A LEARNED AND NOTABLE SERMON VPON THE TEXT VOS AVTEM NON SIC. But you not so. Lately preached vpon speciall occasion, by M. Butler of Owndell, in S. Maries Church in the Vniuersity of Cambridge: and succinctly debating the chiefe matters, which are now in question in the Church of England. Verie profitable for the further resoluing of them, who being brought into suspence by the contradiction of Ministers, are content to lend an indifferent eare vnto the truth.
AT LONDON. Printed by Iohn VVolfe. 1593.
The Printer to the Reader.
THe necessitie of these our times requiring the helpe of all hands, to the quenching of that fire, vvhich hath of late bene kindled in our English church, by certaine factious and sedicious firebrandes: I could not (gentle Reader) but impart vnto thee, the frutefull labors of the Author hereof, a diligent labourer and assistant in that businesse, and that not vvithout some scorching of those flames vvhich he sought to extinguish. And though that dangerous fire (God be praised) be novv so vvell allayed, through the prouident circumspection of some vvorthie personages, and no lesse vvorthy labors of diuerse learned men, vvho lately haue layed their hands vnto this vvorke, that all danger of further proceeding is cleane taken avvay: yet this helpe also, shall come (I hope) not out of season, if but to the quenching of that smoke vvherevvith that smothered fire still offendeth the eyes of the better sort. The copie of this Sermon comming to my handes, not by the Author selfe vvho first made it, and then vvrit it: but by an auditor that heard it vvhen it vvas preached, I thought good to permit it to the censure of a priuate friend, before I vvould commit it to the presse. VVho vpon the first sight of it, euen before he had perused it, (hauing also bene a hearer) gaue this good testimonie of it, that it neede not feare the censure of any priuate man, vvhich had passed alreadie the censure of a vvhole Vniuersitie, and [Page] that vvith the general approbation of the common suffrage: excepting onely a fevv odde and singular fellovves, vvho being forestalled vvith a left hand persvvasion of the cause it selfe, cannot brooke the impeachment of their strong delusion: and therefore vse of custome to runne against the common streame of all other men. This then, vvas his first opinion of it. But hauing perused it, he further added, that of manie bookes vvhich of late haue bene published in this argument, not manie haue contriued in so short a a compasse, so manie great matters of question and controuersie: it contayning the grounds of all the chiefe questions, vvhich at this day do exercise the Church of England. All vvhich he hath not only vvith singular dexteritie and art, and yet very naturally, raised out of his short Text, but also layed open and dilated so fully as the quicknesse of so learned an auditory required, and a great deale more fully, than in that shortnesse of time could be expected. This iudgement being deliuered to me of this Sermon, I could not vvith equitie but send it vnto thee, vvith the same commendation, vvith vvhich it came commended vnto me, both by the first and second cogitations of a learned man, I being content to haue vsed another mans better eyes, vvhere the vveakenesse of mine ovvne, vvould not suffer my selfe so vvell to iudge.
A LEARNED SERMON PREACHED NOT LONG SINCE IN S. MARIES CHVRCH IN THE Vniuersitie of Cambridge: succinctly debating the chiefe of those matters, which are now in question in the Church of England.
THese wordes of our Sauiour Christ, deuide them selues into two parts. viz.
A dehortation: in these words: But you not so: in which our Sauiour dehorteth his Disciples, from ambition and tyrannie.
An exhortation: in the other wordes: but let him that is, or shall be greater amongst you, be as the yonger: and the ruler, as he that ministreth. That is, that in their superioritie and authoritie, they should be humble: and behaue themselues as Ministers, ministring good to all.
Of the later of these two parts, containing very good, and fit matter for this place (because of the time) I shall not be able to intreate. I will therefore keepe my selfe within the compasse of the first, namely the dehortation: But you not so.
Which words do seeme to be somewhat imperfect, and therfore lest I should be thought to ad anie thing of mine owne, I will borrow the words of the Euangelist Saint Mathevv chap. 20. 26. & Saint Marke chap. 10. 43. who writ one and the selfe same thing: so to make the sence it shalbe [...]. In these words there are three, which containe some difficultie in them.
- [...]: it shall not be.
- [...]: so.
- [...] or [...]: you or vvith you.
So that, for the vnderstanding of the meaning of our Sauiour Christ, we must search out, what is meant by, It shall not be; what by, so: what by, you.
It shall not be. This kinde of phrase of speech, in our English tongue, is vsed two maner of wayes, either forbidding a thing to be done, or foretelling a thing not to be done: As when a maister saith to his seruant, This shall not be done to day, or, It shall not be done to day. In this speech, he doth forbid a thing to be done. But when an Astronomer shall say, of the weather, It shall not be hot, drie, cold, or rainie, on such a day, or such a moneth, In this kinde of speech he doth not forbid, but foreshewe a thing that shal not be. In these two sences, are these words [...]: it shall not be, vsed in the Scriptures: namely either forbidding a thing to be done, in which sence, Imperatiuely: or foretelling a thing not to be done, in which Prophetically. Prophetically, these words [...] are vsed Apoc. 10. 6. where the Angell sweareth: [...]: that it shall not be time any more: prophecying, and foretelling a thing that shall not be. So likewise it is taken Apoc. 22. 5. [...]. and it shall not be night there, prophecying of the estate of the kingdome of heauen. [Page 3] This I take it, is the reason, why some haue thought Christ to speake prophetically in this place.
If it be taken prophetically, then it must needes be either a prophecie of the estate of his Disciples, in this life, or in the life to come. If in this life, then the sence is this: The Kings of the Gentiles do rule, and those that are in authoritie, are called good doers: But you not so. That is, I do foreshew vnto you, that you shal not be so. As if he should say: they, in their authoritie, are called good doers: but you, exercising authoritie, shalbe called bad doers: they ruling euilly, are called good men: you ruling well, shall be called euill men. In which sence, our Sauiour Christ is made to speake in this place, all one with that, which in another place, elsewhere he saith: The Disciple is not greater than his Maister: If they haue called me Beelzebub, they shall also call you. Me, that came to minister good to them, and to giue my life for them: euen so you, that in your authority, shall procure the welfare of all, and spend your liues to do good to all. This sence is true, for by lamentable experience, we find it to be so, when as amōgst vs, some, for their superioritie are called Antichristes: some for their authoritie, Tyrants: for dealing iustly, without partialitie, cruell men: for restraining the libertie of certaine persons, Persecutors. This sence though good, yet doth it not fit this place, my reason is this. Because our Sauiour Christ presently after saith [...], let him be, speaking Imperatiuely.
If we take it to be a prophecie of the life to come, then the sence is, The Kings of the Gentiles do rule ouer them: But you not so. That is, in my kingdome (which you falsly imagine to be vpon earth) I do foreshew vnto you, that it shal not be so. In which sence, our sauiour Christ is made [Page 4] to rebuke two things in his Disciples. First, that they ambitiously sought to be each of them ouer other. Secondly, that they preferred earth before heauen, and the hauing of a kingdome vpon earth, before the kingdome of heauen.
This sence is the better thought of: First, because in this place our Sauiour Christ doth rebuke the ambitious strife for rule that was in his Disciples.
Secondly, because it was the manner of our Sauiour Christ, to drawe them from the cogitation of earthly things, as Luke 12. 32. from too much caring for foode, and apparell, to the earnest desire of the kingdom of heauen, in these words, Feare not litle flocke, it is your fathers vvill to giue you a kingdome.
Thirdly, because immediatly after, verse 29. our Sauiour Christ speaketh of his kingdome. And I appoint vnto you, as my Father hath appointed vnto me, a kingdome: that you may eate and drinke, at my table in my kingdome, iudging the tvvelue Tribes of Israell.
This sence is good, for by lamentable experience, we find it to be true, when as some so vnsatiably hunt after honor, that if they may but sit in the seat of honor, though they die so soone as they be set, they care not. These, do so much account of earth, that they care not for heauen: as appeareth by so great cost, bestowed vpon great sumptuous houses and stately pallaces, and litle or no prouision sent vp to heauen: by which they shew plainly, that they neuer mind to dwell there, and onely to dwell on earth: whereas, alas poore soules, they are but tenaunts at will, without any state of inheritaunce, or tearme of yeares, and cast out to day or to morrow, at the will of the Lord. This sence therefore, though good, and fitting [Page 5] other places of the Scripture, yet doth it not fit this place. my reasons are these.
First our Sauiour Christ, Matt. 20. 28. propoundeth his maner of liuing here being conuersant vpon earth, as a patterne vnto his Disciples: which can not be vnderstood of the life to come, but of this life, saying vnto thē, As the Sonne of man came not to be ministred vnto, but to minister, and to giue his life for manie: insinuating, that they in like maner, in their superioritie, and authoritie ouer others, here vpon earth, should not propound this to them selues, to be ministred vnto: that is, to haue others at their commaund, as slaues to do their will, but to minister, that is, to employ them selues to the good of others, and for the procuring thereof, to spend their liues.
Secondly, because the Euangelists, Saint Mathew and Saint Marke haue these wordes, He that vvill be greater: which words import two things: first a change of estate, from lower to higher, and from lesser to greater. Secondly, a desire to be in other estate: which two things cannot fit the kingdome of heauen, for there all things are eternall, and therefore not subiect to change. And our estate there, shall be an happie estate, and we shall desire no other estate.
Thirdly, because the Euangelists compared together, do declare, that by [...], our Sauiour meaneth, [...], let it not be. For whereas the Euangelist Saint Marke, Chap. 10. 43. hath [...]: verse 44. [...]. Saint Matthewe 20. 26. hath, [...]: verse 27. [...]. It is therefore in this place spoken Imperatiuely, forbidding a thing to be done, that is [...] and [...].
[...], that is, to tyrannize, which is, either ouer [Page 6] the goods, bodies, or soules of men. Ouer the goods of men, by taking away by force violently, or by deceipt guilefully, the leases, lands, goods, or possessions of men. Ouer the bodies of men: by hurting thē, by false imprisoning them, by murthering them, by countenancing murtherers, or acquitting murtherers. Ouer the soules of men: by causing them to sweare, and forsweare them selues.
[...]: that is, to vse will as a lawe, which is, when the wil of some great man, shall be a sufficient warrant to stay, or peruert iustice, or when any in authoritie shall be led by his owne will, of affection, or malice, to peruert iustice. On the contrarie side, he doth command, or at the least commend, to rule iustly: for no forbidding precept, but doth either cōmand, or commend the contrarie, that is, doth either like, or not dislike the contrarie. And thus much for the words [...], in which our Sauiour Christ doth not forbid authoritie to his Disciples.
[...], so. This word is taken diuersly of sundrie men. I do not purpose to name the persons, but reciting all opinions, which with anie shew of reason haue, or can be gathered, I purpose to set downe so neare as I can, the purpose and intent of our Sauiour Christ.
Some attribute [...] to the word [...]: making the sence thus, They that are in authoritie, are called [...]: which word is of some translated gratious Lords: But you not so: that is, you shall not be called Lords.
Others attribute [...] to the verbe [...], making the sence thus, The kings of the Gentiles do rule: But you not so: that is, you shall not rule.
Others, though they attribute it to the same verbe, yet make the sence thus. The kings of the Gentiles do rule: But you not so: that is, you shall not rule.
So either titles of honour, as Lord, ruler, or [...], or ruling, or so ruling, is forbidden.
Titles of honor, whether Lord, ruler, or [...], are not forbidden.
The word [...] hath not one sillable in it, that signifieth Lord. It is neuerthelesse so translated, because of the imperfection of our English tongue: for hauing no one word that signifieth a title of honour, and of doing good (which this word [...] in this place doth signifie) The word, benefactors, doth best expresse the signification of the word, [...]. the godly interpreters (knowing voces to be rerum imagines) haue by this periphrasis gracious lords, sought to set downe the meaning of our Sauiour Christ, vsing Lord for a title of honor, and gracious for a title of doing good.
This title [...] I reade to haue bene giuen to great personages, as to Ptolomeus the third of that name, after Alexander, and the immediat successor of Ptolomeus Philadelphus, and to Ptolomeus, the seuenth after Alexander, and successor of Ptolomeus Philometor, and as some write to Cleomenes king of Sparta.
In this sence, being vsually giuen to great men, our Sauiour Christ in this title doth not simply forbid the name of [...], but the ambitious affecting of that title, and so of honor, according as Matth. 23. 8. and 9. he forbiddeth thē to be called Rabbi, or father: where not the name simply, but the ambicious affecting of that title is forbidden.
Againe, [...] is a title of doing good, and all one with [...], and [...]: which titles are indifferently giuen to all Christians, magistrates, people, and Ministers, in the Scriptures. And that it may euidently appeare, that this title is not forbidden, the Apostle Peter doth apply it to our sauiour Christ. Actes. 10. 38. [...], vvhich vvent about doing good. And in [Page 8] this sence our Sauiour Christ doth not forbid, simply, the name and title of [...]: but the hauing or giuing of vaine titles, according as the Gentile rulers, which were called [...], being [...]: good-doers, being in deede bad-doers.
In like maner, the title of Lord is not forbidden in this place, nor in any other place of Scripture, to the Ministers. Our Sauiour Christ, in regard of his superioritie ouer his Disciples, was called Lord, Iohn 13. 13. You call me Lord, and Maister, [...]: yea the Apostles haue this name giuen them, Actes 16. 30. [...]. My Lords, vvhat shall I do that I may be saued? In which place neither Paul nor Silas do reprehend that title giuen them, which if it had bene vnlawfull, they would.
Likewise, the title of ruler, is in the Scripture giuen to Ministers, Hebr. 13. 7. [...]. Remember those rulers vvhich haue preached vnto you the vvord of God. And in the seuenteenth verse of the same chapter, [...]. Obey those rulers.
As titles of honour are not forbidden to Ministers: so not to other rulers. The old Testament is full of high titles giuen vnto them: and so are there some in the New. The Euangelist Saint Luke, in his Gospell, Chapter 1. 3. writing to Theophilus, giueth him this title: [...]: most excellent, or renovvned Theophilus: which title also Paule giueth to Festus, Actes 26. 25. [...], most noble Festus. To be short, if anie title of honor, were simply euil, it were the name and title of God giuen vnto men, but that title in the old Testament in diuerse places, is giuen to rulers, and the same is confirmed to them by our Sauiour Christ, Iohn. 10. 34. Titles of honour are [Page 9] therefore neither forbidden to Ciuill, nor Ecclesiasticall rulers.
Nowe remaineth the second sence: The kings of the Gentiles, do rule: But you not so: that is, you shall not rule. This sence can not agree with this place, for it is against all sence, that where the titles of rulers are giuen, there ruling should be denied. And most certaine it is, that Christ in this place, forbiddeth vaine titles, and indeede there is nothing more vaine, than bare titles, without the thing itselfe.
Againe, our Sauiour Christ, in the words immediatly following, doth graunt vnto them to beare rule, saying, [...], whereas, if his purpose had bene to forbid rule vnto them, he would haue sayd, [...], rule therefore in this place is not forbidden.
Now remaineth the third sence, and that is this: The kings of the Gentiles do rule: But you not so: that is, you shall not so rule. And this is the true, and natural meaning of our Sauiour Christ: but this so ruling, that is, the maner of ruling, is diuersly taken of diuerse men, and the word [...], attributed to diuerse wordes, in the verse going before.
Some attribute [...] to the word [...], making the sence thus: The kings of the Gentiles, do rule: But you not so: that is, you shall not rule as kings, and so vnderstand by kings, supreme rulers, making our Sauiour Christ in this place to forbid supreme gouernment.
Others attribute [...] to the verbe [...]: & do make the sence thus, The kings of the Gentiles, do rule: But you, not so: that is, you shall not rule, vnderstanding by rule, ciuill authoritie, and so make our Sauiour Christ in this [Page 10] place, to forbid Ciuill gouernment to his Disciples.
Others attribute [...] to the same verbe, but by it, vnderstanding tyrannous gouernment, & so make the sence to be this. The kings of the Gentiles do [...], that is, rule tyrannously, or oppresse them: But you not so: that is, you my Disciples shall not tyrannize.
- So that in this place, our Sauiour Christ doth forbid either
- Supreme,
- Ciuill,
- or Tyrannous gouernment.
Supreme gouernment is not forbidden: my reasons are these. First, because the word [...], in this place doth not signifie onely the supreme gouernour, for he speaketh in the plurall number, and of many, there being at this time but one supreme gouernour, namely, Tiberius. And therfore by [...] are vnderstood the inferior rul [...]rs, according as in Scripture the word [...] is giuen to the inferiour ruler: as Marke 6. 14. [...]: Herod the king, whereas Herod was but an inferiour ruler, vnder Augustus and Tiberius, and so Matthew 2. 22. [...], that Archelaus vvas king: whereas Archelaus was likewise an inferiour ruler. And this is likewise made plaine by the verbe [...], do rule: spoken in the plurall number, of moe than one, and in the present tense, whereas onely Tiberius did at this time exercise supreme gouernment.
A second reason is this, To exercise supreme authoritie, is not simplie euill, as appeareth in that Paule doth appeale to Caesar, as supreme gouernour. Actes. 25. 11. [...]. I appeale to Caesar. As likewise, by the godly and Christian gouernment, of Constantine, Theodosius, and others: allowed of, by so many, so learned, and [Page 11] godly fathers. Therefore supreme gouernement is not in this place forbidden.
Ciuill gouernment, is likewise not forbidden: my reasons are. First, if it had bene the purpose of our Sauiour Christ, to forbid Ciuill gouernment: in all men: he wold haue sayd, The kings of Israell haue ruled: But you not so. Or if his purpose had bene to forbid it in the Ministerie, he would haue sayd: The Priests of Israell do rule: But you not so.
Secondly, our Sauiour Christ in this place, and in this verse, doth graunt to his Disciples, that they may beare rule, when as he saith: [...].
Thirdly, our Sauiour Christ in this place, speaketh to the whole Church, in which it is lawfull for some to exercise Ciuill authoritie.
Fourthly, both in the olde and new Testament the Priestes did exercise Ciuill authoritie. And the Apostles do by their owne examples and writings, testifie the lawfulnesse Gen. 8 20. Gen. 13. 18. & 14. 14. Gen. 26. 16. 25 Gen. 34. 5. & 35. 1. 2. Iob. 1. 3. 4. herof. In the old Testament we reade that Noah, Melchisedech, Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, and Iob, did sacrifice as Priests, and exercise authoritie as Rulers. But it may be, some will obiect against these, that they were extraordinarie, and before the Law.
What shall we then say to Moses, to whom manie Exod. 19. 22. & 24 4. 5. 6. 7. & 8. Sic Bertramus in Politia Iud. cap. 4. ad finem. 1. Sam. 1. 9. & 3. 1 3. 1. Sa. 7. 9. 15. 17 1. Sam. 8. 1. learned men haue attributed both? But to come nearer, in the first booke of Samuell, we find Ely to be Iudge & Priest: Samuell after him, Iudge and Priest: Ioell and Abia the sonnes of Samuell, Iudges and Priests. All these succeeding one another. Succession must of necessity take away extraordinarie. Yea, and of this gouernment God doth say, that it was his owne ordinance. 1. Samuel. 8. 7. They haue not cast avvay thee, but me, that I should not [Page 12] raigne ouer them. The like may be said of Esdras, Nehemias, 1. Ezr. 7. 14. 25 26. & Nehem. 12 1. Nehem. 5 14 15. & 10. 1. &c. 1. Mac. 2 1. 21 and Mattathias, commaunded, for to doe after the law of their God, & zealous of the same law, who without all question, would not haue exercised both, had not both bene lawfull to them, by the law of their God.
Againe, what shall we say, to those many examples, which diuerse learned writers haue noted in Priestes. Some being deuiders of land: chiefe of Princes counsels: Iosua 14. 1. 1. Kings 4. 2. Captaines of armies: but especially to that 1. Chron. 26. 30. 31. of Hasabias and Ieria, which by Dauid are appointed Sic Bertramus de Politia Iud. cap. 10. exponit. in ministerio Dei, & regis: both in Ecclesiasticall, and Ciuill causes.
But it may be some will obiect, that this was lawfull in the old Law, but not in the new. To which I answer, that if it were lawfull in the old, much more is it lawfull in the new. For if the Priestes, when the feastes were so manie, and their sacrifices (as I may terme them) infinite, might intend to exercise Ciuill authoritie, vnder Princes: much rather may the ministers of the new Testamēt, when as their feasts and sacrifices do cease, and the Gospell is farre more plainly, and plentifully preached.
It may be some will farther obiect: What example haue you in the new Testament, of any Apostle, exercising Ciuill authoritie vnder Princes? To this I answer, that though there were no exāple in the new Testamēt, yet doth not that proue, that it is vnlawfull: for then may we reason thus, There is no example in the new Testament of anie Christian exercising the office of a king: therefore the office of a king is not lawfull: I thinke if anie should so reason, he would be accounted a mad man. This therefore I say, that as we do reason from the olde Law, for the establishing of the authoritie of the king, [Page 13] because it was God his owne ordinance, and that ouer his owne people Israell, so from the same do we reason, that it is lawfull for Ministers to exercise Ciuill authoritie: because the Priestes by God his appointment, did exercise Ciuill authoritie vnder Princes.
But it may be some will still obiect, Yea but what is the cause then? if it be so lawfull? that none, or verie fewe examples are found in the newe Testament, of Apostles, or other Ministers, exercising Ciuill authoritie? To this I answer, that I take it, there were two especiall reasons.
First, because immediate delegation of authoritie, was an argument of exceeding fauour, as appeareth in Herod, his sonnes, and the Agrippaes. The authoritie, was now especially in the hands of heathen Princes, wicked men, and cruell tyrants, such as hated Christ, the professors of Christ, and much more the preachers of Christ, such as the Apostles were. Now to exercise authoritie, without delegation, they would not, because of Christ his words, Luke 12. 14. VVho hath made me a ruler? shewing, that because he had not Ciuil authoritie delegated, he would not then exercise it.
A second reason, which I also adde to this, is. Because that the Apostles were sent to preach throughout all the world, and therefore, hauing no certaine place, and countrey, in which alwayes to abide: how could they exercise authoritie by delegation from Princes: seeing they had no continuall abode in anie place.
But lest any should thinke it vnlawfull for Ministers to exercise Ciuill authoritie, the Apostles, by their owne examples, (hauing this authoritie delegated with the consent of the Church) haue left vs sufficient light, to see the lawfulnesse thereof.
First of all therefore, we reade Act. 4. 35. that the money was layed at the Apostles feet. If any denie that to be Ciuill, yet what is it to take account, both what they sold, and for how much, which thing the Apostles did. But if any shall still say, that this was not Ciuill, yet to deuide those goods must neede be Ciuill, as appeareth by Christ his words, Luke 12. VVho hath made me a ruler, or a deuider? That the Apostles did deuide this mony, it appeareth in that it is said, It vvas laid at the Apostles feet, & deuided: why was it laid at their feete, but to be deuided? Againe, certaine it is, that they did deuide: for afterward, Actes 6. they chose Deacons, to take from them the office of deuiding, because the Church was now great, and they were to disperse them selues, to preach to all the world.
Secondly we reade Act. 5. that Peter sitteth, Iudicially vpon Saphira: for there Saphira appeareth before him, & Act. 5. 7. he reasoneth with her, about the sale of her goods, saying, Haue ye sold it for thus much? He doth also proceede Act. 58. to sentence of death, verse 9. The feete of those that buried thy husband, are at the doore, and shall carrie avvay thee. Act. 5. 9. If any shall obiect, that this was extraordinarie, I answer, that it was, in regard of the maner of her death, but not, the sitting in iudgement vpon her, to examine her.
Againe, we reade, 1. Timoth. 3. 4. that a Bishop may be ruler of a house: in these wordes: ruling his ovvne house vvell: the which, may at the first, seeme a small thing, to proue Ciuill authoritie to be lawfull in the Ministerie, but being better cōsidered of, it importeth much. For, Ciuill authoritie is either Politicall, or Oeconomicall: and Oeconomicall is, of the Father, Maister, and Lord. If therefore a Bishop as a Father, Maister, or Lord, exercise Ciuill authoritie, it cannot be, but that Ciuill authoritie is [Page 15] lawful. This againe is illustrated, in that the gouernment of a father, is the patterne of the gouernment of a king, & therefore a king is called in the fift Commandement, a father, Honour father.
The same Apostle, in the same Epistle, 1. Tim. 5. 19. vseth this exhortation to Timothie, the Bishop of Ephesus, Against an Elder, receiue no accusation, vnder tvvo or three vvitnesses. He graunteth to Timothie, to receiue accusations, or billes of complaint, and that he may proceed Iudicially, by two or three witnesses, which is, by citing them, by examining them, & by deposing thē. If any shall obiect, and say, that this is Ecclesiasticall, because of the Elder, a minister, I answer, that seeing Accusation is put indefinitly, as in the Greeke: or else, as we reade it in English, no accusation, generally, it must of necessitie be Ciuil; for accusatiōs alwayes, against Ministers, are not Ecclesiastical, as appeareth, when as Ministers accused for fellonie, treason, or murther, are conuented before the Ciuil magistrat, without any claime of his clergy.
Againe, if it were Ecclesiasticall, in regard of the Elder, why should it not be Ciuill in regard of the accusers, the accusers being lay men? for it is not sayd, amongst Elders, that is, of one Elder against another: but against an Elder: that is, of lay men against Elders.
Againe, if we read the words with an Emphasis, as, Against an Elder receiue no accusatiō vnder two or three witnesses, thē they infer, that against those that are no Elders, that is, lay men, he may proceed without three witnesses.
Likewise the same Apostle proceedeth, ver. 20. those that sinne, rebuke before all, that other may feare. verse 21. I charge thee before God, and our Lord Iesus Christ, and his elect Angels, that thou obserue these things, [...]: [Page 16] vvithout preiudice: [...] doth infer [...], a iudgement seate, and a sentence of iudgement, [...] inferreth [...], a iudge: [...] inferreth [...], to iudge: [...], he must: not [...], that is, iudge before hand, which is, before he hath cited the witnesses, examined the witnesses, deposed the witnesses, and had the number of two or three witnesses. And therefore to expresse the meaning, he addeth: [...]: which is, as Beza 1. Tim. 5. 21. translateth it, nihil faciens, in alteram partem declinando. The like phrase of speech being attributed Deut. 17. 20. to the Ciuill Magistrate. Therefore in this place Ciuill authority is not forbidden. There remaineth, tyrannous authoritie, which is in this place forbidden: my reasons are these. 1 First, Either Supreme, Ciuill, or Tyrannous gouernment is forbidden. But neither Supreme, nor Ciuill. Ergo Tyrannous. The force of this reason is manifested, in that which went before.
2 Secondly, not gouernment, but the maner of gouernment is here forbidden, and that maner, was tyrannous; this I proue by these reasons. First, the kings that are here spoken of, did tyrannize, as for example, Pontius Pilate, Ioh. 19. 6. 13. 16. Marke 6. 18. 25. 26. who condemned Christ an innocent: Herod Antipas, who tooke away his brother Philip his wife, and at the request of a woman, put to death Iohn the Baptist: Archilaus, of whose raigne Ioseph is afrayd: Herodes magnus, Matth. 2. 22. who slue many infants, and vnder the coulour of worshipping Mat. 2. 16. & 8 Christ, sought the ouerthrow of Christ and his kingdome. That these were the gouernours here spoken of, I proue, because Christ saith, Marke 10. 42. you knovv, speaking of those rulers, they knew, and these were they.
Againe, Christ sayth [...]: and here [...]: they do tyrannize: and speaketh in the present tense: and [Page 17] some of these now ruled, and all these, in their gouernement tyrannized. And it plainly appeareth, that he onely speaketh of tyrants, because he saith, [...]. That this word [...] doth signifie to tyrannize, I proue by the vse of the same verbe, in other places of the Scripture, both old, and new Testament, as 1. Pet. 5. 3 [...]. Act. 19. 16. [...]. And so Esay 3. 4. [...].
Againe, the testimonie of learned writers, and godly fathers, expounding these places of the Euangelistes, do manifest it.
Erasmus expoundeth it, Dominantur in eas, siue, aduersus eas.
Musculus expoundeth it, potestate aduer sum illos opprimendos vtuntur. And a litle after, non regunt populum, sed premunt, suis (que) affectibus seruire cogunt, id quod est, [...]: and expounding the word [...], he interpreteth it: potenter opprimunt inferiores.
Chrysostome vpon these wordes, in Mathew, doth expound it in like maner, and vpon the same wordes thus speaketh, vt dominentur minoribus, vt seruificent, & spolient, & vsque ad mortem abutentur vita eorum.
But it may be some wil obiect, that in this place the simple verbe is vsed, & therfore not tyranny, but rule & iurisdictiō is forbiddē. To this I answer, that the words which our Sauiour Christ here vseth, do manifestly shew, and proue, that tyranny is forbidden, euē in this simple verbe.
First, because the wordes are, [...]: which wordes can not be read, [...]: you shall not rule. But [...]: and [...]: is [...].
A second reason, why in this simple verbe, tyrannie is [Page 18] forbidden, because that this simple verbe [...] is vsed in the Scriptures, not for rule onely, but many times for a peruerse kind of rule and for oppression, as 2. Cor. 1. 24. [...]. Rom. 6. 13. [...]. And in the old Testament, Dan. 11. 4. [...].
But it may be some will obiect, that God in the Scriptures is called [...], and sayd [...]. I answer, that true it is: but God is said [...], because he ruleth after his owne will: his will being the perfect rule of iustice, whereas if man whose will is corrupt, should rule after his owne will, it were meere tyrannie.
But it may be some will further obiect, that true it is, that the simple verbe [...], is thus vsed in the Scriptures, but how proue you it to be so vsed in this place? To this I answer, that it is likewise vsed so in this place: and my reason is this, because the verbe [...] is opposit to [...], in this maner, [...]: and againe, [...]: viz. [...]. That this, is a fit and naturall opposition, appeareth by comparing this with the other Euangelists, for so Mat. 20. 26. [...], subaudi [...], or as here, [...].
Againe, for the confirmation of this opposition, the consent of all Harmonies, agreeing, that in al these Euangelists, Mathevv, Marke, and Luke, one & the same thing is handled and spoken, and therefore, all these must be compared together, and the simple verbe [...] in this place, is the same that the compound [...] is in Mathevv and Marke. Adde vnto this the exposition of [Page 19] all learned writers, which so farre as I haue read, do interpret them, to be one and the same thing.
As therefore in the wordes [...]: authoritie was commended, and not condemned in the Disciples of our Sauiour Christ: so in this word [...], ambition, vaine titles, and tyrannie are onely forbidden, not ruling, or hauing authoritie, nor simply the desire of bearing rule.
There remaineth the last words, [...] or [...]: you or amongest you. And these must in like maner be discussed.
In this place there is no doubt to be made, whether our Sauiour Christ speaketh to his Disciples, Peter, Iames, Iohn, &c. or not. &c.
The question is therfore, whether our Sauiour Christ speaketh to his Disciples, and none but them, or to his Disciples, & some represented by them. If we vnderstand it to be spoken to them onely, then we take it to be spoken personally, that is, to his Disciples and no other: so that then, nothing in this place, is either forbidden or commanded to others. But this is against sence, and hath no reason whereupon it should be grounded, and is approued of no learned writer, and therefore I stand not to improue that.
It is therefore spoken to the Disciples, and some other represented by them, and thus it is taken Representatiuely, that is, aswell to those that are represented by them, as to them.
Hereof ariseth this question, whether our Sauiour Christ speaketh Representatiuely to the whole Church, that is, all Christians, Ministers and people, or Representatiuely to the Ministers of the Church onely.
In this place by you, our Sauiour doth vnderstand the whole Church, that is, all Christians, both Ministers and [Page 20] people, and this I proue by these reasons following.
First, the Disciples to whom Christ speaketh, had not as yet the office of preaching, and baptizing all nations, for this was after Christ his death committed to them: Matt. 28. 19. whereas this was spoken in his life, and therefore represent Christians, not Ministers onely. But admit they had that office, as these Disciples are in this Chapter and other places of the Gospell, called Apostles: and likewise had Luke 22. 12. Matt. 10. 2. Matt. 10. 7. the office of preaching, though I take it that were temporarie, and to a certaine people; yet certaine it is, that these Disciples in their persons represent Christians, as in their office Ministers, and therfore, being spoken to them, why should they not in this place, aswell or rather, represent all: Ministers and people, as Ministers onely.
A second reason is. It were absurd, to thinke that our Sauiour Christ doth forbid tyrannie to Ministers onely, whereas tyrannie, being a thing simply euill, is more fitly forbidden to Ministers and people, that is, all Christians.
A third reason is: Our Sauiour Christ in this chapter, doth immediatly before, and also presently after, vsing this word you, and speaking to his Disciples, & none but them, as in this place, speaketh to them, representing the whole Church, and not the Ministers onely: as in the 19. verse of this 22. of Luke, in these wordes: This is my body, vvhich is giuen for you: by, you: in that place, (though it be spoken onely to the Disciples, is not vnderstood, the Ministers onely, for then none might be saued but Ministers: but it is spoken to the whole Church, and the body of Christ is giuen to the Disciples, that is, for all Christians. Againe, verse 20. This cup, is the nevv Testament, in Luke 22. 20. my bloud, vvhich is povvred out for you. In which place, by, you: Christ meaneth, not only Ministers, but all Christians, [Page 21] whom these Disciples did now represent, otherwise none should be saued but Ministers, if the bloud of Christ were shed for none but them. And therfore S. Mat. chap. 26. ver. 28. expoundeth these words, saying, vvhich is shed for many. Againe in the words presently after, ver. 29. I haue appointed vnto you, as my father hath appointed Luke 22. 29 vnto me, a kingdome: by, you: he vnderstandeth, all Christians: for vnto all true Christians, he hath appointed a kingdome.
But it hath bene obiected, that our Sauiour Christ, in this Chapter, speaketh to his Disciples, vsing the word you, and yet speaketh not to them, representing the whole Church. To which I now answer, that true it is, that our Sauiour Christ in this Chapter, saith, I haue earnestly desired to eate vvith you. &c. I say vnto you. &c. But I answer, that in these places he speaketh Personally: that is, to his Disciples onely, and no other represented by them. Now the question is not, whether it be taken Personally, or Representatiuely; for then this were (though litle to the purpose) yet ad idem: but in this place, the question is, whether he speak representatiuely, to the Ministers of the Church onely, or representatiuely to the whole Church. If therefore there can be brought out of this Chapter, so many places, so manifest as these are, in which Christ speaketh to his Disciples, and none but them, as he doth in this place, and yet as representing the Ministers onely, & not other Christians, then shall that beare some stroke, & come to be ballanced with the weight of these reasons.
A fourth reason is this. The opposition in this place, which is betweene Gentiles & you, doth manifestly proue that it is spoken to the whole Church. As for example, The kings of the Gentiles, do tyrannize ouer them: that is, [Page 22] the people. Amongst these are kings tyrannizing, & people tyrānized. But you not so, or, it shall not be so vvith you. that is, I do command, that with you there should be neither kings tyrannizing, nor people tyrannized. It is thus with them: it shall not be so vvith you Ministers: is neither right, nor good opposition. It is thus with the Gentiles, it shall not be thus vvith you Christians, is a fit, good, and sensible opposition. So then, the opposition betweene the kings of the Gentiles tyrannizing, and people tyrannized, and you, doth proue manifestly, that Christ meaneth not onely Ministers, but also people, that is, all Christians, amongst whom he would haue neither tyrants, nor people tyrannized.
Againe this is manifest to be Christ his meaning, because that in like maner, in the scriptures speaking of Gē tiles, and making an opposition betwixt them & others, the opposition is between Gentils and Christians, & not betweene Gentiles and Ministers: as Mat. 6. ver. 7. 8. The Gentiles do thinke, that by their much babling they shall be heard. Be not you like vnto them: that is, be not you my Disciples, you that take my name in your mouths, that heare me, that professe your selues to be Christians. And againe in the same Chapter, verse 32. After all these things do the Mat. 6. 32. & 31. Gentiles seeke, and therefore saith to them, verse 31. Be not you therefore carefull, &c. for your heauenly Father knovveth, &c. In which place, our Sauiour doth plainly make an opposition, betwixt those he spake to, that is, his Disciples, and those that heard him, and Gentiles, that is, those that were spoken of, to whom he would not haue his Disciples, that is, Christians to be like.
A fift reason is, this place compared with that of Mat. chap. 23. vers. 8. 9. doth shew plainely, that it is spoken to [Page 23] the whole Church: for in that chapter our Sauior Christ speaketh of the same matter, vseth a like forme of words, and the very same words: as for example, The Scribes and the Pharisies are called Rabbi, &c. But be not you so called & in this Chapter is the like. They that are in authoritie are called [...]. But you not so. Againe ver. 11. But let him that is the greater, be as the minister. Which words are in the former places of the Euangelists. Now, if one place of Scripture is to be expounded by another, and the darker by that which is more plain, these in like maner, may one be expounded by another. If any shall aske, how I proue that our Sauiour Christ, in this 23. of Mathew, speaketh to the whole Church, I answer, that it manifestly appeareth, in that in the first verse of that Chapter, it is sayed, Then spake Iesus, to the multitude, and his Disciples. Mat. 23 1.
This might further be strengthened and confirmed, by the opinion of ancient, and late writers (some whereof I haue before mentioned.) But these reasons are apparant and very sufficient: I therfore conclude, that our Sauiour speaketh in this place to all men: forbidding all Christiās ambitiously to striue for honor, or to tyrannize ouer the people. What our Sauiour commandeth, is contained in the words following, But let him that shalbe greater, &c.
The Lord of his infinit mercie, graunt, that all Rulers may learne, to follovv the commandement of Christ, neither ambitiously striuing for higher places, nor by vniustice and crueltie abusing the lovver: then shal God be glorified, and vve his people liue a quiet and peaceable life, in all godlinesse and honestie. VVhich he graunt, vvho hath bought vs vvith his precious bloud, Iesus Christ the righteous. To vvhom, vvith the Father, and the holy Ghost, be all honor and glorie vvorld vvithout end.