Chapter XVII (2)

22. This too is very coherent with the same points: _if there be many Christian cities, they are not altogether personally one Church_. They may indeed by mutual consent become one _Church_, but no otherwise than as they must also become one city. For they cannot assemble but at some certain time, and to some place appointed. But persons, places, and times, belong to civil right; neither can any subject or stranger lawfully set his foot on any place, but by the permission of the city, which is lord of the place. But the things which cannot lawfully be done but by the permission of the city, those, if they be lawfully done, are done by the city’s authority. The _universal Church_ is indeed one _mystical body_, whereof Christ is the head; but in the same manner that all men together, acknowledging God for the ruler of the world, are one kingdom and one city; which notwithstanding is neither one _person_, nor hath it one common action or determination. Furthermore, where it is said that _Christ is the head of his body the Church_, it manifestly appears that that was spoken by the Apostle of the elect; who, as long as they are in this world, are a _Church_ only in _potentia_; but shall not actually be so before they be separated from the reprobate, and gathered together among themselves in the day of judgment. The Church of Rome of old was very great, but she went not beyond the bounds of her empire, and therefore neither was she _universal_; unless it were in that sense, wherein it was also said of the city of Rome, _Orbem jam totum victor Romanus habebat_; when as yet he had not the twentieth part of it. But after that the civil empire was divided into parts, the single cities thence arising were so many Churches: and that power which the Church of Rome had over them, might perhaps wholly depend on the authority of those Churches, who having cast off the emperors, were yet content to admit the doctors of Rome.

[Sidenote: Who are clergymen.]

23. They may be called _churchmen_, who exercise a public office in the Church. But of offices, there was one a _ministery_, another a _maistery_. The offices of the _ministers_, was to serve tables, to take care of the temporal goods of the Church, and to distribute, at that time when all propriety of riches being abolished they were fed in common, to each man his portion. The _maisters_, according to their order, were called some _apostles_, some _bishops_, some _presbyters_, that is to say, _elders_; yet not so, as that by the name of _presbyter_, the _age_, but the office might be distinguished. For Timothy was a _presbyter_, although a young man. But because for the most part the _elders_ were received into the _maistership_, the word, denoting age, was used to signify the office. The same _maisters_, according to the diversity of their employments, were called some of them _apostles_, some _prophets_, some _evangelists_, some _pastors_ or _teachers_. And the _apostolical_ work indeed was universal; the _prophetical_, to declare their own revelations in the Church; the _evangelical_, to preach or to be publishers of the gospel among the infidels; that of the _pastors_, to teach, confirm, and rule the minds of those who already believed.

[Sidenote: The election of churchmen belongs to the Church; their
consecration to the pastors.]

24. In the election of churchmen two things are to be considered; the election of the persons, and their _consecration_ or institution, which also is called _ordination_. The first twelve apostles Christ himself both elected and ordained. After Christ’s ascension, Matthias was elected in the room of Judas the traitor; the Church, which at that time consisted of a congregation of about one hundred and twenty men, choosing two men: _and they appointed two_, Joseph and Matthias: but God himself by lot approving of Matthias. And St. Paul calls these twelve _the first and great apostles_; also the apostles _of the circumcision_. Afterward were added two other apostles, Paul and Barnabas; ordained indeed by the doctors and prophets of the Church of Antioch (which was _a particular Church_) by the imposition of hands; but elected by the command of the Holy Ghost. That they were both apostles, is manifest in Acts xiii. 2, 3. That they received their apostleship from hence, namely, because they were separated, by command of the spirit, for the work of God from the rest of the prophets and doctors of the Church of Antioch, St. Paul himself shows; who calls himself, for distinction sake (Rom. i. 1), _an apostle separated unto the Gospel of God_. But if it be demanded further, _by what authority_ it came to pass, that that was received for the command of the Holy Ghost, which those prophets and doctors did say proceeded from him; it must necessarily be answered, _by the authority of the Church of Antioch_. For the prophets and doctors must be examined by the Church, before they be admitted. For St. John (1 Epist. iv. 1) saith: _Believe not every spirit; but try the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world_. But by what Church, but that to which that epistle was written? In like manner St. Paul (Gal. ii. 14) reproves the Churches of Galatia, because they Judaized; although they seemed to do so by the authority of Peter. For when he had told them, that he had reprehended Peter himself in these words: _If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews; why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews_: not long after he questions them, saying (Gal. iii. 2): _This only would I learn of you: received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?_ Where it is evident, that it was Judaism which he reprehended the Galatians for, notwithstanding that the apostle Peter compelled them to Judaize. Seeing therefore it belonged to the Church, and not to Peter, and therefore also not to any man, to determine what doctors they should follow; it also pertained to the authority of the Church of Antioch, to elect their prophets and doctors. Now, because the Holy Ghost separated to himself the apostles Paul and Barnabas by the imposition of hands from doctors thus elected, it is manifest, _that imposition of hands and consecration_ of the prime doctors in each Church, belongs to the doctors of the same Church. But _bishops_, who were also called _presbyters_, although all presbyters were not bishops, were ordained sometimes by _apostles_; for Paul and Barnabas, when they had taught in Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium, ordained _elders_ in every Church (Acts xiv. 23): sometimes by other bishops; for Titus was by Paul left in Crete, that he should ordain _elders_ in every city (Tit. i. 5). And Timothy was advised (1 Tim. iv. 14) _Not to neglect the gift that was in him, which was given him by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery_. And he had rules given him concerning the election of _presbyters_. But that cannot be understood otherwise, than of the ordination of those who were elected by the Church; for no man can constitute a doctor in the Church, but by the Church’s permission. For the duty of the apostles themselves was not to command, but to teach. And although they who were recommended by the apostles or presbyters, were not rejected, for the esteem that was had of the recommenders; yet seeing they could not be elected without the _will_ of the Church, they were also supposed elected by the _authority_ of the Church. In like manner ministers, who are called _deacons_, were _ordained_ by the apostles; yet _elected_ by the Church. For when the seven deacons were to be elected and ordained, the apostles elected them not: but, _look ye out_, say they (Acts vi. 3, 5, 6), _among you, brethren, seven men of honest report, &c.: and they chose Stephen, &c.: and they set them before the apostles_. It is apparent therefore by the custom of the primitive Church under the apostles, that the _ordination_ or _consecration_ of all churchmen, which is done by _prayer_ and _imposition of hands_, belonged to the _apostles_ and _doctors_; but the _election_ of those who were to be consecrated, _to the Church_.

[Sidenote: The power of remitting sins to the penitent, and
retaining those of the impenitent, belongs to the
pastors; but judgment of the repentance, to the Church.]

25. Concerning the power of _binding_ and _loosing_, that is to say, of _remitting_ and _retaining of sins_; there is no doubt but it was given by Christ to the pastors then yet for to come, in the same manner as it was to the present apostles. Now the apostles had all the power _of remitting of sins_ given them, which Christ himself had. _As the Father hath sent me_, says Christ, (John xx. 21), _so send I you_; and he adds (verse 23): _Whose soever_ _sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained_. But what _binding_ and _loosing_, or _remitting_ and _retaining of sins_, is, admits of some scruple. For first, to _retain_ his sins, who being baptized into remission of sins, is truly penitent, seems to be against the very covenant itself of the New Testament; and therefore could not be done by Christ himself, much less by his pastors. And to _remit_ the impenitent, seems to be against the will of God the Father, from whom Christ was sent to convert the world and to reduce men unto obedience. Furthermore, if each pastor had an authority granted him to _remit_ and _retain_ sins in this manner, all awe of princes and civil magistrates, together with all kind of civil government would be utterly destroyed. For Christ hath said it, nay even nature itself dictates, that _we should not fear them who slay the body, but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear him, who can cast both soul and body into hell_ (Matth. x. 28). Neither is any man so mad, as not to choose to yield obedience rather to them who can remit and retain their sins, than to the powerfulest kings. Nor yet on the other side is it to be imagined, that _remission of sins_ is nothing else but an exemption from ecclesiastical punishments. For what evil hath excommunication in it, beside the eternal pains which are consequent to it? Or what benefit is to be received into the Church, if there were salvation out of it? We must therefore hold, _that pastors have power truly and absolutely to forgive sins; but to the penitent: and to retain them; but of the impenitent_. But while men think that to repent, is nothing else, but that every one condemn his actions and change those counsels which to himself seem sinful and blameable; there is an opinion risen, that there may be repentance before any confession of sins to men, and that repentance is not an effect, but a cause of confession. And thence the difficulty of those, who say that the sins of the penitent are already forgiven in baptism, and theirs who repent not, cannot be forgiven at all, is against Scripture, and contrary to the words of Christ, _whose soever sins ye remit_, &c. We must therefore, to resolve this difficulty, know in the first place, that a true acknowledgment of sin is repentance. For he that knows he hath sinned, knows he hath erred; but to will an error, is impossible; therefore he that knows he hath sinned, wishes he had not done it; which is to repent. Further, where it may be doubtful whether that which is done be a sin or not, we must consider, that repentance doth not precede confession of sins, but is subsequent to it: for there is no repentance but of sins acknowledged. The penitent therefore must both acknowledge the fact, and know it to be a sin, that is to say, against the law. If a man therefore think, that what he hath done is not against the law, it is impossible he should repent of it. Before repentance therefore, it is necessary there be an application of the facts unto the law. But it is in vain to apply the facts unto the law without an interpreter: for not the words of the law, but the sentence of the law-giver is the rule of men’s actions. But surely either one man, or some men are the interpreters of the law; for every man is not judge of his own fact, whether it be a sin or not. Wherefore the fact, of which we doubt whether it be a sin or not, must be unfolded before some man or men; and the doing of this is confession. Now when the interpreter of the law hath judged the fact to be a sin, if the sinner submit to his judgment and resolve with himself not to do so any more, it is repentance; and thus, either it is not true repentance, or else it is not antecedent, but subsequent to confession. These things being thus explained, it is not hard to understand what kind of power that of _binding_ and _loosing_ is. For seeing in remission of sins there are two things considerable; one, the _judgment_ or _condemnation_ whereby the fact is judged to be a sin; the other, when the party condemned does acquiesce and obey the sentence, that is to say, repents, _the remission of the sin_; or, if he repent not, _the retention_: the first of these, that is to say, the judging whether it be a sin or not, belongs _to the interpreter of the law_, that is, the _sovereign judge_; the second, namely, remission or retention of the sin, _to the pastor_; and it is that, concerning which the power _of binding_ and _loosing_ is conversant. And that this was the true meaning of our Saviour Christ in the institution of the same power, is apparent in Matth. xviii. 15-18, thus. He there speaking to his disciples, says: _If thy brother sin against thee, go and tell him his fault between him and thee alone_. Where we must observe by the way, that _if thy brother sin against thee_, is the same with, _if he do thee injury_; and therefore Christ spake of those matters which belonged to the civil tribunal. He adds; _if he hear thee not_, (that is to say, if he deny that he hath done it, or if having confessed the fact, he denies it to be unjustly done), _take with thee yet one or two; and if he refuse to hear them, tell it to the Church_. But why to the Church, except that she might judge whether it were a sin or not? But if _he refuse to hear the Church_; that is, if he do not submit to the Church’s sentence, but shall maintain that to be no sin, which she judges to be a sin; that is to say, if he repent not; (for certain it is, that no man repents himself of the action which he conceives not to be a sin); he saith not, _Tell it to the apostles_; that we might know that the definitive sentence in the question, whether it were a sin or not, was not left unto them; but to the Church. _But let him be unto thee_, says he, _as an heathen, or publican_; that is, as one out of the Church, as one that is not baptized, that is to say, as one whose _sins are retained_. For all Christians were baptized into remission of sins. But because it might have been demanded, who it was that had so great a power, as that of withholding the benefit of baptism from the impenitent; Christ shows that the same persons, to whom he had given authority to baptize the penitent into the remission of sins, and to make them of heathen men Christians, had also authority to retain their sins who by the Church should be adjudged to be impenitent, and to make them of Christian men heathens: and therefore presently subjoins: _Verily I say unto you, whose soever sins ye shall bind upon earth, they shall be bound also in heaven; and whose soever sins ye shall loose upon earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven_. Whence we may understand, that the power of binding and loosing, or of remitting and retaining of sins, which is called in another place the power of the keys, is not different from the power given in another place in these words (Matth. xxviii. 19): _Go, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost_. And even as the pastors cannot refuse to baptize him whom the Church judges worthy, so neither can they retain his sins whom the Church holds fitting to be absolved, nor yet remit his sins whom the Church pronounceth disobedient. And it is the Church’s part to judge of the sin, the pastor’s to cast out or to receive into the Church those that are judged. Thus St. Paul to the Church of Corinth (1 Cor. v. 12): _Do not ye judge_, saith he, _of those that are within?_ Yet he himself pronounced the sentence of excommunication against the incestuous person. _I indeed_, saith he (verse 3), _as absent in body, but present in Spirit_, &c.

[Sidenote: What excommunication is, and on whom it cannot pass.]

26. The act of retaining sins is that which is called by the Church _excommunication_, and by St. Paul _delivering over to Satan_. The word _excommunication_ sounding the same with ἀποσυάγωγον poiein], _casting out of the synagogue_, seems to be borrowed from the Mosaical law; wherein they who were by the priest adjudged leprous, were commanded (Levit. xiii. 46) to be kept apart out of the camp, until by the judgment of the priest they were again pronounced clean, and by certain rites, among which the washing of the body was one, were purified. From hence in process of time it become a custom of the Jews, not to receive those who passed from Gentilism to Judaism, supposing them to be unclean, unless they were first _washed_; and those who dissented from the doctrine of the synagogue, they cast out of the synagogue. By resemblance of this custom, those that came to Christianity, whether they were Jews or Gentiles, were not received into the Church without baptism; and those that dissented from the Church, were deprived of the Church’s communion. Now, they were therefore said _to be delivered over to Satan_, because all that was out of the Church, was comprehended within his kingdom. The end of this kind of discipline was, that being destitute for a time of the grace and spiritual privileges of the Church, they might be humbled to salvation; but the effect in regard of secular matters, that _being excommunicated_, they should not only be prohibited all congregations or churches, and the participation of the mysteries, but as being contagious they should be avoided by all other Christians, even more than heathen. For the apostle allowed to accompany with heathen; but with these, _not so much as to eat_ (1 Cor. v. 10-11). Seeing then the effect of _excommunication_ is such, it is manifest, in the first place, that _a Christian city cannot be excommunicated_. For a Christian city is a Christian Church, (as hath been declared above, in art. 21), and of the same extension; but a Church cannot be excommunicated. For either she must excommunicate herself, which is impossible; or she must be excommunicated by some other Church; and this, either _universal_ or _particular_. But seeing _an universal Church_ is no _person_, (as hath been proved in art. 22), and therefore neither acts nor does any thing, it cannot _excommunicate_ any man; and a particular Church by excommunicating another Church, doth nothing. For where there is not one common congregation, there cannot be any excommunication. Neither if some one Church (suppose that of Jerusalem), should have excommunicated another, (suppose that of Rome), would it any more have excommunicated this, than herself: for he that deprives another of his communion, deprives himself also of the communion of that other. Secondly, _no man can excommunicate the subjects of any absolute government all at once, or forbid them the use of their temples or their public worship of God_. For they cannot be excommunicated by a Church, which themselves do constitute. For if they could, there would not only not remain a Church, but not so much as a _commonweal_, and they would be dissolved of themselves; and this were not _to be excommunicated_ or _prohibited_. But if they be excommunicated by some other Church, that Church is to esteem them as heathen. But no _Christian Church_, by the doctrine of Christ, can forbid the heathen to gather together and communicate among themselves, as it shall seem good to their cities; especially if they meet to worship Christ, although it be done in a singular custom and manner: therefore also not the _excommunicated_, who are to be dealt with as heathen. Thirdly, _a prince who hath the sovereign power, cannot be excommunicated_. For by the doctrine of Christ, neither one nor many subjects together can interdict their prince any public or private places, or deny him entrance into any assembly whatsoever, or prohibit him the doing of what he will with his own jurisdiction. For it is treason among all cities, for any one or many subjects jointly to arrogate to themselves any authority over the whole city. But they who arrogate to themselves an authority over him who hath the supreme power of the city, do arrogate the same authority over the city itself. Besides, a sovereign prince, if he be a Christian, hath this further advantage; that the city whose will is contained in his, is that very thing which we call a Church. The _Church_ therefore excommunicates no man, but whom it excommunicates by the authority of the prince. But the prince excommunicates not himself; his subjects therefore cannot do it. It may be indeed, that an assembly of rebellious citizens or traitors may pronounce the sentence of excommunication against their prince; but not _by right_. Much less can one prince be excommunicated by another; for this would prove not an excommunication, but a provocation to war by the way of affront. For since that is not one Church, which is made up of citizens belonging to two absolute cities, for want of power of lawfully assembling them, (as hath been declared before, in art. 22); they who are of one Church are not bound to obey another, and therefore cannot be excommunicated for their disobedience. Now, what some may say, that princes, seeing they are members of the universal Church, may also by the authority of the universal Church be excommunicated, signifies nothing: because _the universal Church_, (as hath been showed in art. 22), is not _one person_, of whom it may be said that _she acted, decreed, determined, excommunicated, absolved_, and the like personal attributes; neither hath she any governor upon earth, at whose command she may assemble and deliberate. For to be guide of the universal Church, and to have the power of assembling her, is the same thing as to be governor and lord over all the Christians in the world; which is granted to none, but God only.

[Sidenote: The interpretation of Scripture depends on the authority
of the city.]

27. It hath been showed above in art. 18, that the authority of _interpreting the Holy Scriptures_ consisted not in this, that the interpreter might without punishment expound and explicate his sentence and opinion taken thence unto others, either by writing or by his own voice; but that others have not a right to do or teach aught contrary to his sentence; insomuch as _the interpretation_ we speak of, is the same with _the power of defining_ in all manner of controversies to be determined by sacred Scriptures. Now we must show that that power belongs to each Church; and depends on his or their authority who have the supreme command, provided that they be Christians. For if it depend not on the civil authority, it must either depend on the opinion of each private subject, or some foreign authority. But among other reasons, the inconveniences that must follow private opinions, cannot suffer its dependance on them. Of which this is the chief; that not only all civil obedience would be taken away (contrary to Christ’s precept); but all human society and peace would be dissolved (contrary to the laws of nature). For seeing every man is his own interpreter of Scripture, that is to say, since every man makes himself judge of what is pleasing and displeasing unto God; they cannot obey their princes, before that they have judged whether their commands be conformable to the word of God, or not. And thus either they obey not, or they obey for their own opinion’s sake; that is to say, they obey themselves, not their sovereign; civil obedience therefore is lost. Again, when every man follows his own opinion, it is necessary that the controversies which rise among them, should become innumerable and indeterminable; whence there will breed among men, who by their own natural inclinations do account all dissensions an affront, first hatred, then brawls and wars; and thus all manner of peace and society would vanish. We have furthermore for an example, that which God under the old law required to be observed concerning the book of the law; namely, that it should be transcribed and publicly used; and he would have it to be the canon of divine doctrine, but the controversies about it not to be determined by private persons, but only by the priests. Lastly, it is our Saviour’s precept, that if there be any matter of offence between private persons, they should _hear the Church_. Wherefore it is the Church’s duty to define controversies; it therefore belongs not to private men, but to the Church to interpret Scriptures. But that we may know that the authority of _interpreting God’s Word_, that is to say, of determining all questions concerning God and religion, belongs not to any foreign person whatsoever; we must consider, first, what weight such a power has in the minds of the citizens, and their actions. For no man can be ignorant that the voluntary actions of men, by a natural necessity, do follow those opinions which they have concerning good and evil, reward and punishment. Whence it happens, that necessarily they would choose rather to obey those, by whose judgment they believe that they shall be eternally happy or miserable. Now, by whose judgment it is appointed what doctrines are necessary to salvation, by their judgment do men expect their eternal bliss or perdition; they will therefore yield them obedience in all things. Which being thus, most manifest it is, that those subjects, who believe themselves bound to acquiesce to a foreign authority in those doctrines which are necessary to salvation, do not _per se_ constitute a city, but are the subjects of that foreign power. Nor therefore, although some sovereign prince should by writing grant such an authority to any other, yet so as he would be understood to have retained the civil power in his own hands, shall such a writing be valid, or transfer aught necessary for the retaining or good administration of his command. For by chap. II. art. 4, no man is said _to transfer his right, unless he give some proper sign, declaring his will to transfer it_. But he who hath openly declared his will to keep his sovereignty, cannot have given a sufficient sign of transferring the means necessary for the keeping it. This kind of writing therefore will not be a sign of will, but of ignorance in the contractors. We must consider next, how absurd it is for a city or sovereign to commit the ruling of his subjects’ consciences to an enemy; for they are, as hath been showed above in chap. V. art. 6, in an hostile state, whosoever have not joined themselves into the unity of one person. Nor contradicts it this truth, that they do not always fight: for truces are made between enemies. It is sufficient for an hostile mind, that there is suspicion; that the frontiers of cities, kingdoms, empires, strengthened with garrisons, do with a fighting posture and countenance, though they strike not, yet as enemies mutually behold each other. Lastly, how unequal is it to demand that, which by the very reason of your demand you confess to be the right of another. I am the interpreter of Scriptures to you, who are the subject of another state. Why? By what covenants passed between you and me? By divine authority. Whence known? Out of holy Scripture: behold the book, read it. In vain, unless I may also interpret the same for myself. That interpretation therefore doth by right belong to me, and the rest of my private fellow-subjects; which we both deny. It remains therefore that in all _Christian Churches_, that is to say, in all _Christian cities_, the _interpretation_ of sacred Scripture, that is to say, the right of determining all controversies, depends on and derives from the authority of that man or council, which hath the sovereign power of the city.

[Sidenote: A Christian city must interpret Scriptures by clergymen.]

28. Now because there are two kinds of controversies: the one about spiritual matters, that is to say, questions of faith, the truth whereof cannot be searched into by natural reason; such are the questions concerning _the nature and office of Christ_, _of rewards and punishments to come_, _of the sacraments_, _of outward worship_, and the like: the other, about questions of human science, whose truth is sought out by natural reason and syllogisms, drawn from the covenants of men, and definitions, that is to say, significations received by use and common consent of words; such as are all questions of right and philosophy; for example, when in matter of right it is questioned, whether there be _a promise_ and _covenant_, or not, that is nothing else but to demand whether such words, spoken in such a manner, be by common use and consent of the subjects _a promise_ or _covenant_; which if they be so called, then it is true that a contract is made; if not, then it is false: that truth therefore depends on the compacts and consents of men. In like manner, when it is demanded in philosophy, whether the same thing may entirely be in divers places at once; the determination of the question depends on the knowledge of the common consent of men, about the signification of the word _entire_. For if men, when they say a thing is entirely somewhere, do signify by common consent that they understand nothing of the same to be elsewhere; it is false that the same thing is in divers places at once. That truth therefore depends on the consents of men, and by the same reason, in all other questions concerning _right_ and _philosophy_. And they who do judge that anything can be determined, contrary to this common consent of men concerning the appellations of things, out of obscure places of Scripture; do also judge that the use of speech, and at once all human society, is to be taken away. For he who hath sold a whole field, will say he meant one whole ridge; and will retain the rest as unsold. Nay, they take away reason itself; which is nothing else but a searching out of the truth made by such consent. This kind of questions, therefore, need not be determined by the city by way of interpretation of Scriptures; for they belong not to God’s _Word_, in that sense wherein _the Word of God_ is taken for the _Word concerning God_; that is to say, for the _doctrine of the gospel_. Neither is he who hath the sovereign power in the Church, obliged to employ any _ecclesiastical doctors_ for the judging of any such kind of matters as these. But for the deciding of questions of faith, that is to say, _concerning God_, which transcend human capacity, we stand in need of a divine blessing, (that we may not be deceived at least in necessary points), to be derived from Christ himself by the imposition of hands. For, seeing to the end we may attain to eternal salvation we are obliged to a supernatural doctrine, and which therefore it is impossible for us to understand; to be left so destitute as that we can be deceived in necessary points, is repugnant to equity. This infallibility our Saviour Christ promised (in those things which are necessary to salvation) to his apostles until the day of judgment; that is to say, to the apostles, and pastors succeeding the apostles, who were to be consecrated _by the imposition of hands_. He therefore, who hath the sovereign power in the city, is obliged as a Christian, where there is any question concerning _the mysteries of faith_, to interpret the Holy Scriptures by _clergymen_ lawfully ordained. And thus in Christian cities, the judgment both of _spiritual_ and _temporal matters_ belongs unto the civil authority. And that man or council who hath the supreme power, is head both of _the city_ and _of the Church_; for a _Church_ and _a Christian city_ is but one thing.

-------