that were peculiar to the Israelites, as
those of the first Table, the question remains; saving that they had obliged themselves,
presently after the propounding of them, to obey Moses, in these words ( Exod. 20. 19.) Speak thou to us, and we will hear thee; but let not God speak to us, lest we dye. It was therefore onely Moses then, and after him the High Priest, whom (by Moses) God declared should
administer this his peculiar Kingdome, that had on Earth, the power to make this short
Scripture of the Decalogue to bee Law in the Common-wealth of Israel. But Moses, and Aaron,
and the succeeding High Priests were the Civill Soveraigns. Therefore hitherto, the Canonizing,
or making of the Scripture Law, belonged to the Civill Soveraigne.
Of the Judiciall, and Leviticall Law.
The Judiciall Law, that is to say, the Laws that God prescribed to the Magistrates of Israel, for
the rule of their administration of | Justice, and of the Sentences, or Judgments they should
pronounce, in Pleas between man and man; and the Leviticall Law, that is to say, the rule that
God prescribed touching the Rites and Ceremonies of the Priests and Levites, were all delivered
to them by Moses onely; and therefore also became Lawes, by vertue of the same promise of
obedience to Moses. Whether these laws were then written, or not written, but dictated to the
People by Moses (after his forty dayes being with God in the Mount) by word of mouth, is not
expressed in the Text; but they were all positive Laws, and equivalent to holy Scripture, and
made Canonicall by Moses t