01-05    06-18    19-32    33-39

 

Article  XXXIII

Of Excommunicate Persons, How They Are To Be Avoided.

      That person which by open denunciation of the church is rightly cut off from the unity of the church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful as an heathen and publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the church by a judge that hath authority thereto.

      The exercise of ecclesiastical discipline is as necessary for the right ordering of the church, as the execution of civil laws is for the governing of the state.  I know it is the doctrine revealed in the gospel that is as the soul of the church, whereby it is quickened; but it is the discipline commanded in the gospel that is as the nerves and sinews, whereby the members of the church are tied together, and every one kept in its proper place; and hence it is that Christ hath settled the discipline that is to be exercised, as well as revealed the doctrine that is to be believed by his church; and the principal exercise of this church discipline consisteth in excommunication, that is, in the casting out from the public prayers, sacraments, and the communion of the faithful members of the church, all such as cause divisions and offences, Rom. 16:17; blasphemers, 1 Tim. 1:20; heretics, Tit. 3:10; all fornicators, covetous, idolaters, milers, drunkards, extortioners, 1 Cor. 5:11; all incestuous persons, 5:1; yea, all such as neglect the admonition and discipline of the church, Matt. 18:15, 16, 17.  So that if a man be excommunicated for a lighter offence than some think should be punished with such severity, yet if afterwards he shall slight and contemn his excommunication, and not at all matter nor seek to have it taken off, his contemning his being excommunicated is a sufficient ground wherefore he should stand excommunicated.  And all that are excommunicated for any of these or the like offences are to continue under the same punishment, until they have manifested the sincerity of their repentance and sorrow for their sins, by public confession of them, and contrition for them; after which, a as it was long ago determined in the first council of Orange, they are to be received into the church and the communion of the faithful again; of which we have spoken more, art. XVI: and thus, by the power of the keys, heaven-gate is both shut to sinners and opened again to penitents.

      But until they be thus openly reconciled to the church, our Saviour commands they should be to us as heathens and publicans, Matt. 18:17; and well they may, for when once excommunicated they have no more right to any church membership than the heathens and publicans have; and therefore St. Paul commands us to avoid them, Rom. 16:17; not to keep company, no, not to eat with them, 1 Cor. 5:11; to put away from amongst us such wicked persons, 5:13; and St. John, not to receive them into our houses, nor bid them God speed, 2 John 10; so that when once they are excommunicated from Christ’s church, we are not to have any communion with their persons.

      And truly, should it not be so, excommunication would signify nothing; for therefore is it called excommunication, because by it they are cast out of all communion with the faithful.  And if we consider the end of the exercise of this power, we should find it exercised in vain, unless this article be observed.  The principal ends wherefore it is exercised are, first, that the person so excommunicated may be ashamed of his sin, 2 Thess. 3:14, 15, and he is delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord, 1 Cor. 5:5.  Every one that is excommunicated is delivered unto Satan, for he is cast out of the church, where Satan reigns, as Christ within it.  And the end of it is, that he may be brought to shame and confusion for his sin, and so turn to the Lord.  So that it is exercised for the correction, not the destruction, * for the cure, not the death of souls.  But, if they be no more avoided after than they were before excommunication, the sting of the punishment is taken out, and it would become in a manner no punishment nor correction at all.  Secondly, notorious sinners and heretics are cast out of the church, * lest such as are in it should be corrupted by them, as the apostle himself intimates, when he, speaking of excommunicating the incestuous persons, addeth, Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?  1 Cor. 5:6; whereas, if such persons as are excommunicated should be conversed with, this end of their excommunication would be altogether frustrated, and the discipline itself superfluous; for evil communications would still corrupt good manners, 1 Cor. 15:33.  And these therefore being the principal ends of excommunication (together with the awe such punishments should strike into others, lest they should be guilty of the like sins), as we cannot but wonder at the practice of such as excommunicate persons when they be dead, as we find the first African council did Genimus Victor, so we cannot but condemn the practice of those that do not endeavour to avoid excommunicate persons, as heathens and publicans, until they be received again into the church.

      Neither let any one think this is a new coined doctrine, for it was Gregory the Great’s council long ago, * “But such as are suspended from ecclesiastical communion, let no religious person be joined to, according to the commands of the canons.”  And truly there are many canons of the primitive church that command this as, the tenth canon attributed to the apostles, * “If any one shall pray with him that is excommunicated, let, him be also excommunicated.”  The council at Antioch, * “It is not lawful to communicate with such as are excommunicated, nor to go from house to house to pray with such as do not pray in the church, nor for such to be received in one church as do not assemble in another.  But if any bishop, priest, or deacon shall be found to communicate with those that are excommunicated, let him be also excommunicated, as one that confounds the order of the church.”  The third, or, as some think, the fourth, council at Carthage: * “Whosoever shall communicate or pray with one that is excommunicated, whether he be a clergy or a layman, let him be excommunicated.”

      The first council at Toledo: * “If any layman be excommunicated, let no clergyman nor any religious person go to him or his house; and so likewise a clergyman, if he be excommunicated, let him be avoided by the clergy; but if any one shall be taken talking or eating with him, let him also be excommunicated.”  The council at Auxerre: * “It is not lawful to communicate with one that is excommunicated, nor to eat meat with him.”  And presently: * “If any priest, or any of the clergy or of the people, shall knowingly receive one that is excommunicated, without the consent of him that excommunicated him, or shall eat bread with him, or appoint to talk with him, he shall have the like sentence passed upon him.”  And the second Lateran council: * “But whosoever shall presume knowingly to communicate with one that is excommunicated, before he be absolved by him that excommunicated him, let him be held liable to the same sentence.”  And thus I find the council of Sardice too (in their synodical letters to all the bishops in the world recorded by Theodoret), counseling them In that they command that none communicate with the Arians, whom they had excommunicated.

      To these we might also add the many canons of the primitive church forbidding such as are excommunicated by one to be received into communion by another as the famous council at Nice; * “Concerning those that are excommunicated, whether of the clergy or lay order, let this sentence, according to rule, be observed by the bishops of all provinces, commanding that they that are cast out by one be not received by others.”  The same was also decreed in several other councils as * in the council of Arles, and * others; and among the rest it was decreed in an ancient council in London, * “Let no one presume to receive into communion him that is excommunicated by another; which if any one shall knowingly do, let him be also deprived of Christian communion.  All which being put together, we may well conclude, that excommunicate persons, so long as excommunicate, ought to be avoided.

 

Article  XXXIV

Of the Traditions of the Church.

      It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s word.  Whosoever through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the church, which be not repugnant to the worn of God, and be ordained and approved .by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly (that others may fear to do the like), as he that offendeth against the common order of the church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.

      What the great God would have punctually observed in his worship, himself hath been pleased expressly to command in his word; so that nothing is to be looked upon as part of his worship but what himself hath commanded, and whatsoever himself hath commanded is necessarily to be observed as part of his worship.  But there being many circumstances required to the performance as well of religious as civil actions, and so to the worship of God as well as any thing else; as, for example, the time when, the place where, the habit in which his public service shall be performed, and the like, it being impossible it should be performed without these and the like circumstances; and seeing the all-wise God hath thought good not to determine these in his word, but to leave it to the discretion of the church to determine them as it shall see fit, only giving them this general rule to square all these their determinations by, Let all things be clone decently and in order; hence it is that every particular church hath still thought fit to exercise this her power and authority, in determining these circumstances, according to that manner as seemeth to herself orderly and devout so that there is no necessity that one church should determine them after the same manner that another doth; nay, it is often necessary that one church should not follow another in this case; for it often so falls out that what is decent in one place is unseemly in another, and every church is bound to model circumstances according to that order which is the most seemly and decent in the place where it is settled.  And hence we find how St. Paul, and after him Clemens Romanus, in * his epistle to the Corinthians, having shewn in general that all things should be done in all places decently and in order; hence, I say, we find how the primitive churches still much differed in this their determination of the particular circumstances of divine worship, as, amongst many other things, we may see in particular in the time of the celebration of Easter; which being but a mere circumstance, every one followed the tradition and custom of the church wherein he lived, in the celebration of it.  * Some churches celebrated it upon the fourteenth day of the first month (as the Jews did the Passover), let it fall upon what day of the week it would; * others only upon the Lord’s day on which he arose: and thus they differed in this ceremony, until at the length they agreed on all sides to celebrate it upon one and the same day; of which more presently.  But thus we see (not to instance in any more ceremonies, plenty whereof might easily be produced) how the churches of Christ that immediately succeeded the apostles themselves, did not think it necessary to observe one and the same time in the celebration of the feast, but every particular church followed still the tradition of their ancestors that lived in the same place, not minding whether it was agreeable to the traditions received by other churches or no.

      I know, indeed, that the bishop of Rome (Victor by name) was a busybody, meddling with more than he should have done then, as well as now, and therefore must needs be excommunicating all churches that did not follow his custom and tradition; * but, as Eusebius relates it, his doings “did not please all the bishops”: and amongst others Irenaeus himself sent a reproving letter to him, telling him * “he should not cut off whole churches of God, for keeping a tradition of ancient custom.”  As if he should have said, It is not so necessary that they should use the same tradition and circumstance of time as we do; let them follow their tradition, and we ours.  And for the conviction of the bishop of Rome of his error, he produceth two stories, both which make for our purpose; the one is, how the presbyters that were before Victor in Rome, Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Sixtus, though they did not follow the Asian tradition in celebrating this feast on the fourteenth day of the month; * yet notwithstanding they still agreed with the bishops of those churches wherein it was so observed when they came unto them; * “and that for the different manner of the observation of the feast none ever were cast out, but the presbyters before thee, that did not observe it so, yet sent the eucharist to those that did.”  So that they did not think that one church should be tied to the observance of the same traditions that are in another, but that every church should in such things be left to their own liberty.  The other story is that concerning Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, that followed the Asian tradition, and Anicetus, bishop of Rome, that followed the Roman for these two being met, * “and having discoursed together about other things, were presently agreed, not falling out about this business.”  And though Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp to follow the Roman, nor Polycarp Anicetus to follow the Asian tradition, * yet for all that they communicated together, and parted from, one another in peace, all churches having peace amongst themselves, whether they did or did not observe the Passover after the same manner or tradition from whence we may gather, that in those purer times it was not looked upon as necessary that traditions and ceremonies should be one and the same in all places, but that every church might follow its own traditions.

      And truly, if we consider the nature of traditions and ceremonies, we must needs grant it is not necessary they should be one and the same in all places; for in that they are mere traditions and ceremonies, they are things of indifference, which may be done or left undone, and still without sin , and so in themselves there is no necessity of their being observed in any place or at any time whatsoever, for that would argue them to be more than mere ceremonies and traditions; and if it be not absolutely necessary they should be observed in any place, it cannot be necessary they should be one and the same in all places.  What God hath commanded in his word is obligatory to all churches whatsoever, but what is not commanded in the scriptures (as traditions and ceremonies, in that they are traditions and ceremonies, are not) is left to the prudential disposition of particular churches to enjoin or not enjoin them and when they do enjoin them, they cannot enjoin them as things in themselves necessary, but only as necessarily to be observed in reference to the more orderly government of the church, as to the place and time then being.  But though it be only lawful, not necessary, that any particular ceremonies should be enjoined, yet, when once enjoined, it is not only lawful, but necessary they should be observed, not because the ceremonies that are enjoined in themselves are necessarily to be observed, but because the power that doth enjoin them is necessarily to be obeyed.  It is true the ceremonies and traditions are but traditions and ceremonies after as well as before they were enjoined, and so in themselves still indifferent, so that they may be done or not done without sin, as to any obligatory power seated in their own nature.  But when once enjoined there comes an extrinsical obligation to them, binding all within the church that doth enjoin them to the faithful observation of them; so that though as ceremonies and traditions they are still indifferent in themselves, yet, being enjoined by lawful authority, they are not indifferent as to our use and practice, but we are bound to use them, not because ceremonies, but because enjoined, and because of him who hath commanded us to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, 1 Pet. 2:13: though it be not ordained by God, and therefore indifferent in itself, yet if it be ordained by men it is necessary as to our use, who are bound to submit to every ordinance of man, even as for the Lord’s sake, and to be subject to the higher powers, Rom. 13:1; and therefore we must needs acknowledge, that whosoever through his private judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the church, which, be not repugnant to the word of God (as if mere traditions and ceremonies they are not), and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, that others may fear to do the like: and that for these three reasons: first, because he offendeth against the common order of the church; God hath commanded that all things in his church should be done decently and in order, but such a person breaks this the order of the church, and therefore ought certainly to be reproved.  Secondly, he hurteth the authority of the magistrate, whom God hath commanded us to obey; and in what things are we to obey him in, if not in things of indifference, as ceremonies and traditions all are?  Lastly, he wounds the consciences also of the weak brethren, and so causeth schisms and divisions and offences in the church; and all that do so the apostle commands us to avoid, Rom. 16:17.

      And certainly, if we consult the Fathers, they will tell us it is every one’s duty not to break but observe the several traditions and ceremonies, which, being not repugnant to the word of God, are enjoined by common authority in the church he lives in.  * “The question therefore,” saith St. Basil to Amphilochius, “concerning the Cathari hath before been spoken to, and thou well mindedst and admonishedst, that the custom of every region is to be observed.”  And St. Augustine excellently: * “But other things, which are changed according to the several places and regions of the earth, as for example, that some fast upon the sabbath day, others do not, &c., and the like such kind of things, have a free observation; neither is there any better discipline in these things to a grave and prudent Christian, than to do so as he sees the church to do unto which he shall chance to come; for whatsoever is enjoined, neither contrary to faith nor good manners, is indifferently to be .accounted of, and to be observed and kept for their society amongst whom he lives.”  And presently he brings us an excellent passage which he had from St. Ambrose when discoursing with him: * “When I come to Rome,” saith St. Ambrose, “I fast upon the sabbath day when I am here, I do not fast; and so thou, whatsoever church thou shalt chance to come to, keep and observe her way and manners in such things, if thou wouldest not be a scandal to others, nor have any one else to be so to thee.”  And then he (St. Augustine) adds, * “But I, thinking of this sentence again and again, esteemed it as if I had received it from a heavenly oracle.”  And afterwards, * “Let therefore every one do what he finds in the church to which he comes.”  And the same Father elsewhere, * “For in these things, concerning which the holy scripture hath determined nothing certain, the custom of the people of God and the institutions of our ancestors or betters are to be taken for a law.”

      To this purpose also saith the council of Florence, * “That every one should observe the rites or customs of his own church, which it is not lawful for any one to change by his private authority.”  And long before this, the famous council at Nice decreed, that * “ancient customs should prevail, or be observed.”  So that the customs and ceremonies which we have received by tradition from our forefathers, not being repugnant to the word of God, are still to be followed and observed by us, especially when approved and ordained by lawful authority.  And therefore the fourth council at Orleans determined it, saying, * “Whatsoever this holy synod by the help of God hath appointed, we decree that that holy definition be observed by all the brethren.”  But if any one shall be found to transgress unseemly these wholesome institutions, let him know that he will be faulty towards God and the whole brotherhood, because it is just that by the unity of the governors ecclesiastical discipline should flourish, and that the constitutions of the priests should remain unshaken.”  But the council of Carthage was sharper; for having ordained several ceremonies, traditions, and ecclesiastical constitutions, adds, * “But if any one by transgressing them shall violate or corrupt these statutes or constitutions, or shall think they are to be accounted of as nothing, if he be a layman, let him be deprived of his communion, if a clergyman, of his honour” so severe was the primitive church against all such as violated the traditions or ceremonies commanded and ordained by lawful authority.  And therefore we do but follow their steps in saying they ought openly to be rebuked.

 

      Every particular or national church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

      That the church in general hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, we have before proved, Art. XX, that the same power is granted to every national church in particular, we have here asserted: and truly if the church in general as a church be acknowledged to have such a power, every particular church, in that it is a church also, cannot be denied it.  So that as the universal church, gathered together in an oecumenical council, may ordain and decree rites and ceremonies to be observed, not only by particular, but by the universal church, so have all provincial or particular churches power to decree rites and ceremonies for themselves, though not for the universal church, nor yet for other particular churches.  And therefore did our reformers of over blessed memory, giving the reasons why they abolished some ceremonies and retained others, profess, saying, * “In these our doings we condemn no other nations, nor prescribe any thing but to our own people only.”  But though any particular or provincial church cannot prescribe ceremonies for other churches, yet it may for itself; and if it may decree and ordain some, it must needs follow that it may also change and abolish others; and indeed it is often necessary it should do so, as in particular before our reformation, when as our reformers, in the place before cited, observe, “ceremonies were so far abused, partly by the superstitious blindness of the rude and unlearned, and partly by the insatiable avarice of such as sought more their own lucre than the glory of God, that the abuses could not well be taken away, the thing still remaining.”  So that it is often necessary, when ceremonies are abused, not only to take off the abuses, but to abolish the ceremonies.  I say it is often, yet not always so necessary; for in some ceremonies the abuses may be so taken off as the ceremonies may still be retained without the abuses.  And in such cases, though it may seem better to abolish them, yet in St. Augustine’s judgment it is better to retain them rather than to bring in new ones which at the first may seem to be preferred before them; and the reason he gives is, * “Because the change of a custom, though it may help by its utility, yet it hurts by its novelty.”  And this was the reason why in our reformation some were still retained as well as others abolished.

      And thus we find Hezekiah long ago did.  He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses made, 2 Kings 18:4; and thus he abolished many of those things which the people abused.  But did he abolish them all?  No; The high places which were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh, the abomination of the Moabites, and for Macom the abomination of the children of Ammon, the altar at Bethel, and the high places which Jeroboam had made, these he did not abolish, for we find them in Josiah’s reign, 2 Kings 23:13, 14, who began to reign fifty-seven years after Hezekiah died.  These things it seems he-hoped to have taken off the abuses from, and to have put them to good uses, and therefore he retains them, though he abolished the others of which he had no such hopes.

      And that every church hath such a power to ordain, alter, and abolish what ceremonies she pleaseth, that are but mere ceremonies, neither commanded nor forbidden in the word of God, is either supposed or granted in the words of the apostle to the Corinthians, Let all things be done to edifying, 1 Cor. 14:26; and, Let all things be done decently and in order, 5:40.  For the church of Corinth, to which he sends these orders, was but a provincial or particular church, and yet he sends to them to see that things should be done decently and in order; which either supposeth that before he sent unto them they had power to determine and ordain what was thus edifying and orderly, or if they had no such power before, yet these words must needs invest them with it.  And if the church of Corinth had this power, there is no reason that other particular churches should be denied it.

      And if we take a view of the customs of the primitive churches, we shall find that they still looked upon themselves as endowed with such authority, otherwise they would never have exercised it so often as they did.  For we can scarce ever find any of the primitive churches gathered together in council, but still they ordain or change or abolish, or both ordain, change, and abolish some, if not several ceremonies; yea, and the first provincial councils that ever met together, as we read of since the apostles’ time, assembled upon no other account than to determine and ordain a ceremony, even when the feast of Easter should be celebrated; “For this cause,” saith Eusebius, * “councils and assemblies of bishops were gathered together, and all of them with one consent signified by their letters to all bishops every where their ecclesiastical constitution, to wit, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord be not celebrated upon any other than the Lord’s day, and that upon that day only the fasts which were kept about the Passover should be ended.”  For this cause the provincial churches of Palestina, of Rome, of Pontus, of France, of Osroena, all met together in several provincial councils, and as the same author relates it, * “many others, which being all of one opinion and judgment, ordained the same thing, even that the feast should be kept upon the Lord’s day.”  In the mean while there was another council in Asia, * over which Polycrates (not pope Victor, nor his legates) was president, which decreed that it should be kept upon the fourteenth day of the month, be it what day it would.  Neither was the controversy ever ended till all the provincial churches met together in the general council of Nice, and there decided it, that it should be kept only upon the Lord’s day.  But thus we see how the five first provincial churches we ever read of that met together after the apostles’ times, exercised this power and authority of decreeing ceremonies and traditions.

      And if we should descend down to after councils, we shall find there was scarce ever a provincial church met together in council since our Saviour’s time, but did ordain some ceremonies or other to be observed by her children.  It would be an endless thing to reckon up all the ceremonies that were ordained or altered by provincial churches; or indeed all the provincial churches that ordained or altered ceremonies in the primitive times.  I shall therefore instance only in such ceremonies as our church hath thought good still to retain, that so we may see both how provincial churches have still looked upon themselves in all ages to have power to ordain ceremonies, and also, that the ceremonies retained and ordained by our church are no newfangled ceremonies nor popish superstitions, but that most of them were ordained and used in the primitive church before the pope had forged his superstitions.

      The provincial church or council of Gerundia therefore ordained, * “That every church should use one order in divine service.”  The provincial church at Narbonne decreed, * “That in the orders of singing, at the end of every psalm, glory be given to the Almighty God, (viz. ‘Glory be to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,’) but in greater psalms, according to their length, shall be made several pauses, and at every pause the glory of the Trinity be sung to the Lord.”

      And the third council at Toledo, * “Whosoever doth not say, ‘Glory be to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,’ let him be anathema”: and this is the hymn of glorification or doxology, * “which,” St. Basil saith, “they received in his time by tradition from their ancestors, who also followed the scriptures in it.”  But the fourth council at Toledo made some alteration in this tradition, ordaining, * “That in the end of psalms it should not be said, ‘Glory be to the Father,’ but ‘Glory and honour to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,’ the prophet David saying, Give to the Lord glory and honour, &c.  This observation therefore,” say they, “we give to all ecclesiastical persons, which whosoever shall neglect shall be excommunicated.”  And as for what is said still after the doxology, (viz. “As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,”) the Vasionian council doth not only ordain it should be then said, but gives the reason of it * “Because,” say they, “not only in the apostolical seat, but also through all the east, and all Africa and Italy, by reason of the cunning of the heretics, whereby they blasphemously used to say, that ‘the Son of God was not always with the Father, but began to be in time,’ for this reason, after ‘Glory be to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,’ was said, ‘As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end,’ we also have decreed that it shall be so said in all our churches.”  And the same provincial church also ordained, that * “Kyrie eleison, or ‘Lord have mercy upon us,’ should be often repeated in their divine service.”

      The provincial council at Bracarum ordained, * “that bishops should not salute the people one way and presbyters another, but both one and the same way, saying, The Lord be with you, as it is read in the book of Ruth, and that the people should answer, ‘And with thy spirit,’ as all the eastern church also retain it, as delivered by tradition from the apostles themselves, and not as the Priscillian pravity hath changed it.”  And the third council at Toledo, that * “According to the form of the oriental churches, the Constantinopolitan creed should still be repeated and published before the Lord’s Prayer be said, that the true faith may be made manifest and acknowledged.”

      The [fourth] council at Carthage decreed, * “that the deacon should be clothed with white only in the time of offering and reading.”  And the third council at Tours ordained, that * “laymen, if they did no oftener, at the least three times a year they should communicate, unless any one be by chance hindered by some greater crimes.”  And the council at Agde names the same three times of the year when every one is to communicate, which our liturgy hath appointed, decreeing, that * “Secular persons or laymen, that do not communicate at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide, let them not be believed to be catholic or orthodox persons, nor reckoned among such as are catholic.”  And so did the Elibertine or Eliberitane council too, as cited by Gratian: * “Neither is any one numbered among the orthodox who at these three times, viz. Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide, doth not communicate.”

      The second synod at Cabilone decreed, that * “confirmation should not be repeated, nor baptism;” and so the council at Tarraco in Spain, * “We hear say that some of the common people are confirmed by the same bishops twice or thrice, or oftener, the bishops themselves knowing nothing of it; wherefore it seemeth good to us, that neither confirmation nor baptism ought to be repeated at all.”  So that our church is not the first that hath decreed any thing about confirmation.  The council at Laodicea decreed, * that “neither weddings nor birthdays should be kept or celebrated in Lent.”  And an ancient council here in England, kept under Theodorus, ordained, that * “Easter should be kept in common by all upon the Sunday after the fourteenth moon of the first month.”  And another at Oxford decreed, * “That every bishop shall require an oath from him which shall be presented to him, that for that presentation he hath neither promised nor given any thing to him that presented him, nor hath entered any contract for it;” and the same council, * “That due honour may be given to divine duties, we command, that they that minister at the altar have their surplices on,” as the third council at Carthage before did.  The fourth council at Toledo decreed, * “That the Song of the three children should be constantly sung in divine service.”

      And thus we see how many even of the very rites and ceremonies, which are still in use amongst us, were long ago ordained by provincial churches met together in council; many more I might heap up to the same purpose, but these may be enough to shew how the provincial or national churches of Christ, in all ages since his incarnation, have still exercised this power in ordaining, altering, and abolishing ceremonies, which certainly they would never have done, if they had not believed they had power to do it.

 

Article  XXXV

Of Homilies.

      The second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this article, doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in churches by the ministers diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.

 

Of the Names of the Homilies.

1.  Of the right use of the church.

2.  Against peril of idolatry.

3.  Of repairing and keeping clean of churches.

4.  Of good works: first of fasting.

5.  Against gluttony and drunkenness.

6.  Against excess of apparel.

7.  Of prayer.

8.  Of the place and time of prayer.

9.  That common prayers and sacraments ought to be ministered in a known tongue.

10.  Of the reverend estimation of God’s word.

11.  Of almsdoing.

12.  Of the nativity of Christ.

13.  Of the passion of Christ.

14.  Of the resurrection of Christ.

15.  Of the worthy receiving of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.

16.  Of the gifts of the Holy Ghost.

17.  For the rogation days.

18.  Of the state of matrimony.

19.  Of repentance.

20.  Against idleness.

21.  Against rebellion.

 

      To run through every particular homily here mentioned, and to confirm every particular expression therein contained, would not only swell this into many of the like volumes, but take up more time also than either I or any one else (that hath no more time than one age to live) can have to do it in; and when all is done it would still be but a superfluous and needless work too; for it is not so much the homilies themselves that are to be read, as the reading of these homilies in public assemblies, that is the thing carped at; so that the principal thing here to be confirmed is, that it is lawful even in public meetings, where the people of God are assembled to perform service and worship to him, to read other books, discourses, sermons, or homilies (for a homily and a sermon is all one), than what is expressly and word for word contained in the holy scriptures.  And to prove this from scripture, I might instance in the words of St. Paul to the Colossians, And when this epistle is read amongst you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, * and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea, Col. 4:16.  Here we see St. Paul charges the Colossians to read the epistle from Laodicea; what epistle? not any of the epistle of St. Paul’s to the Laodiceans, but rather the epistle of the Laodiceans to St. Paul.  * “Some,” saith Theodoret, “have thought that St. Paul also wrote to the Laodiceans, and therefore they produce also a feigned epistle; but St. Paul doth not say the epistle which was to the Laodiceans, but that which was from Laodicea: for they had written concerning certain things to him.”  And St. Chrysostom, * “Some say that he doth not understand any epistle of St. Paul sent to them, but one sent from them to St. Paul I for he did not say the epistle written to the Laodiceans, but he said, that written from Laodicea.”  And therefore St. Justinian, * “The opinion of Chrysostom and Theodoret seems to me to be the nearest the truth, even that not St. Paul’s epistle to the Laodiceans, but rather the Laodiceans’ epistle to St. Paul is here signified, which the Greek words plainly shew.”  So that here the Holy Ghost doth not only permit them, but command them to read a discourse which was not any part of the canonical scriptures.  For though perhaps it might be some epistle written by St. Paul from Laodicea, yet it is plain, that it is not any part of the holy scriptures, unless we hold that some part of the holy scriptures is lost; which no wise man will; and therefore we cannot but from hence grant it to be lawful, even in the church, to read some things which are no part of the canon of scriptures.

      And if we call to mind the practice of the primitive church, we shall find that even then many things were read in the church besides canonical scriptures, yea, and ordered to be read by councils.  The [third] council of Carthage decreed indeed, * “That nothing should be read in the church besides the canonical scripture under the name of holy scriptures”: but in decreeing that, they imply that something else may be read in the church, though not under the name of holy scriptures; and therefore themselves add too presently, * “The passions of the martyrs may also be read when their anniversary days are celebrated.”  And the council at Vasiona or Vasens, * “This also pleaseth us, for the edification of all churches and the profit of all people, that we give power to priests to preach the word, not only in cities, but in all parishes.  So that if the priest, some infirmity hindering him, cannot preach himself, the homilies of the holy fathers be read or recited by the deacons.”  And so the council at Rhemes ordained, * “That bishops study to preach, according to the property of the language, the sermons and homilies of the holy fathers, so that all may understand them.”  So that it is no new thing for homilies to be ordained to be read in churches.  And if we still ascend higher, we shall find that presently after our Saviour’s time there were several things read in the churches besides canonical scripture; especially there are three writings which I find then to be read in public, Hermas’s Pastor, Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians, and Clemens’s Epistle to the Corinthians.

      First for Hermas’s Pastor, of which Eusebius Caesariensis saith, * “But because the same apostle, at the end of his Epistle to the Romans, makes mention with others of one Hermas also, whose the book of the Pastor they say is, we must know that that also is gainsaid by some by whom it is not put amongst the acknowledged books of the scriptures, yet by others it is judged very necessary, especially for such as are to be instructed in the first elements, whereupon we know that it is read publicly in the churches.”  And St. Jerome, * “Hermas, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Romans makes mention, saying, Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them, (Rom. 16:14) they say he was the author of the book which is called the Pastor, and in some churches of Greece it is read publicly; ” and therefore saith Ruffinus, * “Of that order (viz. of ecclesiastical, not canonical books) is the book of Tobit and Judith, and the books of the Maccabees, but in the New Testament the book which is called the book of the Pastor, or Hermas; all which they (the ancient Fathers) would have to be read in the churches, but not produced to confirm the authority of faith out of them.”  So that it is manifest that this book, though not canonical scripture, was read publicly in the primitive churches.

      The next is Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians, of which Tremens saith, * “it was written accurately, out of which such as will and mind their salvation may learn the character of his faith and the preaching of truth.”  And St. Jerome, speaking of Polycarp, saith, * “He wrote to the Philippians a very useful epistle, which to this day is read in the Asian assemblies.”  The last is Clemens’s Epistle to the Corinthians, concerning which St. Jerome saith, * “Clemens wrote from the church of Rome to that at Corinth a very useful epistle, which also in some places is publicly read, which seems to me to agree with the character of that epistle which goes under the name of Paul to the Hebrews.”  And Eusebius saith of this epistle, * “It is a great and an admirable one, which he wrote from the church of the Romans to that of the Corinthians, there being a sedition then at Corinth.  And this epistle we know to be read publicly both long ago and also in our time.”  And so we have three discourses besure, like so many homilies, read publicly in the primitive churches; and therefore we do not recede from them in decreeing some to be read in ours.

 

Article  XXXVI

Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers.

      The book of consecration of archbishops and bishops, and ordering of priests and deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering: neither hath it any thing that of itself is superstitious or ungodly.  And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the second year of the aforenamed king Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

      Though this article when first composed had reference to one book, and by the late act for uniformity to another, yet in both it hath reference but to one and the same manner of consecration of archbishops and bishops, and ordering of priests and deacons; for though there be some expressions inserted into the latter, which were not in the former book, yet they both agree in that which is the form and substance of consecration and ordination; both of them appointing that in the consecration of a bishop, the archbishop and bishops present shall lay their hands upon his head; that in the ordering of priests, the bishop and priests present shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth the order of priesthood; and that in the ordering of deacons, the bishop only shall lay his hands severally upon the head of every one of them: and so that the bishops shall be consecrated by the archbishop of the province or metropolitan, other bishops being present and laying on their hands with him; priests by the bishop of the diocese; or some other bishop appointed by him, other priests being present and laying on their hands too with him; deacons by the bishop only: in which consisteth the form and substance of all their ordinations.  And therefore also in the speaking to them I need do no more than shew that the several orders of bishops, priests, and deacons are to be consecrated and ordered according to that form and manner; even that a bishop be consecrated by the archbishop of the province (or some other bishop appointed by lawful authority), the other bishops there present joining with him in laying on of hands; that a priest be ordered by a bishop, other priests there present and laying on their hands too; and that a deacon be ordered by the bishop only.

      And for the proof of this I shall refer myself wholly to the judgment of the primitive church; who, having the happiness to live nearer the apostles’ times than save do, were better acquainted with the apostles’ practice in these things than we.  And for my own part I dare not but look upon the practice of the primitive church in this case to be lawful in itself and binding unto others.  For if we once suppose that the primitive church generally erred in their ordination of ministers, then we must grant also that there hath been never a lawful ministry since, the lawfulness of their ministry depending principally, yea only, upon the lawfulness of their ordination; and if there were no lawful ministers to ordain them, they who were ordained could not be lawful ministers, and if there be no lawful ministry, there cannot be any true church, because the word is not lawfully preached nor the sacraments lawfully administered in it.  And therefore we must needs grant that in this besure, though in nothing else, the general practice of the primitive church must be allowed of.

      Now to find out the general practice of the primitive church in this case we must not consult particular persons, but rather universal and provincial councils, wherein whole churches met together.  The practice and judgment of particular persons cannot be said to be the practice and judgment of the whole church; but what whole councils decreed or did cannot be looked upon but as the practice and judgment, not of many particular persons only, but of the church itself.

      First therefore for the consecration of bishops.  The ancient council at Antioch put forth this decree, * “Let not a bishop be ordained without the assembly and presence of the metropolitan of the province.  And he being present, it is very convenient that all his fellow bishops in the province be present with him, and it is fitting that the metropolitan should by his letter call them together.  And if they can all meet, it is better.  But if that be difficult, many of them should howsoever be present, or else give in their suffrages by their letters; and so the constitution be made with the presence and suffrage of many of them.  But if it be done otherwise than is here decreed, let the ordination be invalid, or of no force.”  The first council at Nice; * “But this is altogether manifest, that if any one be made a bishop without the sentence of the metropolitan, this great council decrees that such a one ought not to be a bishop.”  And so the council at Laodicea determined, * “that bishops be consecrated by the judgment of the metropolitan and bishops there about, unto ecclesiastical government, being before long examined in the matter of their faith and polity, or dispensation of right reason;” * “which canon,” as Balsamon saith, “forbids bishops to be chosen by the multitude, and decrees that they be consecrated by the metropolitans and other bishops.”  The second council at Arles: * “Let no bishop without the permission of the metropolitan, nor any metropolitan bishop without three bishops of the same province, presume to ordain a bishop.”  And again: * “But let this be clear above all things, that he that is made a bishop without the metropolitan, according to the great synod, (viz. the Nicene before cited,) ought not to be a bishop at all.”  To these we might add also the first of the apostolical canons, * “Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops.”  The council of Hippo, * “Let not a bishop be ordained by less than three bishops.”  The like was also decreed by the first council at * Arles, and another at * Rhegium.  And what these bishops were to do at the consecration of a bishop, the fourth council at Carthage expressly tells as, decreeing thus: * “When a bishop is ordained, let two bishops hold the book of the gospels over his head, and one pouring forth the blessing upon him, let the other bishops that are present touch his head with their hands, or put their hands upon his head.”  So then in the primitive church both the metropolitan or archbishop, and other bishops, were to be present at the consecration of a bishop, and put their hands upon him, which exactly answers the manner of making and consecrating bishops now in use amongst us, and decreed in this article.

      And as for the second, viz. the ordering of priests, the practice of the primitive church may be seen also in these particulars first, the apostolical canons (though perhaps not apostolical, yet besure very ancient) say, * “Let a priest be ordained by one bishop, and so a deacon and other clergymen.”  In the fourth [third] council at Carthage * Aurelius said, “There may be one bishop by whom, through the permission of God, many priests may be ordained,” or, as the Greek translation hath it, * “By the permission of God one bishop may ordain many priests.”

      The council at Antioch: * “A bishop may also ordain priests and deacons, and handle all things with judgment, but undertake to do nothing further, without the bishop of the metropolis, nor he without the sentence of the others.”  Hence is that of the council at Chalcedon: * “If any bishop shall for money make ordination, or sell that grace which cannot be sold, or for money ordain any bishop, suffragan, priest, or deacon, he that is convinced of doing this, let him be in danger of losing his own degree;” plainly implying that it was he only that ordained him.  The council of Nice * “If any (of the Paulianists) was in ancient time in the clergy, if they appear unreprovable, being baptized again, let them be ordained by a bishop of the catholic church.”  It was by a bishop they were to be ordained; and therefore, saith the second council at Seville, * “A bishop can alone of himself give honour to priests and ministers, but he cannot take it away alone.”

      Nay, so strict was the primitive church in having priests ordained by bishops only, that in the time of ordination, though the bishop was present and did some things, yet unless he did all he ought to do, the person was not looked upon as ordained, as we see in the aforesaid council at Seville: * “It is told us,” say they, “concerning some of the clergy; whereof whilst one should be ordained to the priesthood, and two to the ministry of the Levites, the bishop, being troubled with sore eyes, is reported to have put his hand upon them only, and that a certain priest, contrary to the ecclesiastical order, gave the blessing to them, who, though if he was yet alive, might after accusation be condemned for so great boldness, yet seeing he being left to divine trial cannot be accused by human judgment, these that are alive, let them lose the degree of priesthood, or of the Levitical order, which they got perversely.”  And thus in the primitive church if any one was convinced not to have been ordained by a bishop, he was looked upon as a layman, be he ordained by whom he would else; and therefore the second general council held at Constantinople decreed, * “concerning Maximus the Cynic, and that disturbance that was made at Constantinople by him, that Maximus neither was nor is a bishop, neither are any of these that were ordained by him in any degree of the clergy, all things that were done for him or by him being disannulled.”  Having once pronounced Maximus no bishop, they presently declare all ordained by him to be laymen.  And there was a remarkable passage to this purpose also in the council of Alexandria; for it being objected by the Arians against Athanasius, amongst other things, that one Macarius, a deacon of his, had broken a sacramental cup, the synod at Alexandria examined this amongst the other things that were laid to his charge, and find that at the time and place where his adversaries said the fact was done, * there was no ecclesiastical person or clergyman there, and by consequence no sacramental cup.  But it was said that Ischyras was there.  “But Ischyras,” say they, * “how came Ischyras to be a priest who ordained him? to wit Coluthus?  For that is all they can say.  But that Coluthus was but a priest himself when he died, and all his imposition of hands made void, and all that were ordained by him in the schism are no more than laymen, and are so admitted to the sacrament, is evident, so that no one doubts of it.  And how then shall a private person, dwelling in a private house, be believed to have a mystical or sacramental cup?”  So that Ischyras, though ordained, yet being ordained by one that was himself no more than a priest, no bishop, he is looked upon as no priest, but a layman, a private person, and that not only by the council at Alexandria, but by another at Sardice, “who,” say * they, “gave the reward of calumny unto Ischyras, calling him bishop who was not so much as a priest.”  And thus we see how in the primitive church it was bishops only that ordained priests, and they were no priests who were not ordained by bishops, insomuch that * St. Chrysostom, yea, and * St. Jerome himself too, could not but say that ordination, though nothing else, was peculiar to bishops; so that though presbyters should be thought to be equal to bishops in other things, yet in this business of ordination bishops must needs be acknowledged to be above them.

      And if we search into the manner of this their episcopal ordination, Theophilus Alexandrinus saith, * “Concerning those that are to be ordained, this shall be the form or manner, that all the priesthood shall consent and choose, and then the bishop shall examine him, or the priesthood assenting to him, he shall ordain in the middle of the church, the people being present, and the bishop asking if the people also can witness for him; but let not ordination be done privately.”  And the fourth council of Carthage plainly, * “When a priest is ordained, the bishop blessing him, and holding his hand upon his head, let all the priests also which are present hold their hands by the hand of the bishop upon his head.”  So exactly doth our form and manner of ordering priests answer that of the primitive church.

      And lastly, for the ordering of deacons, * which the [fourth] council at Arles saith should not be ordained before twenty-five years old, besides that of the apostolical canons before cited, “Let a priest be ordered by one bishop, and so a deacon, and others also of the clergy.”  And what else makes to this purpose in the foregoing discourse, I shall only add that of the fourth council at Carthage, * “When a deacon is ordained, let the bishop only that blesseth him put his hand upon his head, because he is not ordained to the priesthood, but only to the ministry;” which is the very thing which the book this article hath reference unto prescribes.  All which things being put together, unless we will say there was no lawful ministry in the primitive church, and by consequence none now (for there is no lawful ministry but what is lawfully ordained, and the ministry of the primitive church, if it was not lawfully ordained, neither could it lawfully ordain others, and so all the ministry ever since, being unlawfully ordained, was no lawful ministry), I say, unless we grant so grand an absurdity, we must needs subscribe to this article.

 

Article  XXXVII

Of the Civil Magistrate.

      The king’s majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England and other his dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction.  Where we attribute to the king’s majesty the chief government, by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not to our princes the ministering either of God’s word or of the sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes in holy scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all states and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.

      In these words we have the power of the civil magistrate asserted, and the assertion of that power explained.  For here it is first asserted that the king’s majesty hath the chief government of all estates in this and the other of his dominions, both ecclesiastical and civil.  And then it is added, that the power of the administering of God’s word or sacraments is not by this assertion granted to the king, but that his power is still to keep itself within the limits of a civil power, though it may extend itself to ecclesiastical persons or causes.

      But for the better opening and confirming of this we must call to mind how the most high God, the supreme Governor of all churches and states in the world, hath been pleased, for the more orderly government of both, to settle a distinct power in each, the power of the keys in the church, and the power of the sword in the state, answerable to the two essential parts of man, his soul and his body; for the power of the keys committed to the church, that reacheth to the soul only, not to the body; and the power of the sword committed to the civil magistrate, that reacheth to the body only, not to the soul; but both together they have influence both upon the soul and body, or outward man.  And though both these powers be united in God, the fountain of all power, yet when derived from Him they are still separated from one another, so that they are not seated together in one and the same person; but the civil magistrate, to whom the power of the sword is granted, to him is the power of the keys denied and the church, to which the power of the keys is granted, to it is the power of the sword denied.  And therefore was Peter, who had the power of keys, commanded to put up his sword, Matt. xxvi. 26:52, and Uzziah, who had the power of the sword, punished for using the keys, 2 Chron. 26; so that the priest hath no power to execute any part of the king’s office, neither hath the king any power to execute any part of the priest’s office; but these being two distinct offices and ordinances appointed by God, he that hath the keys must use them, not the sword, and he that hath the sword must use it, and not the keys.

      And hence it is that when the power of the civil magistrate was asserted to extend itself to ecclesiastical persons and causes, as well as civil, it is forthwith added, Where we attribute to the king’s majesty  the chief government (by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended), we give not to our princes the ministering either of God’s word or of the sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our queen do most plainly testify.  In which words we being referred to the queen’s Injunctions for the further explication of this particular, we must consider what is there written to this purpose; and amongst other things we find it there said, * “And further, her majesty forbiddeth all manner of her subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons, which most sinisterly and maliciously labour to notify to her loving subjects, how, by the words of the same oath, (viz. of supremacy,) it may be collected, the kings or queens of this realm, possessors of the crown, may challenge authority and power of ministry of divine offices in the church, wherein her said subjects are much abused by such evil disposed persons.  For certainly her majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any other authority than that was challenged and lately used by the said noble kings of famous memory, king Henry the Eighth and king Edward the Sixth, which is and was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of this realm, that is, under God to have the sovereignty and rule over all persons born within these her realms, dominions, and countries, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or temporal, soever they be, so as no other foreign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them.”  And for the confirmation of this sense put upon the oath of supremacy, and so the king’s sovereignty, there was a proviso also established by act of parliament to this purpose: * “Provided also that the oath expressed in the same act made in the first year shall be taken and expounded in such form as is set forth in an admonition annexed to the queen’s majesty’s Injunctions, published in the first year of her majesty’s reign; that is to say, to confess and acknowledge in her majesty, her heirs and successors, none other authority than that was challenged and lately used by the noble king Henry the Eighth and king Edward the Sixth, as in the said admonition may more plainly appear.”  By which we may see how vain and groundless the scandal is which is usually cast upon the oath of supremacy, as if we there acknowledged the king to have the keys as well as the sword committed to him, and that he might administer the word and sacraments in spiritual, as well as justice and judgment in secular affairs; whereas the same power that asserted the king’s supremacy hath still denied it to extend to the exercise of any spiritual function.

      But though the power of the sword and that of the keys be not seated in one and the same subject, yet it doth not follow but they may be exercised upon one and the same object, so that the selfsame person, yea, for one and the same crime, may be punished by both powers; for though they be two distinct powers, yet each of them is to be custos utriusque tabulae, to look to the observance and punish the breach of both tables, but still keeping themselves within their own limits as for example, theft, treason, murder, are breaches of the second table, and therefore to be punished by the civil magistrate; yet the persons guilty of such crimes may be punished by the church also, even excommunicated for them.  So, on the other side, blasphemy, heresy, and idolatry, are breaches of the first table, and so to be punished immediately by the church; yet they may, yea, and ought to be punished by the civil magistrate too; neither is there any other power whereby a heretic or blasphemer can be put to death, but only by the power of the sword: and therefore it must needs be granted, that as the breaches of the second table may be punished by the power of the keys as well as by the power of the sword, * so may the breaches of the first table be punished by the power of the sword as well as by the power of the keys; and if so, the power of the civil magistrate must needs reach to spiritual or ecclesiastical, as well as secular or temporal causes; for all the first table consists of nothing else.  And this, the punishing with the civil sword all manner of persons guilty of ecclesiastical as well as secular crimes, seems to be the prerogative here principally given to the king’s majesty in this article, as appears in these words: But we give to our princes only that prerogative, &c. that they should rule all states and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers; so that the supremacy that is here given him is, that he may punish all manner of persons for all manner of crimes, whether ecclesiastical or temporal, with the civil sword.

      And seeing all manner of persons and causes are thus to be subject to him and punishable by him, it necessarily follows that he hath power and authority over them, whether ecclesiastical or civil.  So that he may command ecclesiastical as well as civil persons to give obedience to ecclesiastical as well as civil laws, yea, and punish them for their disobedience.  What disorders are brought into the church, he may and ought to reform them; what needless or dangerous controversies arise in the church, he may and ought to still them; as also he may and ought to see that all things be done decently and in order; and to that end may, either of himself or by the advice of a council, prescribe rules and canons to be observed in the external order of divine worship; so that he may call a council when he pleaseth, dismiss it when he pleaseth, and confirm their decrees and constitutions so far as himself pleaseth; so that nothing they prescribe is obligatory under any temporal penalty without his consent, though what he prescribes is obligatory without their consent.  And thus king James, who was a person well acquainted with the extent of his own power: [King James apolog. p. {284 of his Works.}] The king’s supremacy, saith he, implies a power to command “obedience to be given to the word of God, by reforming religion according to his prescribed will, by assisting the spiritual power with his temporal sword, by reformation of corruption, by procuring due obedience to the church, by judging and cutting off all frivolous questions and schisms, as Constantine did, and finally, by making decorum to be observed in all indifferent things for that purpose, which is the only intent of the oath of supremacy.”  To which we may also add, that appeals ought to be made in all causes, ecclesiastical and civil, from all other persons unto him, and to him only.  So that it is lawful to appeal from any other unto him, but not from him to any other.  And in the exercise of this his power he is to make the testimonies of God the men of his counsel, as king David did, Psalm 119:24, but is not bound to give account of his actions and exercise of his power to any person upon earth, but only to the God of heaven; and therefore may well be styled supreme governor (under God) over all persons, and in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, within his majesty’s realms and dominions.

      Neither is this any other prerogative than what hath been still given to godly princes in the holy scriptures by God himself; for thus we find king David, a man after God’s own heart, gathered together all the princes of Israel, with the priests and Levites, prescribing them rules to be observed in the worship of God, 1 Chron. 23:2, &c. 25 and 27; and therefore it is said, All these were under the hands of their father for song in the house of the Lord, with symbols, psalteries, and harps, for the service of the house of God, according to the king’s order to Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman, c. 25:6; so that it seems the king had given them order about the service of God.  Thus good king Josiah commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels that were made for Baal, &c. 2 Kings 23:4.  And certainly he would not have commanded such ecclesiastical persons unless he had had the command over them.  Neither had he power over ecclesiastical persons only, but in ecclesiastical causes too, otherwise he could never have made such a reformation in the church as he then did, ibid. c. 22 and c. 23.  And thus did prince Moses burn the golden calf, Exod. 32:20.  And king Hezekiah, removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made, 2 Kings 18:4.  And king Jehoshaphat charged the priests and Levites, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of the Lord faithfully and with a perfect heart, 2, Chron. 19:9.  Nay, so great was the power of the princes then over ecclesiastical persons, that the high priests themselves were reproved or deposed at the princes’ pleasure: for thus we find Aaron the high priest reproved by Moses, Exod. 32:21, and Abiathar the high priest deposed by Solomon, 1 Kings 2:26, 27.  And to manifest the prince’s power in ecclesiastical causes too, Mordecai, who then was the only prince amongst the Jews, ordained the feast of Purim, Esth. 9:20, 21, 26; even as our king, now upon occasion, appoints fasting or thanksgiving days to be observed by all his people.

      And if we pass from the Old to the New Testament, there we have a strict command from the great God by St. Paul, saying, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, Rom. 13:1; where, as St. Chrysostom observes, “the apostle * shewing how he commands this to all, both priests and monks, and not only to secular persons, he makes it clear from the first words, saying, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, though he be an apostle, though he be an evangelist, though he be a prophet, or whosoever he be;” so that ecclesiastical as well as lay persons are to be subject to the higher powers.  But what higher powers?  Why St. Basil tells us: * “Paul the apostle, writing to the Romans, commands that they be subject to all powers that have the preeminence, to secular not spiritual powers; and this he manifests by what he adds, speaking of tribute and custom.”  So that ecclesiastical persons also are here commanded to be subject to the civil magistrate, and then the civil magistrate must needs have power over ecclesiastical persons.  And therefore doth St. Peter write to all persons, of what quality or degree soever, saying, Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, 1 Pet. 2:15; where by every ordinance of man he meaneth * kings and governors, as himself in the words immediately following explaineth himself, saying, whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as [unto] them that are sent by him; where we may also observe how the apostle supposeth the king to be supreme.  So that to deny him to be supreme would be as much as to deny him to be king; I say supreme, and that not only in civil but in ecclesiastical causes; and therefore it was that St. Paul in an ecclesiastical cause (to wit, whether he was a seducer, or whether his doctrine was to be allowed of or he to be condemned for it or no) appeals to Caesar, Acts 25:11; yea, and in the verse immediately foregoing he saith, I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged, v. 10.  So that it was Cesar that ought to determine the controversy; and if heathen princes were, it cannot be denied but that Christian kings must needs be the supreme governors in all causes, and over all persons, ecclesiastical as well as civil, within their realms and dominions.

      And if we consult the practice of the primitive church in this particular, Socrates tells us expressly, * “We often comprehend kings in our history, because that from the time they began to be Christians, the business of the church, or ecclesiastical causes, depended upon them.”  And certainly Constantine the Great looked upon himself as much concerned in ecclesiastical affairs, when in his letters to the churches he saith expressly, * “Having had experience from the prosperity of our common or secular affairs, how great the grace of God hath been towards us, I judged it my duty, before all other things, to consider how, in the blessed multitude of the catholic church, one faith, and sincere love, and unanimous piety towards Almighty God might be preserved;” which certainly, if there be any, were truly ecclesiastical causes; yet he, though a secular prince, esteemed it his duty to look after them in the first place.  And therefore, * “mustering as it were the army of God, he gathered together an oecumenical synod, calling by his honourable letters the bishops from all places to make haste thither.  Neither was the command all, but the authority of the king helped much.”  By which it appears, that he looked upon himself as the chief governor over ecclesiastical persons as well as in ecclesiastical causes, otherwise he could not have laid such commands upon them to take such journeys as many of them did at his will and pleasure.  Neither did the emperor only call that famous council, but it was he that confirmed their decrees too.  For * “Athanasius,” saith Theodoret, “going to Constans the emperor, minded him of his father and of the great synod which he gathered together, and how he, being present at the assembly, confirmed by a law what was written by them.”  From whence it appears, that then the civil magistrate had power not only over persons but in causes ecclesiastical, seeing the convocation and confirmation of councils depended upon them.  But we need not insist any longer upon oecumenical councils, for we have shewed before, art. XXI, how none of them were gathered together but by the commandment and will of princes.

      But the principal question is concerning national or provincial councils, whether every particular prince (and so ours) hath power to gather them together and confirm their decrees or no.  For certainly, if the convocation and confirmation of all ecclesiastical councils within his realm depends solely and principally upon him, it must needs follow, that he is supreme both over persons and in causes ecclesiastical as well as civil, it being in such councils that all ecclesiastical causes are determined.

      And for the resolving of this question, though we cannot deny that the primate and metropolitan of the province hath sometime used to gather the bishops of his province together into a council where himself pleased, yet we cannot but also aver, that they could not do it without the commandment and will of princes; yea, and that the kings themselves have still had power to gather them together at his pleasure and command, otherwise, certainly Gregory the Great would never have written to king * Theodoricus and * Theodobertus, that they would gather synods together in their own kingdoms.  And if we search into the primitive church, we shall still find kings and princes still calling the ecclesiastical councils together.  The first council at Orleans, in a letter to king Clodoveus, begins thus: * “To their lord, the most glorious king Clodoveus, the son of the catholic church, All the priests which you commanded to come to the council.  Because your so great care of the glorious faith to the worship of the catholic religion hath stirred you up, that, with the affection of a priestly mind, you have commanded all priests to be gathered together, to treat about necessary things,” &c.  And the second council at Orleans begins, * “When by the command of our most glorious kings we were met together in the city of Orleans, to treat, by the help of God, concerning the observation of the catholic law.”  And so the fifth council at Orleans, * “Our most gracious prince therefore, famous with triumphant titles, our lord Childeberte, when for his love of the faith and care of religion he had gathered together the priests in the city of Orleans.”  The second council at Paris, * “When we were come to the city Paris, at the invitation of our most glorious lord and king Childeberte.”  And concerning the first council at Cabilone, Gregorius Turonensis saith, * “In the fourth year also of king Childeberte, which was the eighteenth year of the king Guntheramnus and Childericus, there was a synod gathered together at the city Cabilone, by the command of prince Guntheramnus.”  The first council at Matiscum, * “When being called out by our glorious lord king Guntheramnus, both for public causes and for the necessities of the poor, our meanness was met together in the city Matiscum,” &c.  And concerning the second council at the same place, Gregorius Turonensis saith, * “In the meanwhile the day comes, and the bishops, by the command of king Guntheramnus, were gathered together at the city Matiscum.”  The third council at Toledo, * “When, for the sincerity of his faith, the same glorious prince Richard had commanded all the priests within his dominion to come together.”  And presently, the king saith to the council, * “I suppose it is not unknown unto you, that for the restoring the form of ecclesiastical discipline I called you out to the presence of our serenity.”  Thus was the fourth council at Toledo gathered together by * king Sisenand, the * fifth and * sixth by Chintillan, the * seventh by Chindasiund, the * eighth, ninth, and tenth by Reccesiunth, the * eleventh by king Wamban, the * twelfth by Eryingius.  * The council at Clypiacum was gathered together by Clodoveus, the second king of France.  And Sigebertus, in his chronicles, reports how * Theodoricus, king of France, gathered together a council too. * And the famous council at Constantinople, that condemned the worshipping of images, Theophanes tells us, was gathered together by the emperor Constantine.  * Charles the Great gathered one council together at Duria, and several other in other places, as we shall see presently.

      And to pass by many others which might be produced to the same purpose, if we should call to mind the ancient synods gathered together here in England, we shall find, that though the primate did sometimes with the consent of the king call them, yet at other times the king himself is expressly recorded to have gathered them together.  As in particular, the council at Northampton, in the year 1138, * was gathered together by king Stephen, in which Turstan, archbishop of York, was president; and not long after, there was another council held at the same place, wherein Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, was accused by the king of perjury, and commanded to give up his accounts for the many sums he had received when chancellor, in which office it seems he had been for many years; which he refusing to do, Gilbert, then lord bishop of London (as it is related in the life of the said archbishop of Canterbury) said, “that * considering the malice of the times, and what ruin might hang over the catholic church if the king should be resisted in these things, the archbishop ought to obey him and give place unto him;” and to this agreed the whole council, except Henry, bishop of Winchester.  And Robertus de Monte relates, how  “Henry, king of England, gathered together all the bishops of Normandy, and abbots, and barons at New Market.”  From whence it appears, that both in this and other kingdoms kings have had the supreme power of the convocation of synods.

      And as the civil magistrate hath still gathered synods together, so hath he confirmed them too.  And therefore the first general council at Constantinople, in their synodical letter to Theodosius the emperor, say, * “We desire now your humanity, that the sentence of the synod might be confirmed by your religious writing or letters patent, that as you honoured the church by the letters whereby you called us, so you would strengthen with your seal the end of the decrees.”  And Flavius Constantinus, in his letter to the western people concerning the sixth general council, or the third at Constantinople, saith, * “And we therefore, desiring also to strengthen and confirm what was decreed by them, have put forth this present pious edict, holding out the confession of the true faith in divinity, according to the ecclesiastical statutes.”  So that the sixth general council was confirmed by Flavius Constantinus, as the first was by Constantinus Magnus; of which before.  And for particular councils Regino tells us, * “that, by the command of Charles the Great, councils were celebrated by bishops all over France, concerning the state of the churches; whereof one was gathered together at Mentz, another at Rhemes, the third at Tours, a fourth at Caballon, a fifth at Arles; and the constitutions which were made by every one of them were confirmed by the emperor.”  And to name no more, at the end. of the third council at Toledo it is expressly said, * “The council was confirmed by the public edict of the king, and every particular chapter being reduced to one head, he confirmed them, saying, ‘I, Flavius Reccaredus, king, confirming what is here delivered, which we with the holy synod have defined, have subscribed or set my hand to it’.”  By which it plainly appears, that in the primitive church ecclesiastical councils, wherein all ecclesiastical causes were concluded upon, were not only called but confirmed by the civil magistrate, who cannot therefore but be acknowledged to have had the supremacy in ecclesiastical as well as civil causes.

      And hence it is, that in the primitive church appeals were made also ultimately to the civil magistrate from all other persons whatsoever, as evidently appears in the case of Donatus, who, having accused Caecilian, bishop of Carthage, of several crimes, referreth the cause to the emperor Constantine, who, not willing to pass a final sentence upon a bishop himself, appoints other bishops to decide it, whereof the bishop of Rome, Melchiades, was one, who, searching into the case, found Caecilian innocent; but Donatus appeals from them again to the emperor; the emperor, willing to have it ended, refers it to a council at Arles, who determining it against Donatus, he appeals from them too to the emperor, until he at length put a period to it.  This is that which St. Augustine relates in his 166th [105th] epistle, where, writing to the Donatists, he saith, * “Know ye that your ancestors referred the cause of Caecilian to the emperor Constantine.  Exact this of us, we can prove it to you, and if we shall not prove it, do with us what ye can.  But because Constantine durst not judge himself in the case of a bishop, he referred it to bishops to be discussed and ended; which also was done in Rome, Melchiades the bishop of that city being president, with many of his colleagues; who when they had pronounced Caecilian innocent, and had condemned Donatus, which had caused a schism at Carthage, your ancestors came again to the emperor, complaining of the judgment of the bishops, in which they were conquered; for how can a wicked striver pray to those judges by whose judgment he is conquered?  But yet the most gracious emperor made other bishops again judges at Arles, a city of France; and from them also did your ancestors appeal to the emperor himself; until he also had taken cognizance of the cause, and had pronounced Caecilian innocent, and them. reproachers.”  By which we may see, that appeals were then made from several bishops (whereof he of Rome was one), yea, and from a whole council too, to the civil magistrate; but when he had once decided the controversy, though they were not yet satisfied, yet they had no further to appeal, even in that ecclesiastical cause.  So that the civil magistrate only having the supreme power in calling and confirming ecclesiastical synods, and unto whom appeals in ecclesiastical causes are ultimately to be made, we must needs grant that he is supreme in causes and over persons ecclesiastical as well as civil; and by consequence, that if our king be the supreme civil magistrate of this nation (which to deny is downright treason), he cannot but be acknowledged to be the person unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain.

 

The bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.

      About the year of our Lord 587, * Johannes Nestenta, being then patriarch of Constantinople, the imperial city, in a synod gathered together in that place he endeavoured to get the name of an universal or oecumenical bishop or patriarch; * for which Pelagius the Second, then bishop of Rome, severely rebuked him; and Gregory the Great, Pelagius’s successor, most vehemently inveighed against it, calling the name he strove for a * “foolish, * frivolous, * proud, * new,

* profane, * pestiferous, * superstitious, * perverse, * wicked, yea, a * blasphemous name,” a name which he discoursing of breaks forth into this expression: * “But I confidently affirm, that whosoever calls himself or desires to be called an universal priest or bishop, is in his pride the forerunner of Antichrist, because he proudly prefers himself before others;” a name * which, as he saith, none of his predecessors in the bishopric of Rome would assume unto themselves nor accept of from others.

      But though they that went before St. Gregory in this bishopric had refused the title of universal bishop, and himself had said so much against it, yet they that came after him both sought for it and at length attained to it.  For after that Gregory and his immediate successor Sabinian (who sat in the chair not wholly two years) were dead, * Boniface the Third, his next successor, obtained of Phocas the emperor (and murderer of Mauritius) that the church of Rome should be called the head of all churches, and so the bishop of that place an universal or oecumenical bishop.  And ever since this time hath the church of Rome pretended to an universal authority over all the churches in the world, her bishop looking upon himself as an universal bishop; but the patriarch of Constantinople still opposed it, and the contention about the preeminence was not perfectly decided till at length they agreed amongst themselves that the bishop of Constantinople should be called an universal patriarch, and the bishop of Rome an universal pope.  From whence it came to pass that the title pope hath since been appropriated to the bishop of Rome, * which before was common to all bishops, presbyters, and clergymen whatsoever.

      The bishop of Rome having thus stretched his name beyond his power, he presently labours to extend his power as far as his name.  And having once got the name of universal pope, he takes occasion from that to endeavour after an universal power; and for an accomplishment of his design, as the emperor’s power grew weaker and weaker in the East, he made his grow stronger and stronger in the West, till at the length, about the year 680, Benedict the Second wholly shook off the emperor’s jurisdiction; and afterwards, by the help of the French kings, he much enlarged the territories both of his spiritual and temporal dominion; and at the length, amongst other nations, he had got footing in England too, yea, so far, that in the days of king John he had gotten an absolute surrender both of England and Ireland to himself, which were granted back again by him to the king, to hold of him and his successors in the see of Rome, in fee farm, and vassalage.  And so the bishop of Rome for a while kept this nation in slavery, till at last his yoke grew so heavy that neither king nor people could endure it any longer, but both endeavoured to shake it off.  And to this end were there laws made in the time of Edward I, II, III, Richard II, Henry IV, against this foreign usurpation; but it was not totally abolished till the time of Henry the VIIIth, in whose days there were several statutes made whereby all ecclesiastical as well as temporal power was reduced within his majesty’s dominion, and no foreign power whatsoever suffered to have any jurisdiction in any of the territories belonging to him; which statutes were afterwards reviewed and confirmed again in the days of queen Elizabeth; and for the further confirmation of it we have it here also inserted amongst our Articles, that the bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.  He hath no jurisdiction, neither spiritual nor temporal; and indeed if he have no spiritual he can have no temporal, his temporal jurisdiction being grounded only upon his spiritual.  And therefore in speaking to this part of the article I need not insist upon his temporal, but only his spiritual or ecclesiastical power in or over this realm; for if he have no spiritual, he hath much less any temporal jurisdiction in it.

      And to prove that the bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm, it will be only necessary for us to examine the title whereby he lays claim to such a jurisdiction; which is that whereby he claims the same in all Christian kingdoms over the whole world, even * because he is Peter’s successor, and so an universal bishop, yea, the head of the whole church.  But if we examine this title throughly, we shall find many flaws and defects in it, yea, such as will shew it to be of no force at all.  For first, it is very questionable whether Peter was ever bishop of Rome or no; nay, it seems clear to me, that he was not bishop of that nor any one particular place else, for his commission was as large as the other apostles’, even to the preaching the gospel and exercising his ministerial function in all places of the world whithersoever he should come; whereas, to make him the bishop of any one place would be to limit his power in one particular place.  That Peter was at Rome, though it cannot be demonstrated from scripture, yet it being the general tenet of the ancients, I shall not deny it; but though he was there, it doth not follow that he was bishop of that place more than any other; or such a bishop as Linus, Anacletus, Clemens, and Evaristus were, and the bishops of that place now are.  He might be there as an apostle, not as a mere bishop; * and therefore do ancient writers, in their enumeration of the bishops of Rome, not put Peter into the number of them, but begin at Linus or else at Clemens; * or if Peter be reckoned amongst them, yet Paul is still joined with him, and so Paul must be the bishop of Rome too as well as Peter, and so either two bishops of Rome at one time (which they utterly deny), or else neither of them properly bishops, such as are there now, but rather apostles (which are sometimes called bishops too, both in scripture and other authors).  And this appears also in that there was another bishop of that place besides them ordained by themselves * to wit Linus; for so those words of Irenaeus seemed clearly to intimate to us: * “The blessed apostle,” saith he, “founding and instructing the church, delivered the administration of the episcopacy or bishopric to Linus”: so that they only founded the church, and then made another person to be the bishop of it.  “And therefore,” saith Ruffinus, “also * Linus and Cletus were bishops of Rome before Clemens, but Peter being yet alive, viz. that they might undergo the care of the episcopacy, but he fulfill the office of the apostleship.  As he is found also to have done at Caesarea, where, when himself was present, yet he ordained Zacchaeus bishop of the place.”  So that though Peter was at Rome, yet not as the bishop of the place, but only as an apostle, unless we grant that there were more than one bishop of Rome at the same time.  To which we may also add, that had Peter been bishop of the place, what need he have ordained any other to be bishop there whilst he himself was present? or to exercise that office before himself the first bishop was removed?  That Linus was bishop of Rome whilst Peter himself was there cannot be denied; and therefore either there must be acknowledged two bishops of the same place, which none of the Romish party will grant, or else Peter was not bishop of the place, which is the thing we stand for.  And if Peter was not the bishop of Rome, the bishops of Rome cannot be said to succeed Peter; I mean, not in the office of the bishopric.  And so all their title to any ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this or any other realm, by virtue of their succession from Peter, must needs be null and void.

      But secondly, suppose we grant that Peter was bishop particularly of Rome, and so the bishop of Rome succeeded Peter in his bishopric, it doth not yet follow that he succeeds him in his apostleship too.  For he was ordained an apostle by a special commission from our Saviour himself, which commission was granted to his person only, not his successors; and therefore what privileges he had by virtue of that commission were to determine with himself.  Indeed, a special commission from Christ himself was so necessary to the settling any one in the office of an apostle, that when Judas was fallen by transgression from the office, the apostles themselves durst not invest another with it, but only nominating two, cast lots which should be the person, so leaving the determination of it unto God himself; whereas they of themselves ordained the bishop of Rome; which plainly shews that the bishop of Rome receiving his commission not immediately from God (as the apostles did), but only from the apostles, he never was nor is any apostle, but only a bishop.  Neither do we read of any more apostles chosen after Matthias; we read indeed how the apostle James was killed by Herod, Acts 12:2, but not of any other substituted in his place by God.  No, after the apostles, who were immediately chosen by Christ himself, were dead, there was none that ever pretended to succeed them in their apostleships but the bishop of Rome; though there were several ordained bishops of such places where the apostles had in a peculiar manner exercised their apostolical function, as Peter did at Rome; for thus did * James sit at Jerusalem; and yet Simeon, Justus, Zacchaeus, and the rest that succeeded in that bishopric, never so much as dreamed of being themselves apostles by virtue of an apostle’s sitting in the place where they were bishops; yea and Peter himself sat at Antioch too, before he came to Rome, where St. Paul withstood him to the face, Gal. 2:11, and yet * Evodius, Ignatius, Heros, and the succeeding bishops of that place, did never lay any claim to an universal bishopric or apostleship because Peter’s successors.  And how comes Rome, the younger sister, to have the apostleship settled upon her, rather than Antioch, the elder? or what respect did Peter find at Rome more than at Antioch, that he should be at Antioch before Rome, and yet prefer Rome before Antioch?  It is true, he was crucified at Rome, and not at Antioch but is that a sufficient reason why Rome rather than Antioch should have his apostleship entailed upon it?  No certainly, the bishop of Antioch, or indeed any bishop, may lay claim to an apostolical commission as well as he of Rome; who having no special or immediate call from God, cannot without a solecism be termed an apostle, nor be thought to have any jurisdiction at all, without his own diocese or province, nor by consequence in this realm of England.

      Thirdly, suppose further that the bishop of Rome be Peter’s successor, it doth not yet follow that he is head of the church, or an oecumenical bishop, for that is more than Peter himself was; though he was an apostle, yet he was no more than an apostle, nor by consequence any way superior to the other apostles.  He was a member of the church as well as his fellows, not the head of it above them, their fellow servant, not their master.  And therefore the apostles sent him with John to Samaria, Acts 8:14: and certainly if he had been their master, he would not have been their messenger; had he been their head, he would not have been their feet to go up and down upon their errands.  And hence also doth St. Paul say plainly, * For I suppose I was not behind the very chiefest of the apostles, 2 Cor. 11:5; For in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, chap. 12:11.  So that St. Paul did not look upon himself as any way inferior to any of the apostles; no not to Peter himself; and therefore when Peter did amiss (for it seems Peter could err, though the pope cannot), St. Paul withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed, Gal. 2:11; intimating that he a reproved, yea and resisted Peter himself; which certainly he would never have done had he been the head of the church, and so his superior.  Nay, St. Paul did not only look upon St. Peter as his equal, but St. Peter looked upon St. Paul as his superior; for, saith St. Paul, When James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave unto me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go to the heathen, and they to the circumcision, ver. 9.  So that Peter was so far from accounting himself to be above all, that he doth himself give the right hand of fellowship to St. Paul and Barnabas; and therefore, whatsoever the church of Rome would make of Peter now, be sure he never took himself for the head of the church, but only as a fellow worker with the other apostles; and therefore we may well say with Cyprian, * “What Peter was, that was also the other apostles, endowed with the like fellowship of honour and power.”

      But Peter’s supremacy being the foundation of the pope’s authority, to uphold this they bring every thing that hath but the face of an argument to maintain that; well knowing that if the apostle Peter was but equal to the other apostles, the bishop of Rome cannot be thought to have jurisdiction over other bishops; and therefore, for the further confirmation of this truth, it will be necessary to examine what they have to say against it.  Now the Goliath which these Philistines send forth to defy the army of the Israelites, the principal argument they bring to prove Peter’s supremacy over the other apostles, and so the pope’s authority over the whole church, is the words of our Saviour to the same apostle, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, Matt. 16:18.  From whence they would persuade us that Peter was appointed by our Saviour to be the foundation of the whole church.  But surely, while they force such a gloss upon that place of scripture, they quite forget what St. Paul saith, For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 3:11; so that whatsoever sense they put upon the words, certainly it is the next door to blasphemy to take away Christ from being the foundation of the church, and to thrust Peter into his place; to take away Christ that purchased his church with his own blood, and to put in Peter that most shamefully denied Christ; to take away Christ that conquered Satan, and to put in him to whom Christ saith in the same chapter, Get thee behind me, Satan.  In a word, what is if this be not blasphemy, to say not he who is the chief corner stone, 1 Pet. 2:6, but he who was a rock of offence to Christ, Matt. 16:23, is the foundation of the church of Christ.

      But, for my own part, I cannot but admire how these words came at first to be wrested to such a sense, which of themselves they can by no means bear; for our Saviour doth not say, Thou art Peter, and upon thee I will build my church, but, Thou art Peter, and * upon this rock will I build my church; viz. upon him whom thou hast now confessed to be the Son of God, or upon this confession which thou hast made of him.  And howsoever the church of Rome may force another sense upon the words, certainly this is the exposition which the primitive church gave of them.  Some of the Fathers expressly avouching Christ himself to be the rock here understood, others Peter’s confession of Christ and faith in him; all which come to one and the same thing; therefore saith St. Augustine, * “Christ is the foundation in the structure of a wise architect.”  This wants no exposition; for it is plainly said, For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Christ; but if Christ, then without doubt the faith of Christ, for Christ dwells in our hearts by faith; so that to say Christ, or faith in Christ, or Peter’s confession of him, all comes to one and the same thing, all of them making Christ still, not Peter, to be the rock upon which the church is built.

      Let these of the Fathers speak for the rest. * “The Lord,” saith Gregory Nyssen, “is the rock of faith, as the foundation, as the Lord himself saith to the chief of the apostles, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, viz. upon the confession of Christ; for he had said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.”  St. Augustine; * “Thou art therefore,” saith he, “Peter, and upon this rock which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build my church, I will build thee upon me, not me upon thee.”  And again; * “For therefore saith the Lord, Upon this rock will I build my church, because Peter had said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God; upon this rock therefore, saith he, which thou hast confessed, will I build my church.  That rock was Christ, upon which foundation Peter himself is also built.”  And again; * “What means that, Upon this rock will I build my church?  Upon this faith, upon that which was said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.” * “And upon this rock,” saith St. Chrysostom, “I will build my church, that is, upon the faith of this confession.”  And again; * “Upon this rock; he did not say upon Peter, for he did not build his church upon a man, but upon faith; but what faith was it?  Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.”  And St. Jerome; * “By the rock we signify Christ; for if we take Peter for a fundamental rock, the other apostles would be as much as he, as we read in the Revelations of John.”  Basil of Seleueia; * “Christ calling his confession a rock named him Peter that first acknowledged it.” * “Let us see,” saith Eusebius Emissenus, “what this means, And upon this rock will I build my church: Upon this rock which thou even now confessedst, saying, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God, upon this rock and upon this faith will I build my church.” * “Wherefore,” saith St. Ambrose, “the Lord saith to Peter, Upon this rock I will build my church; that is, in this confession of the catholic faith I appoint believers to life.”  Yea, and pope Adrian himself the first, * “Upon this rock which thou hast confessed, and from which thou obtainedst the dignity of thy name, upon this soundness of faith, I will build my church.”  And Felix the Third, * “Upon this confession will I build my church.”  So unanimous were the fathers of the primitive church in striking at the foundation of the pope’s supremacy.  For it is upon this place it is chiefly built; which being not to be understood of Peter’s person, but his confession, or rather not of Peter that confessed Christ, but of Christ whom Peter confessed, neither Peter nor his successors can claim any jurisdiction in this or any other Christian realm-s from these words.

      Another foundation they would ground Peter’s primacy, and so the pope’s supremacy upon, is the verse following the words we have already cleared from their false glosses; viz. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.  Matt. 16:19.  From which words they conclude that the power of the keys was granted only to Peter; not considering that what is here said to Peter in the singular is elsewhere spoken to all the disciples in the plural number; Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, Matt. 18:18: and, Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained, John 20:23.  So that the power of the keys was not only committed to Peter, but to all the disciples, and so not to the pope only, but to all ministers rightly ordained.  * “For all the apostles,” saith St. Jerome, “received the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”  And * “what is it else,” saith Pacianus, “that he saith to the apostles, Whatsoever ye bind on earth,” &c.; so that it was not to Peter only, but to all the apostles that these words were said.  “And therefore,” saith Augustine, * “the church which is founded in Christ received in Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven from him, that is, power to bind and loose sins.”  And St. Basil; * “And he gave the like power to all pastors and masters, which appears in that all bind and loose alike as well as he,” viz. Peter.  And St. Cyprian; * “Christ after his resurrection gave the like power to all his apostles, and said, As my Father hath, sent me, so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: if you remit to any his sins, they are remitted unto him: if you retain them, they shall be retained.”  Theophylact; * “For those that after Peter are thought worthy of the episcopal grace have power to loose and bind.  For though it be said to Peter only I will give to thee, yet the same power was given to all the apostles, when he said, Whose soever sins ye remit shall be remitted.”  Leo the First; * “This power of the keys is translated also to all the apostles and presidents of the church.  But the reason why it was commended singly to Peter was because the example of Peter was propounded to all the pastors of the church.”  To name no more; * “It is to be noted,” saith Anselme, “that this power was not given to Peter only, but as Peter answered one for all, so in Peter he gave this power to all.”  By which cloud of witnesses it evidently appears, that this place makes as little for them as the other, Peter having no greater share in the power of the keys than the other apostles had.

      The third and last place they bring for the pope’s supremacy (for all their other places are not worth naming) is that in St. John, He saith unto him, (Peter,) Feed my sheep, John 21:16; from whence they argue, that Peter only had the care of the church committed to his charge; whereas in the chapter before, our Saviour saith to all his apostles, As my Father sent me, so send I you, John 20:21.  What did he send them to do? why, Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Matt. 28:19.  So that not only Peter, but all the apostles were to preach the gospel, and to look to the settlement and propagation of the church.  And therefore saith St. Cyprian, * “All are pastors, but only one flock is shewn, which is with an unanimous consent fed by all the apostles.”  And St. Augustine; * “Christ commended his lambs to Peter, who did himself feed Peter.  Therefore, my brethren, hear with obedience, that ye are all Christ’s sheep, because we also hear with trembling, Feed my sheep.”  So that St. Augustine looked upon that command as laid upon him and other ministers as well as Peter.  Many more testimonies I might produce to this purpose, but these may suffice for the present, to spew, that as not the power of the keys, so neither was the care of the church committed to Peter only, but that other apostles then as well as Peter, and other ministers now as well as the pope, are to feed the sheep of Christ, the Shepherd of our souls.  And therefore, that the pope cannot by virtue of these places of scripture before mentioned, nor by consequence of any other (these being the principal) claim any power or jurisdiction over any churches out of his own province, and by consequence not in this realm.

      Neither is this assertion, that “the bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm,” contrary to the custom and practice of the primitive church, especially for the first six hundred years after Christ; in all which time, as the bishop of Rome was not termed an universal pope, so neither did he exercise an universal power.  For the confirmation of which we may take notice of these following canons of the ancient and most renowned councils.  As first, the first and famous council at Nice,  “Let ancient customs be observed, in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, so that the bishop of Alexandria have authority over all those places; because the same custom is observed by the bishop of Rome too.  And so likewise in Antioch and other provinces, let the dignities and privileges be preserved to the churches.”  * “Which canon,” as Balsamon saith, “and the seventh determined that the patriarchs, to wit of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem be honoured according to the ancient customs, and that he of Alexandria be over the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis.  He of Antioch also over Syria, Coelesyria, Mesopotamia, and both Cilicias; he of Jerusalem over the provinces of Palestine, Arabia, and Phoenice, as they say the bishop of Rome is also over the western provinces.”  Whence we may observe from this council, 1. that the bishop of Rome hath no other authority over the churches near him, than the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem have over those near them; and so, 2. that in the judgment of this renowned council, the bishop of Rome is no universal bishop, nor head over the whole church, there being other bishops that have as much to do in one part of the church as he in another.  3. That what authority he hath it is not of divine right, but only of custom, as the words of the canons expressly declare.

      The next general council was held at Constantinople, and determined * “that the bishops of any diocese should not go to any churches beyond their limits or diocese, nor confound the churches; but that according to the canons the bishop of Alexandria look to the church affairs in Egypt only; and the bishops of the east govern the east only, the privileges granted to the church of Antioch by the canons of the Nicene council being preserved.  And that the bishops of the Asian diocese administer the ecclesiastical affairs in Asia only; they of Pontus in Pontus only; and they of Thracia in Thracia only.  But that no bishop, unless he be called, go out of his own diocese for ordination, or any other ecclesiastical administration.  But the canon concerning the dioceses being observed, it is plain that, according to the determination of the Nicene council, the council of the province administer and govern every province.”  Whence we may learn, 1. that no bishop is to exercise any authority out of his own province or diocese, and by consequence not the bishop of Rome; 2. that in case the bishops particularly cannot decide any controversy, the bishops of the province where it is started must end it, without any appeals to him of Rome.  But Constantine having now removed his court from Rome to Byzantium, from whom it was afterwards called Constantinople,) this council determined also * “that the bishops of Constantinople have the privilege of honour next after the bishop of Rome, because it is now new Rome;” which shews that the bishop of Rome was so much honoured only because it was the emperor’s seat, and that the honour still followed the emperor so that when he was removed to Byzantium, a city of no great note before, nor mentioned in the Nicene council as having any patriarch belonging to it, yet the emperor seating himself there, there is not only a patriarch ordained of the place, but he is preferred before Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, and is placed next to Rome, who is therefore placed first, because the emperor’s seat was still there.

      To this purpose also makes the twenty-eighth canon of the fourth general council, viz. at Chalcedon; * “In all “things following the determinations of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon lately read of the hundred and fifty holy bishops, we also decree and appoint the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy church at Constantinople, new Rome.  For the Fathers did likewise give privileges to the throne of old Rome, because that city obtained the empire.  And the hundred and fifty holy bishops (in the second general council) moved with the same reason, granted the like privileges to the most holy throne of new Rome; rightly judging, that the city which is honoured with the empire and Senate, and enjoyeth the same privileges with the old queen Rome, should also be magnified in ecclesiastical affairs as highly as she, being the second after her.”  Where we may take notice, 1. how the bishop of Constantinople hath as great power and privileges in ecclesiastical affairs as he of Rome, only placed after it and so the bishop of Rome no universal bishop.  2. That here also it is expressly delivered that the reason why the bishopric of Rome was so highly exalted in former times above others, was not because Peter sat there, but because the emperor sat there.  And this canon was also afterwards confirmed again in the sixth general council. * “Renewing,” say they, “the determinations of the hundred and fifty holy Fathers assembled in this divinely preserved and royal city, and the six hundred and thirty gathered together in Chalcedon, we determine also that the throne of Constantinople receive equal privileges with the throne of old Rome, and be magnified and accounted in ecclesiastical affairs as high as it, being the second after it after which is the throne of Alexandria; and after that of Jerusalem.”  So that still the bishop of Constantinople is of equal power and authority with him of Rome; and therefore the bishop of Rome no more the head of the church than he of Constantinople, and the patriarch of Constantinople may as well claim jurisdiction in this realm as the bishop of Rome.

      But there was another passage in this the sixth general council also that makes much against the bishop of Rome’s authority; for here Honorius by name, bishop of Rome, was condemned for a heretic.  For in the acts of the same council it is expressly said, * “But with these, viz. Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, Petrus, bishops of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria, Theodorus of Pharan, with these we saw that Honorius, who was bishop of old Rome, be cast out of the catholic church, and anathematized, because we find by writings from him to Sergius, that in all things he followed his judgment and confirmed his wicked opinions.”  And in the first canon of the said council it is said, the sixth general council condemned * “such as disturbed and adulterated the right doctrine of faith, and teach the people one will and one operation in. our Lord Jesus Christ we mean Theodorus the bishop of Pharan, Cyrus the bishop of Alexandria, Honorius the bishop of Rome, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, Petrus, bishops of this city,” &c.; and in the epistle of Leo the Second to Constantine, * “We also anathematize the inventors of the new errors, viz. Theodorus bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, Petrus, successors rather than governors of the church of Constantinople, and Honorius also, who adorned not this apostolical church with doctrine of apostolical tradition, but by profane treachery endeavoured to subvert the unspotted faith.”  From all which it is clear, 1. that the bishop of Rome is not infallible, and by consequence no successor of St. Peter in his apostolical privileges; for here we see Honorius, a bishop of that place, is condemned for monothelicism; as Eleutherius, Liberius, Anastasius the Second, John the Twenty-second, and many other of the bishops of that place, were tainted with other heresies.  2. Here we may also see that the bishop of Rome is not the head of the church; for if he had, certainly so many learned men as there were met together would not have presumed to have passed such a sentence upon him.  But we see they make no more of him than they did of the other heretics, even condemned him for joining with them.

      But that the bishop of Rome had not so much authority in the primitive church as he pretends now, is clear also in that appeals were not to be made to him.  For besides that Donatus appealed both from him and a whole council too to the emperor, as we saw in the foregoing part of this article, the council at Antioch expressly decreed, * “That if any bishop, being accused of certain faults, be judged by all the bishops in the province, and all unanimously pass the same sentence upon him; let him not be judged any more by others, but let the unanimous sentence of the bishops of the province remain firm.”  And the second council at Milevi, * “It pleaseth us also that bishops, deacons, and other inferior clergymen, in any causes which they shall have, if they complain of the judgments of their own bishops, let the neighbour bishops hear them.  But if they think also that appeal should be made from them, let them not appeal, but only to the African councils, or the primates of their provinces.  But whosoever shall think that appeals should be made to any foreign power, or beyond the seas, let them not be received by any into communion within Africa.”  And if all causes must be determined in the province where they rise, and no foreign power must be appealed to, then certainly not the bishop of Rome, unless the question arise in his own province.  And this is that which was determined also in the council of Nice, the fifth canon whereof is, * “Concerning those as are excommunicated, either of the clergy or laity, by the bishops of every province, let this rule be observed, according to the canon that pronounceth, that they that are excommunicated by some bishops do not go to others.  But let it be examined whether it be for hatred, contention, or any other fault of the bishop, that they are excommunicated; for the better examination of which, it seemeth well that in each province twice a year councils meet; that all the bishops of the province meeting together, such questions may be examined; and so they that have evidently offended their bishop, may seem to all justly excommunicated, until it shall seem good to the bishops to pass a milder sentence upon them.”  Where we may take notice, 1. that they that are excommunicated by the bishops of one province ought not to appeal to the bishops of any other province whatsoever, and by consequence not to the bishop of Rome; 2. that all questions should be determined in the province where they arise; 3. that such persons as are excommunicated be so accounted by all till the bishops themselves, by whom they were excommunicated, receive them into the church again, no respect at all being had in this particular to the bishop of Rome more than to other bishops.

      For the further clearing of this particular, we have also a remarkable passage in the sixth council of Carthage, an. Dom. 419; for the African bishops having deposed Celestius and Apiarius for certain crimes objected against them, they presently appeal from them to Zosimus then bishop of Rome, who, contrary to the Nicene decree before recited, restores them again; and for the better confirmation of this his restitution, the said bishop sends legates, viz. Faustinus, a bishop, Phillipius and Asellus, priests, with the foresaid Apiarius, to the council then met at Carthage, to prevail with the said council for their restitution of him also; and for the better accomplishing of his design, he ordered them to plead, that the first council of Nice decreed, that appeals should be made to the bishop of Rome, who might send priests from his side for the decision of the controversy.  The legates being come to the council, and their orders being read, the council unanimously agreed, that in * their copies of the council of Nice there was no such thing as that appeals should be made to the bishop of Rome, as he pleaded.  But, howsoever, for their fuller satisfaction in that particular, they hasted messengers away to Constantinople and Alexandria, for the true and authentic copies of the said council.  Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, and Cyril, of Alexandria, answer their desires.  The councils having gotten the true Greek copies of the Nicene canons, they consult them too, but still find no such thing as the bishop of Rome pleaded, upon which they send to Celestinus, then bishop of Rome (for Zosimus, before spoken of, yea, and Boniface too, his immediate successor, by this time were dead, and Celestinus sat in the chair, to whom the council of Carthage sends word), amongst other things, saying: * “After our due salutation of you, we desire that hereafter you would not easily admit such as come from hence to your ears, nor hereafter receive into communion such as are excommunicated by us; for your worship may easily perceive, that this was also defined by the council at Nice.”  And presently; * “And the Nicene decrees did most clearly commit both the clergy of lower degree and the bishops themselves to the metropolitans; for they saw most prudently and justly, that all businesses should be ended in the places where they began; and that the grace of the Holy Ghost is not wanting to every province.”  And again; * “Or how can any foreign judgment stand good, to which the necessary witnesses, either by reason of the infirmity of their sex, or age, or many other impediments intervening, cannot be brought; for that any should be sent from your holiness’s side, we do not find it appointed by any synod.”

      Now in this passage of this African or Carthaginian council there are these things worthy our observation: 1. that no less than three bishops of Rome, one after another, knew no divine right for the authority or jurisdiction of that bishopric over others; for here we see they are forced to fly to the constitution of a council for the confirmation of it, whereas had they thought that those words, Upon this rock will I build my church, or any other text of scripture, made any thing for it, they would never have run to a council for the proving of it.  2. That a whole council of famous bishops, amongst whom were Augustinus, Aurelius, and above two hundred others, though certainly well skilled in scripture, yet neither did they so much as dream of any place of scripture that proved the same; for had they, surely they would never have spent so much time in sending into Greece for the true copies of the Nicene council, to see whether that had decreed any such thing or no.  3. It is observable also, that this assertion is so far from being grounded upon scripture, that it was never so much as determined by a general council, but the bishop of Rome is forced to forge a canon for it.  4. It is observable also, that the bishop of Rome is fallible; for he either knew that the canon which he pleaded was not any canon of the council of Nice, or he did not know it.  If he did [not om. MS.] not know it, he must needs be fallible, so shamefully erring in so plain a thing as that was, which scarce any one could be ignorant of: if he did know it was not the council of Nice, and said it was that council that decreed it, he lied not only to the council, but to his own conscience too, confidently avouching that to be established by the council of Nice which himself knew was not.  5. That in the judgment of these reverend and learned fathers, the council of Nice decreed, that all ecclesiastical controversies whatsoever should be ended in the province where they [arise MS.] arose, and no appeals to be made to foreign powers.  Lastly, it is also here observable, that this council did unanimously determine, that no appeals should be made from foreign provinces to the bishop of Rome in particular; which certainly they would not, they could not have done, had they thought that he had any jurisdiction over the whole church, or over any churches out of his own provinces; all which being considered, we may well conclude, that the bishop of Rome hath not any power [in MS.] or jurisdiction in the church of this realm in particular.

      Neither was the bishop of Rome’s supremacy over the church of Christ in general only thus denied; but his authority in the realm of England. in particular hath been long ago resisted.  Indeed, William the Conqueror himself, whom they pretend to be so much devoted to the pope’s service, when pope Hildebrand, otherwise called Gregory the Seventh, sent his legate Hubertus to gather up the Peter-pence, and to require an oath of allegiance and fidelity to the pope from him, the king, in his letter to him sends him express word, * “Your legate Hubertus, religious father, coming unto me, he admonished me of your part that I would swear fidelity to you and your successors, and consider better of the money which my predecessors used to send to the church of Rome; one of these things I have admitted, the other I have not admitted; I would not then, neither will I now swear to be faithful to you, because I neither promised any such thing, neither do I find that my predecessors did ever do so to your predecessors.”  From whence we may observe, how neither William the Conqueror nor his predecessors were absolutely subject to the pope (for then he durst not have sent him such an answer), and by consequence, that the pope even then had no absolute jurisdiction in this realm.  And William the Conqueror being dead, and his second son, William Rufus, succeeding him in his kingdom, he did openly and expressly assert, that * “no archbishop nor bishop of his kingdom should be subject to the court of Rome or the pope,” and the reason he gave of it was, w “because they do not follow the steps of Peter, gaping after rewards; they do not retain his power, whose holiness they are proved not to imitate.”  In this king’s reign it was also that Anselme, archbishop of Canterbury, being denied leave by the king to go and fetch his pall from pope Urban, he presently appealed from the king to the pope, upon which the king told him, in plain terms, * “that if he would desist from his purpose, and promise upon the gospels that he would not visit the thresholds of the apostles, nor for any business appeal to the seat of Rome, then he might peaceably use and enjoy his own and his friends’ goods, and be over the principal of the kingdom in every gift; but if he shall purpose otherwise, it would be free for him to go over the sea, but that he would do unwisely, for he should never after have hope of returning home again.”  Nay, and Anselme himself saith, in an epistle to Paschalis, then bishop of Rome, * “I asked leave of the king to go to the apostolical seat, to ask counsel about my soul and the office enjoined me.  The king answered, that I sinned against him for the very asking of this leave; and he propounded to me, that I would either make satisfaction for this thing as for a fault, and assure him that I would never more ask such leave, nor ever after appeal to the see of Rome, or else that I would presently go out of his kingdom.”  And not only so, but in a council gathered together, an. 1095, Edinerus, who was one of the council, relates how * “all the bishops there present (he of Rochester expected) denied due subjection and obedience to him.  And the king himself took away all his confidence of him, and swore he would not take him any longer for an archbishop or a father, unless he would deny that he would ever after give obedience to the vicar of St. Peter.”  From whence it appears, that almost six hundred years ago both the king and council determined that obedience ought not to be given by the subjects of this realm to the bishop of Rome, and by consequence, that the bishop of Rome even then had no jurisdiction in this realm.

      And as the bishop of Rome had little or no authority in this realm in the days of the two Williams, kings of England, so had he as little in the days of the two Henrys which succeeded them.  What power he had in the days of king Henry the First (brother to William Rufus, third son to William the conqueror) appears from the pope’s letter to the said king, wherein, amongst other things, he said, * “Seeing thou hast plentifully received from the hand of the Lord honour, riches, and peace, we much wonder and are grieved, that in thy kingdom and dominion St. Peter (himself he meant), and in St. Peter, the Lord hath lost his honour and right.  For the messengers or letters of the apostolical seat obtain no reception or entrance into your dominion without the command of the royal majesty: there are no appeals from thence, no judgment is from thence appointed to the apostolical seat.”  So that it seems the pope had but small power here in the days of Henry the First; and truly he being dead, and Stephen also his immediate successor, the pope’s power was as small in the days of king Henry the Second too; for in his reign were there several laws and constitutions made at Clarendon which the clergy and nobility were to subscribe to; and Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury, was much troubled for opposing of them: as, that St. Peter’s pence should no more be paid to the apostolical seat; that no decree or command proceeding from the authority of the pope or the bishop of Canterbury (then out of the kingdom) be received in this realm; and amongst other things it was decreed, as an ancient custom of this realm still to be observed, * “that no appeals be made to the apostolical see without leave from the king and his officials;” or, as it is more largely set down in the life of Thomas Becket, * “Concerning appeals, if they go from the archdeacon they ought to proceed to the bishop, from the bishop to the archbishop, and if the archbishop be wanting in the exercise of justice, it must be brought last of all to the lord the king, that by his precept in the archbishop’s court the controversy may be ended.  So that it ought not to proceed any further without the consent of our lord the king.”  By all which it evidently appears, that though the king might reverence the bishop of Rome, yet the bishop of Rome had no authority in his kingdom any further than the king himself would give him leave.

      I might trace the opposition that hath been made to the pope’s supremacy in this realm of England almost in every king’s reign since; but that would be a needless thing; what we have said already being enough upon which to affirm, approve, and pronounce, with the university of Cambridge, (that debated this question in their regent house, an. Dom. 1534.) that the bishop of Rome hath no more state, authority, or jurisdiction given him by God in the scriptures over this realm of England than any other externe bishop hath; and so, to conclude with what I began, the bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction or authority in this realm of England.

 

      The laws of the realm may punish Christian men with death for heinous and grievous offences.

      It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.

      I having transgressed my intended limits in speaking to former parts of this article, I shall touch the more lightly upon these, especially considering that there is less opposition made against them, and therefore it is not so needful to expatiate upon the confirmation of them.  First therefore of the first, that the laws of the realm may punish, Christian men with death for heinous and grievous offences; for the proof of which truth I need go no further than the judicial laws of Moses, whereby several sorts of offenders were to be put to death for their several offences; as, murderers, Num. 35:30, Exod. 21:12; idolaters, Deut. 17:5; the smiter of his father or mother, Exod. 21:15; a manstealer, ver. 16; he that curses father or mother, ver. 17; witches, c. 22:18; he that lieth with a beast, ver. 19; and many such like offenders, were to be punished with death, and that by the command of God himself.  Now though it be not necessary for these and the like judicial laws to be received into a Christian kingdom or commonwealth, yet it cannot but be lawful to receive them and act according to them.  It is true these laws were made and enacted for the government of the Jewish nation only, and therefore not necessarily to be observed by others but howsoever, seeing it was God himself that did establish them, whose will is a law, and whose pleasure is the ground of duty, it cannot possibly be that they should be unlawful in themselves, having once the stamp of divine authority upon them.  Had not it been lawful to punish offenders with death, God would never have commanded it; or rather, seeing God was pleased to command it, it cannot but be therefore lawful; lawful I say, though not absolutely necessary; it is so lawful as that they may do it without sin, not so necessary as that they must do it or else sin.  Seeing God enacted those laws, they are lawful to be received by all, though, seeing God enjoined them only to the Jews, they are necessarily to be observed only by them; though not necessarily to be observed now by them neither, they being no longer a peculiar nation, our Saviour by his cross having broken down the partition wall, and made of Jew and Gentile one sheepfold under himself, the chief Shepherd of our souls.  And therefore Christ by his coming did not only abrogate the ceremonial but the judicial law too, so that after that time neither Jew nor Gentile [MS. was] are obliged to the observation of them.  But howsoever, though he did abrogate the necessity, he did not disannul the lawfulness of them, but it is still as lawful for all to observe those laws since his passion, as it was necessary for the Jews to observe them before his incarnation; and therefore such laws in particular as commanded offenders to be put to death may be observed now as well as then; or though those particular laws be not observed themselves, this general law deduced from them may, and ought certainly to be observed, even that heinous and grievous offenders be put to death.

      Neither do I speak this as if it was never lawful before Moses to punish any offenders with death; for it was long before Moses commanded by God, Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed for in the image of God made he man, Gen. 9:6, and repeated by Christ, Matt. 26:52; which plainly sinews that it was not only lawful but necessary even before Moses’s time to punish murderers with death.  And as it was before his laws were established, it must needs be also after that his laws are repealed, even necessary as well as lawful to punish him with death that was the cause of another’s death; especially considering that here is the reason of the law annexed, because in the image of God made he man, which reason always remaining, the law must need continue in force.  And what is said of murder may also be applied to other the like offences, which whosoever are guilty of may justly be punished with death for them.  Nay; such offences not only in justice may, but in justice ought to be so punished, for the magistrate beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil, Rom. 13:4; and therefore a wise king scattereth, the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them, Prov. 20:26.  And that it is lawful howsoever to punish heinous offenders with death St. Augustine intimates to us, saying, * “But he is no murderer who oweth his service to him that commandeth, as a sword is a help to him that useth it; and therefore they do not at all transgress against this command, whereby it is said, Thou shalt do no murder, who, God being the author, serve in war, or representing the person of the public power, do according to his laws, that is, according to the command of the most just reason, punish the wicked with death.”  So that it is not only lawful but most just to punish wicked offenders with death.

      And as for the second thing, that it is lawful for Christian men at the command of the magistrate to serve in war, appears in that it was lawful for the Jews, then the only people of God, even under the Old Testament, so to do; yea, God himself commanded them to go out to war, Num. 31:2, 3; Jos. 8:21, 1 Sam. 23:2.  And what was lawful for them cannot be sinful for us, though there were many things sinful to them which are now lawful to us.  And this also further appears in the answer which John the Baptist gave to the soldiers that came unto him, for the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do?  And he said, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages, Luke 3:14.  He doth not say, Throw aside your weapons, and serve no more in war, but rather adviseth them, or howsoever permits them to continue in the same employment, by shewing them how to behave themselves in it, even being content with their wages.  And thus neither doth our Saviour command the centurion to resign his office, Luke 7, nor the apostles condemn Cornelius for being a centurion, Acts 10; but to serve the magistrate in war was still looked upon as lawful as to serve him in any other employment, which in reason indeed we cannot but acknowledge, as considering the mature of a lawful war (of which only we now speak), which is nothing else but a just defence of the magistrate’s person, kingdom, and prerogatives, which certainly are so lawful to be defended that it is sinful not to endeavour to defend them.

      And thus did the Fathers of old teach.  * “For the Fathers,” saith St. Basil, “accounted slaughters in war to be no murders, as I think excusing such as strive for temperance and piety;” which they would not have done if they had thought it unlawful.  And St. Augustine, speaking of those words of God to Joshua, Lay thee an ambush for the city behind it, saith, * “We are hence admonished that this is not unjustly done by such as wage a just war; that a just man should not take much thought about these things, but only that he undertake a just war, to whom it is lawful to war or to serve in war.”  The first council at Arles decreed, * “Concerning those that use their arms in peace, it pleaseth us that they be excommunicated;” implying that it is lawful to use them in war, not in peace.  And the council at Magunce; * “We (ministers) who have left the world, this we will by all means observe, that having spiritual arms, we lay aside our secular but the lay persons which are with us we do not hinder from wearing weapons; because it is an ancient custom, and hath been brought down even to us.”  And Sigebertus Gemblacensis tells us how in an ancient assembly of French bishops, * “one of them said he had letters brought him from ‘heaven, which advised that peace be renewed upon earth: which thing he enjoined the others, and gave these things to be delivered to the people, that no one should bear arms, nor fetch back again what was taken from him, &c.  But Gerardus Cameracensis could by no persuasions be brought to receive these things, but confuted every particular head; saying that mankind was from the beginning divided into three sorts, orators, fighters, and husbandmen, and the one of these wants the help of the two, and the two of the one, and therefore that weapons ought to be worn, and rapines be restored by the authority both of law and grace.”  And so we conclude it is lawful for Christian, men, at the commandment of the magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.

 

Article  XXXVIII

Of Christian Men’s Goods, Which Are Not Common.

      The riches and goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast.  Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

      Though communion of saints be a truth which ought to be believed by all, yet community of goods is an error which cannot be received by any, it striking at the foundation of Christian society, and subverting the whole scope of the holy scriptures; for if no man hath a propriety in any thing he enjoys, but his neighbour hath as good a title to it as himself, as the Fratricellians of old and the Anabaptists of late fancied, what signify the commands of God, Thou shalt not steal, Exod. 20:15, and, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, ver. 17?  If I have as much right to my neighbour’s goods as himself, how can I be said to steal any thing from him, when it is no more but to receive what is mine own of him? or why should I be forbidden to covet his house, when it is my own as well as his?  And what then means that place of scripture also, It is a more blessed thing to give than to receive? Acts 20:65.  For if one man hath no more right to what he enjoys than another, how can one man be said to give to another, or the other to receive any thing as a gift from him?  Certainly by this rule I cannot steal any thing from another, though I take all he hath from him; neither can he be said to give any thing to me, though he bestoweth all he hath upon me.  For if take any thing from him, I take no more than what is my own as well as his; and if he bestows any thing upon me, he gives me that which is no more his than mine own; and so according to this fancy (for an opinion I cannot call it) there could not be any stealing, neither need there be any giving.  I could not steal though I would, and I need not give though I could.  And further, admit this dream to be a truth, why should we be commanded to provide for our families, 1 Tim. 5:8? to give to him that asketh us, and to lend to him that would borrow of us, Matt. 5:42?  Why should St. Paul’s hands minister to his necessities, Acts 20:34, and labour night and day that he might not be chargeable to any, 1 Thess. 2:9?  And many of the like places we find in scripture, which would signify nothing, if one man had no more title to or propriety in what himself enjoys than another.

      It is true the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common, Acts 4:32.  This is the text which is commonly wrested to the destruction of the truth of this article but certainly, if rightly understood, it will make more for it than against it; nay, not at all against it, but altogether for it.  For here it is plainly said, No man said of ought that he possessed; so that it seems they had their several possessions at that time, which could not be if all things were so common amongst them as touching the right, title, and possession of the same.  All things were indeed common amongst them as to the use of, but not as to the title to what they enjoyed. All things were so common as that none of them but willingly communicated what he had to others, but not so common as that others had a right and title to it as well as he; which also further appears in that it is said, And as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things which were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made to every man according to his need, Acts 4:34, 35.  From whence it appears that some were possessors of lands, others not; and it was they that possessed the lands that went and sold them; and when they had sold them they brought them to the apostles, and the apostles distributed to every one according as he had need; plainly implying that some had need and others not, and some had lands and others not, and they that had them it was in their power, not in the others’ to sell them, and in their power, not in the others’ to bring them to the apostles; yea, and it was in their power to bring them or not to bring them too.  And therefore saith Peter to Ananias, Whilst it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Acts 5:4.  So that before he had sold it, it was his own, not another’s, and after he had sold it, it was still in his own power, not another’s; and so he alone had a title and right to it, until he had resigned it up to the apostles.  Whence we may plainly see, that though there were not any amongst them that lacked, it was not because that they that had not estates had a title to theirs that had, * but because they that had estates were willing to communicate unto them that had not; so that there was a communication of estates to one another, and yet not a community in one another’s estates.

      And in this sense is Tertullian also to be understood when he saith, * “All things are common with us but only our wives; in that thing only we break community in which only other men exercise community;” not as if all things were then common as to the right, title, and possession of them, but all things were common as to the use and enjoyment of them.  So that he that had no possessions enjoyed something of his that had; not because he had a title to it, but because he that had a title to it was pleased to communicate some part of it to him that had not; not some part of the title he had to his estate, but some part of the estate he had a title to.  And in that he that had an estate gave to him that lacked, it is plain that he that lacked an estate had no right to his that had one.  And that Tertullian is thus to be understood appears from what himself not long before saith in the same place; * “That which is a kind of chest is not gathered from the burdensome sum, as of a bought religion.  Every one giveth a little every month, or when he will, and if he can, he adds to it; for no man is compelled, but every one giveth freely.”  Clearly implying, that there were some that had estates, and some that had not, and they that had, gave to them that had not.  And that not always, but only once a month; nor then all his estate neither, but only as much as he would: nor yet was any one compelled to give any thing, but every one gave what himself pleased.  And what were these things for? * “These are as it were the pledges of piety; for there is nothing given from thence to banquets, or collations, nor ungrateful devourings, but to nourish and bury the poor, to children, and orphans destitute of maintenance, and parents, and to ancient housekeepers”: all which things cannot possibly stand with the community of right and title to estates.

      And what Tertullian here avoucheth, Justin Martyr also confirms in his time too, saying, * “Those of us that have much and are willing, according to every one’s pleasure, give and contribute as much as themselves will.  And that which is gathered is given to the president, and he helps orphans and widows with it, and those that are in want by reason of sickness or any other cause, and those that are in bonds, and strangers that come a great way, and in brief he takes care of all that are in necessity.”  So that in his time also there were poor as well as rich; both such as gave, and such as received; such as abounded, and such as wanted; and by consequence no equality, or community in estates.  Yea and before him too, Clemens Romanus exhorteth the Corinthians, * “Let him that is strong not despise him that is weak, and let him that is weak reverence him that is strong; let the rich contribute to the poor, and the poor give thanks to God.”  And if there were some rich which should give to the poor, and some poor which should receive of the rich, the estates of the rich were not common to the poor, neither had the poor any title in the estates of the rich.  To these we may also add that of Lactantius: * “Some may say,” quoth he, “Are there not amongst you some poor, and some rich, some servants, and some masters? is not there some difference betwixt every one?  No; neither is there any other reason why we call one another brethren, but because we believe ourselves to be equal; for seeing we measure all human things not by the body but by the spirit, though the condition of our bodies be diverse, yet they are not our servants, but we account and call them, by the spirit, brethren, and fellow servants in religion.”  So that he expressly tells us the outward or bodily condition of Christians in that age were diverse, though in piety and humility they were alike and equal; and therefore he presently adds, * “Seeing therefore the freemen are equal to the servants, and the rich to the poor in humility of mind, yet before God we are discerned by virtue.”  It was in the humility of their minds, not in the community of their goods, that they were equal to one another, and their communicating to one another’s necessities argues they had no community in one another’s estates; yea, and their having no community in one another’s estates was the reason why they communicated to one another’s necessities.

      And certainly though there be no communion in, yet there ought to be a communication of our estates one to another; and therefore it is added in the article, Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.  According to the apostle’s command, Charge them that are rich in this world, that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate, 1 Tim. 6:17,18.  And * many such commands are there in scripture, with promises and threatening annexed to them, whereby all are enjoined to communicate of what they have unto such as lack it. Although the poor hath no title to the estates of the rich, yet the rich are bound to relieve the necessities of the poor; and therefore saith St. Basil, * “Art thou poor yet thou hast another poorer than thyself; thou hast bread enough for ten days, he but for one; what abounds to thee, like a good man do thou keep for the poor, not thinking much to give something of a little.  Do not thou prefer thine own profit before the common danger.” * “Thou sayest thou art rich and wealthy,” saith St. Cyprian, “and thinkest thou must use those things which God would have thee to possess; use them but to saving things, use them but to good acts, use them to those things which God hath commanded, which the Lord hath discovered; let the poor perceive thee to be rich, let the needy perceive thee to be wealthy.”  But it would be an endless thing to heap up the several passages we meet with in the fathers to this purpose; I shall add only that excellent notion of St. Chrysostom: * “Why therefore dost thou deprive thyself of those things whereof God would have thee to be the master?  For for this cause he commanded thee to give of thy riches to another, that thou thyself mightest have them; for so long as thou keepest them thyself, not so much as thyself halt them, but when thou givest them to another, then thyself receivest them.”  And therefore I conclude, that though Christian men’s goods be not common, yet they ought to be communicated to one another.

 

Article  XXXIX

Of A Christian Man’s Oath.

      As we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his apostle, so we judge, that Christian religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgment, and truth.

      *An oath being nothing else but the calling upon God to witness the truth of what we say, a rash or a vain oath must needs be nothing else than the taking the name of God rashly and in vain; and therefore our Saviour, who came not to destroy, but to fulfill the law, commands us not to transgress, but to obey the law, saying, Swear not at all, Matt. 5:34; and the apostle James, writing after his Master’s copy, Swear not, neither by heaven, neither by earth, neither by any other oath, James 5:12.  In which places though to swear lawfully is permitted, yet to swear rashly is altogether prohibited.  A sin which there being neither pleasure nor profit in, one should think man might easily be persuaded from; but so corrupt is the heart of man, that I am confident the only reason so many indulge themselves in it, is only because it is a sin.  Had God commanded it we should have been naturally averse from it, but seeing God hath forbidden it, we are naturally inclined to it; so that had it been no sin, the heart of man would not have been so set upon it, especially considering he can reap neither pleasure, profit, nor honour from it.  But seeing it is a sin so frequently forbidden by God, and a sin so highly odious to him, therefore is the heart of man (which, being fallen from God to sin, naturally delights itself more in sin than God, therefore I say is it) so much taken with it, therefore doth it please itself so much in it; so that though there be no other pleasure in this sin, they will therefore take pleasure in it because it is a sin.  But I wish the foulmouthed ruffians of the world, who never think they speak rhetorically enough unless they back each word or emphasis each sentence with an oath, I wish, I say, they would at length bethink themselves how they offend their Maker by it.  But I know that is no motive to drive them from it, but rather an encouragement to draw them to it; for was not God so displeased at it, they would never be so pleased with it.  I wish, therefore, they would consider how they do not only offend God, but condemn themselves by every vain oath they pollute their mouths withal; they condemn themselves, I say, for men of no credit, nor ever to be believed unless they vainly bring God to witness what they say.  And if they will not receive this at mine, let them receive it at St. Basil’s mouth, * “For it is altogether a foul and a foolish thing,” saith that reverend father, “ for a man to accuse himself as one unworthy to be believed, and therefore to confirm what he saith by oaths.” * “For an oath,” saith St. Chrysostom, “is a bringing of a surety for those things which otherwise would not be believed.”  So that he that swears is first accused as one not to be believed without a surety, yea, so great a surety.  For it is for their great unbelief of him that they do not seek a man but God himself to be his surety.  And hence it is, that whensoever I hear a man swear, I presently think that man is conscious to himself that he hath so often falsified his word, that now he is not to be believed without an oath; and if he is not to be believed unless he swears, he is not .to be believed though he swears.  For he that makes no conscience of his word, will make as little of his oath; and he that doth not stick to swear rashly, will not stick to swear falsely.  And therefore the more a man sweareth what he saith is true, the more am I apt to think what he saith is false.  But as there is a sinful, so there is also a lawful use of an oath.  So that though many a man sins when he swears, yet a man may swear and not sin, especially if a man be commanded by the lawful magistrate to swear in a lawful thing; then a man is so far from sinning if he swears, that he sins unless he swears; and that because an oath is in itself lawful, so that a man may do it without sin, and therefore must do it when commanded or else sin.  And that it is thus lawful in itself to swear, we may see in the frequent command and examples of it we meet with in the scripture: as, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and swear by his name, Deut. 6:13, 10:20: Then shall an oath, of the Lord be between than both, that he hath not put his hand to his neighbour’s goods, Exod. 22:11, Who shall abide in thy tabernacle, or who shall dwell in thy holy hill?  He that sweareth, to his own hurt, and changeth not, Ps. 15:1, 4 Every one that sweareth, by him shall glory, Ps. 63:11.  And many of the eminent saints of God are recorded in scripture to have sworn.  Abraham sware to Abimelech, Gen. 21:31; * Jacob sware by the fear of his father Isaac, Gen. 31:53; Moses sware on that day, Jos. 14:9; And Saul sware, As the Lord liveth, he shall not be slain,1 Sam. 19:6; And David sware unto Saul, ch. 24;22; Then king Solomon sware by the Lord, 1 Kings 2:23.  And as they sware themselves, so they required others to swear too.  And I will make thee swear by the Lord, saith Abraham to his servant, Gen. 24:3; And Jacob said unto Joseph, Swear unto me; and he swam unto him, Gen. 47:31.  Yea God himself is often in scripture said to swear: By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, Gen. 22:16; For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Heb. 6:13; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the Lord, Jer. 44:26; The Lord hath sworn by his holiness, Amos 4:2; and, The Lord hath, sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it, Ps. 132:11.  And certainly what God himself doth cannot be unlawful in itself to be done.  And hence it is also that there are rules set down to be observed in our swearing, And thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in righteousness, and in judgment, Jer. 4:2: in truth, so as not to swear falsely; in righteousness, so as not to swear unjustly; and in judgment or discretion, so as not to swear ignorantly.  But if it were a sin in itself to swear, it would be in vain to prescribe rules to be observed in swearing; nay, seeing there are rules thus prescribed to be observed in swearing, it thence follows that it is no sin in itself to swear.

      Against this cloud of witnesses which this truth is thus encompassed about withal, its adversaries have nothing to plead, but that our Saviour and the apostle James, as we saw even now, said expressly, Swear not at all; from whence they conclude, that though it was lawful under the law, it is now sinful under the new testament, not considering what our Saviour expressly avoucheth in the beginning of the said sermon, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill, Matt. 5:17; though he came to destroy the judicial and ceremonial, yet he came not to destroy the moral law.  Now it is plain that this law about oaths doth not belong to the ceremonial or judicial law, which he came to destroy, but only to the moral law, which he came to fulfill; and therefore whatsoever interpretation we put upon these words, Swear not at all, we must be sure not to make our Saviour to contradict himself, and say he came to destroy the moral law, when himself expressly saith he came to fulfill it.  And therefore, when he saith, Swear not at all, we must not so understand it as if he forbad all manner of swearing, but swearing after that manner which the Jews had brought up among themselves, even to swear by the creature as well as by the Creator, by the heavens, where God dwells, as well as by that God that dwells in the heavens, and the like; and * never to think themselves obliged to perform what they had so sworn to do.  And it was these false glosses upon the law which our Saviour strikes at in these words, as we may see plainly by what follows; Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool, Matt. 5:34, 35: so that it was swearing by heaven, and swearing by earth, and swearing by other creatures, which Christ here commands us to abstain from.  Or, howsoever, it is manifest that it is common swearing he here aims at, as appears from what follows; But let your communication, or common discourse, be, Yea, yea; and Nay, nay, v. 37: * so that it was in our common discourse that he here commands us not to swear at all; not at all forbidding us to swear upon necessary and urgent occasions.

      But that our Saviour doth not forbid all manner of swearing when he commands us not to swear at all, is plain also from the practice and example of the apostle St. Paul.  For that St. Paul understood the meaning of our Saviour in these words better than any one doth or can in these days, I hope there is none as yet so sottishly ignorant and so highly presumptuous as to deny. * Yet we find him often swearing, and calling upon God to witness what he saith: For God is my record, saith he, how greatly I long after you all, Phil. 1:8: I say the truth in God, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, Rom. 9:1: The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not, 2 Cor. 11:31: We speak before God in Christ, ch. 12:19: The things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not, Gal. 1:20: As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting, 2 Cor. 11:10.  Nay, it is observable, though himself takes notice of that expression, Yea, yea, and Nay, nay, which our Saviour commanded us always to use, 2 Cor. 1:17, yet in the very next words he saith, But as God is true, ver. 18; and presently, Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet to Corinth, ver. 21: so that it is impossible any one should swear more plainly than he did; yet who dare say he durst have sworn if our Saviour had expressly forbidden all manner of swearing.  To which we may also add, that not only St. Paul, but the angel, sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, Rev. 10:6; and St. Paul himself also saith, For men verily swear by the greater; and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife, Heb. 6:16.  For men, not men of this world only, not Jews only, not Gentiles only, but men in general, swear by the greater; for one sort of men is not here opposed to another, but men in general to God; neither doth he reprove them for it, but commends it, as that which is the end of all strife.  So full, so clear is scripture, both in precepts and precedents, to assure us that it is as lawful to swear in itself, as it is sinful to swear in vain.

      Neither doth scripture only, but reason also, proclaim this doctrine for a truth. For, first, that which is part of God’s honour must needs be lawful; but now to swear lawfully is part of his honour, and therefore is serving God and swearing by his name joined together, Deut. 6:13; indeed, from swearing by his name lawfully, according to his will, there is much honour redounding to him, for hereby we acknowledge him to be an all-seeing God, who seeth what I think, as well as men hear what I speak.  Hereby we acknowledge him to be a God that loveth justice and truth, and will severely revenge all such as take his name in vain; so that to deny this truth is to rob God of a great part of his honour.  Secondly, if we consider the nature of a lawful oath, we shall easily see that it is lawful to take an oath; for a lawful oath is nothing but a calling upon God to witness what is true.  Now to call upon God is no sin; and to call upon God to do good, even to defend the truth, by bearing witness to it, cannot possibly be accounted any sin, there being no law transgressed by it.  Lastly, to this we may also add, that an oath is the end of strife; and so the end of an oath is to be the end of strife, and to establish peace and equity betwixt man and man and so the end of it cannot possibly but be acknowledged as lawful in its nature; and seeing the nature and end of it is lawful, itself cannot be sinful, but a man may swear when the magistrate requireth him, and not sin; nay, but rather sin if he doth not swear, in not obeying the magistrate in such things which he may lawfully do.

      And if we consult the Fathers we shall find them indeed much inveighing against rash and vain swearing: as St. Chrysostom; * “Let us now,” saith he, “set ourselves daily laws; and in the mean while let us begin from those things that are the easiest.  Let us cut off the evil custom of swearing from our mouths, let us put a bridle to our tongue; let no one swear by God here is no charges, here is no labour, here is no care of time required, it sufficeth that he be but willing, and all is done; it is merely a business of custom: I beseech you and entreat you therefore let us set upon this study.”  And presently; * “With a loud and a clear voice I speak to all, and witness, that those that are guilty of this sin, those that speak things that are of evil (for so is such swearing), that they come not over the church threshold.”  And again; * “Fast, and pray to God, and we with you, that he would take from amongst us this pernicious custom.”  And St. Augustin, prescribing rules for an upright conversation, puts this amongst the rest; * “Altogether shun the custom of swearing, for in this you go much contrary to the commands of God.”  And many such like expressions we meet with in the Fathers, especially in Tertullian, Basil, Chrysostom, and Athanasius.

      But howsoever, though they did so much condemn vain and rash swearing, yet they accounted swearing as a thing in itself lawful.  For the sixth general council, commonly called the Trullan council, decreed, * “Those that swear the oaths of the gentiles the canon punisheth, and we decree them to be excommunicated.”  They punished such as took the sinful oaths of the gentiles by their false gods, not such as swear the lawful oaths of the Christians by the true God; and seeing they punished them and not these, it follows that they acknowledged these to be lawful, but condemned them only to be sinful.  And St. Gregory saith, * “Let therefore every one be wary before he swears, that he may either not swear at all, or that he do not swear to de any evil things.”  So that a man may swear, but he must have a care how he swears; he may swear, but to do good, not evil.  And Cyril of Alexandria; * “Let yea and nay, amongst those that have chosen to live the best life, have the use and force of an oath, and let things be so confirmed; for it will follow that we ought so also to be believed: but if yea and nay be despised by any, let the use of oaths be at last turned or directed to that which is greater than us, yea, and every creature, viz. the Deity; so that when bare asseverations will not do, confirmation by oaths may be allowed of.”  St. Augustin hath many things to this purpose; * “It is much safer,” saith he, “as I said, that as much as we can we never swear; that our communication be Yea, yea, Nay, nay, as our Saviour admonisheth not because it is a sin to swear what is true, but because it is a most grievous sin to swear what is false”: so that to swear in itself is no sin, for a man may swear, and not sin.  And again; * “Wherefore he that understandeth that swearing is to be reckoned not amongst the good but the necessary things, refraineth as much as he can, so as not to use it but upon necessity, when he seeth men slow to believe what is profitable for them to believe, unless they be confirmed by swearing.”  And presently; * “But thou dost not do evil that usest swearing well; for though it be not good, yet it is necessary that thou shouldest persuade another that which thou profitably persuadest him.”  And therefore Photius tells us, that, according to their law, * in doubtful matters, the judge used to take their oath, and make them swear, and so to pass sentence in the case; and that the magistrate may lawfully require an oath, and by consequence others lawfully take it.  I shall only add that of St. Augustin; * “Though it be said we should not swear, yet I do not remember it is any where read that we should not receive or take an oath from another;” and therefore I conclude, that though a man ought not to swear rashly and vainly, yet if it be required of the magistrate, he may lawfully swear.