III.11. Whether Christ have forbidden all change of those laws which are set down in Scripture.

XI. This we hold and grant for truth, that those very laws which of their own nature are changeable, be notwithstanding uncapable of change, if he which gave them, being of authority so to do, forbid absolutely to change them; neither may they admit alteration against the will of such a law-maker. Albeit therefore we do not find any cause why of right there should be necessarily an immutable form set down in holy Scripture; nevertheless if indeed there have been at any time a church polity so set down, the change whereof the sacred Scripture doth forbid, surely for men to alter those laws which God for perpetuity hath established were presumption most intolerable.

To prove therefore that the will of Christ was to establish laws so permanent and immutable that in any sort to alter them cannot but highly offend God, thus they reason. First¹, if Moses, being but a servant in the house of God, did therein establish laws of government for perpetuity, laws which they that were of the household might not alter; shall we admit into our thoughts, that the Son of God hath in providing for this his household declared himself less faithful than Moses? Moses delivering unto the Jews such laws as were durable, if those be changeable which Christ hath delivered unto us, we are not able to avoid it, but (that which to think were heinous impiety) we of necessity must confess even the Son of God himself to have been less faithful than Moses. Which argument shall need no touchstone to try it by but some other of the like making. Moses erected in the wilderness a tabernacle which was moveable from place to place; Salomon a sumptuous and stately temple which was not moveable: therefore Salomon was faithfuller than Moses, which no man endued with reason will think. And yet by this reason it doth plainly follow.

He that will see how faithful the one or the other was, must compare the things which they both did unto the charge which God gave each of them. The Apostle in making comparison between our Saviour and Moses attributeth faithfulness unto both, and maketh this difference between them; Moses in, but Christ over the house of God; Moses in that house which was his by charge and commission, though to govern it, yet to govern it as a servant; but Christ over this house as being his own entire possession.

Our Lord and Saviour doth make protestation, “I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me².” Faithful therefore he was, and concealed not any part of his Father’s will. But did any part of that will require the immutability of laws concerning church polity? They answer, Yea. For else God should less favour us than the Jews³. God would not have their church guided by any laws but his own. And seeing this did so continue even till Christ, now to ease God of that care, or rather to deprive the Church of his patronage, what reason have we? Surely none to derogate any thing from the ancient love which God hath borne to his Church. An heathen philosopher⁴ there is, who considering how many things beasts have which men have not, how naked in comparison of them, how impotent, and how much less able we are to shift for ourselves a long time after we enter into this world, repiningly concluded hereupon, that nature being a careful mother for them, is towards us a hard-hearted stepdame. No, we may not measure the affection of our gracious God towards his by such differences. For even herein shineth his wisdom, that though the ways of his providence be many, yet the end which he bringeth all at the length unto is one and the selfsame.

But if such kind of reasoning were good, might we not even as directly conclude the very same concerning laws of secular regiment? Their own words are these: “In the ancient church of the Jews, God did command and Moses commit unto writing all things pertinent as well to the civil as to the ecclesiastical state⁵.” God gave them laws of civil regiment, and would not permit their commonweal to be governed by any other laws than his own. Doth God less regard our temporal estate in this world, or provide for it worse than for theirs? To us notwithstanding he hath not as to them delivered any particular form of temporal regiment, unless perhaps we think, as some do, that the grafting of the Gentiles⁶ and their incorporating into Israel⁷ doth import that we ought to be subject unto the rites and laws of their whole polity. We see then how weak such disputes are, and how smally they make to this purpose.

That Christ did not mean to set down particular positive laws for all things in such sort as Moses did, the very different manner of delivering the laws of Moses and the laws of Christ doth plainly shew. Moses had commandment to gather the ordinances of God together distinctly, and orderly to set them down according unto their several kinds, for each public duty and office the laws that belong thereto, as appeareth in the books themselves, written of purpose for that end. Contrariwise the laws of Christ we find rather mentioned by occasion in the writings of the Apostles, than any solemn thing directly written to comprehend them in legal sort.

Again, the positive laws which Moses gave, they were given for the greatest part with restraint to the land of Jewry: “Behold,” saith Moses, “I have taught you ordinances and laws, as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do even so within the land whither ye go to possess it⁸.” Which laws and ordinances positive he plainly distinguisheth afterward from the laws of the Two Tables which were moral⁹. “The Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire; ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude, only a voice. Then he declared unto you his covenant which he commanded you to do, the Ten Commandments, and wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the Lord commanded me that same time, that I should teach you ordinances and laws which ye should observe in the land whither ye go to possess it.” The same difference is again set down in the next chapter following. For rehearsal being made of the Ten Commandments, it followeth immediately¹⁰, “These words the Lord spake unto all your multitude in the mount out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the darkness, with a great voice, and added no more; and wrote them upon two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.” But concerning other laws, the people give their consent to receive them at the hands of Moses¹¹: “Go thou near, and hear all that the Lord our God saith, and declare thou unto us all that the Lord our God saith unto thee, and we will hear it and do it.” The people’s alacrity herein God highly commendeth with most effectual and hearty speech¹²: “I have heard the voice of the words of this people; they have spoken well. O that there were such an heart in them to fear me, and to keep all my commandments always, that it might go well with them and with their children for ever! Go, say unto them, ‘Return you to your tents;’ but stand thou here with me, and I will tell thee all the commandments and the ordinances and the laws which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I have given them to possess.” From this later kind the former are plainly distinguished in many things. They were not both at one time delivered, neither both after one sort, nor to one end. The former uttered by the voice of God himself in the hearing of six hundred thousand men; the former written with the finger of God; the former termed by the name of a Covenant; the former given to be kept without either mention of time how long, or of place where. On the other side, the later given after, and neither written by God himself, nor given unto the whole multitude immediately from God, but unto Moses, and from him to them both by word and writing; the later termed Ceremonies, Judgments, Ordinances, but no where Covenants; finally, the observation of the later restrained unto the land where God would establish them to inhabit.

The laws positive are not framed without regard had to the place and persons for which they are made. If therefore Almighty God in framing their laws had an eye unto the nature of that people, and to the country where they were to dwell; if these peculiar and proper considerations were respected in the making of their laws, and must be also regarded in the positive laws of all other nations besides: then seeing that nations are not all alike, surely the giving of one kind of positive laws unto one only people, without any liberty to alter them, is but a slender proof, that therefore one kind should in like sort be given to serve everlastingly for all.

But that which most of all maketh for the clearing of this point is, that the Jews¹³, who had laws so particularly determining and so fully instructing them in all affairs what to do, were notwithstanding continually inured with causes exorbitant, and such as their laws had not provided for. And in this point much more is granted us than we ask, namely, that for one thing which we have left to the order of the Church, they had twenty which were undecided by the express word of God; and that as their ceremonies and sacraments were multiplied above ours, even so grew the number of those cases which were not determined by any express word. So that if we may devise one law, they by this reason might devise twenty; and if their devising so many were not forbidden, shall their example prove us forbidden to devise as much as one law for the ordering of the Church? We might not devise no not one, if their example did prove that our Saviour had utterly forbidden all alteration of his laws; inasmuch as there can be no law devised, but needs it must either take away from his, or add thereunto more or less, and so make some kind of alteration. But of this so large a grant we are content not to take advantage. Men are oftentimes in a sudden passion more liberal than they would be if they had leisure to take advice. And therefore so bountiful words of course and frank speeches we are contented to let pass, without turning them unto advantage with too much rigour.

It may be they had rather be listened unto, when they commend the kings of Israel “which attempted nothing in the government of the Church without the express word of God¹⁴;” and when they urge¹⁵ that God left nothing in his word “undescribed,” whether it concerned the worship of God or outward polity, nothing unset down, and therefore charged them strictly to keep themselves unto that, without any alteration. Howbeit, seeing it cannot be denied, but that many things there did belong unto the course of their public affairs, wherein they had no express word at all to shew precisely what they should do; the difference between their condition and ours in these cases will bring some light unto the truth of this present controversy. Before the fact of the son of Shelomith, there was no law which did appoint any certain punishment for blasphemers¹⁶. That wretched creature being therefore deprehended in that impiety, was held in ward, till the mind of the Lord were known concerning his case. The like practice is also mentioned upon occasion of a breach of the Sabbath¹⁷ day. They find a poor silly creature gathering sticks in the wilderness, they bring him unto Moses and Aaron and all the congregation, they lay him in hold, because it was not declared what should be done with him, till God had said unto Moses, “This man shall die the death¹⁸.” The law required to keep the Sabbath; but for the breach of the Sabbath what punishment should be inflicted it did not appoint. Such occasions as these are rare. And for such things as do fall scarce once in many ages of men, it did suffice to take such order as was requisite when they fell. But if the case were such as being not already determined by law were notwithstanding likely oftentimes to come in question, it gave occasion of adding laws that were not before. Thus it fell out in the case of those men polluted¹⁹, and of the daughters of Zelophehad²⁰, whose causes Moses having brought before the Lord, received laws to serve for the like in time to come. The Jews to this end had the Oracle of God, they had the Prophets: and by such means God himself instructed them from heaven what to do, in all things that did greatly concern their state and were not already set down in the Law. Shall we then hereupon argue even against our own experience and knowledge? Shall we seek to persuade men that of necessity it is with us as it was with them; that because God is ours in all respects as much as theirs, therefore either no such way of direction hath been at any time, or if it have been, it doth still continue in the Church; or if the same do not continue, that yet it must be at the least supplied by some such mean as pleaseth us to account of equal force? A more dutiful and religious way for us were to admire the wisdom of God, which shineth in the beautiful variety of all things, but most in the manifold and yet harmonious dissimilitude of those ways, whereby his Church upon earth is guided from age to age, throughout all generations of men.

The Jews were necessarily to continue till the coming of Christ in the flesh, and the gathering of nations unto him. So much the promise made unto Abraham²¹ did import. So much the prophecy of Jacob at the hour of his death did foreshew²². Upon the safety therefore of their very outward state and condition for so long, the after-good of the whole world and the salvation of all did depend. Unto their so long safety, for two things it was necessary to provide; namely, the preservation of their state against foreign resistance, and the continuance of their peace within themselves.

Touching the one, as they received the promise of God to be the rock of their defence, against which whoso did violently rush should but bruise and batter themselves; so likewise they had his commandment in all their affairs that way to seek direction and counsel from him. Men’s consultations are always perilous. And it falleth out many times that after long deliberation those things are by their wit even resolved on, which by trial are found most opposite to public safety. It is no impossible thing for states, be they never so well established, yet by oversight in some one act or treaty between them and their potent opposites²³ utterly to cast away themselves for ever. Wherefore lest it should so fall out to them upon whom so much did depend, they were not permitted to enter into war, nor conclude any league of peace, nor to wade through any act of moment between them and foreign states, unless the Oracle of God or his Prophets were first consulted with.

And lest domestical disturbance should waste them within themselves, because there was nothing unto this purpose more effectual, than if the authority of their laws and governors were such, as none might presume to take exception against it, or to shew disobedience unto it, without incurring the hatred and detestation of all men that had any spark of the fear of God; therefore he gave them even their positive laws from heaven, and as oft as occasion required chose in like sort rulers also to lead and govern them. Notwithstanding some desperately impious there were, which adventured to try what harm it could bring upon them, if they did attempt to be authors of confusion, and to resist both governors and laws. Against such monsters God maintained his own by fearful execution of extraordinary judgment upon them.

By which means it came to pass, that although they were a people infested and mightily hated of all others throughout the world, although by nature hard-hearted, querulous, wrathful, and impatient of rest and quietness; yet was there nothing of force either one way or other to work the ruin and subversion of their state, till the time before-mentioned was expired. Thus we see that there was not no cause of dissimilitude in these things between that one only people before Christ, and the kingdoms of the world since.

And whereas it is further alleged²⁴ that albeit “in civil matters and things pertaining to this present life God hath used a greater particularity with them than amongst us, framing laws according to the quality of that people and country; yet the leaving of us at greater liberty in things civil is so far from proving the like liberty in things pertaining to the kingdom of heaven, that it rather proves a straiter bond. For even as when the Lord would have his favour more appear by temporal blessings of this life towards the people under the Law than towards us, he gave also politic laws most exactly, whereby they might both most easily come into and most steadfastly remain in possession of those earthly benefits: even so at this time, wherein he would not have his favour so much esteemed by those outward commodities, it is required, that as his care in prescribing laws for that purpose hath somewhat fallen in leaving them to men’s consultations which may be deceived, so his care for conduct and government of the life to come should (if it were possible) rise, in leaving less to the order of men than in times past.” These are but weak and feeble disputes for the inference of that conclusion which is intended. For saving only in such consideration as hath been shewed, there is no cause wherefore we should think God more desirous to manifest his favour by temporal blessings towards them than towards us. Godliness had unto them, and it hath also unto us, the promises both of this life and the life to come. That the care of God hath fallen in earthly things, and therefore should rise as much in heavenly; that more is left unto men’s consultations in the one, and therefore less must be granted in the other; that God, having used a greater particularity with them than with us for matters pertaining unto this life, is to make us amends by the more exact delivery of laws for government of the life to come: these are proportions, whereof if there be any rule, we must plainly confess that which truth is, we know it not. God which spake unto them by his Prophets, hath unto us by his only-begotten Son; those mysteries of grace and salvation which were but darkly disclosed unto them, have unto us most clearly shined. Such differences between them and us the Apostles of Christ have well acquainted us withal. But as for matter belonging to the outward conduct or government of the Church, seeing that even in sense it is manifest that our Lord and Saviour hath not by positive laws descended so far into particularities with us as Moses with them, neither doth by extraordinary means, oracles, and prophets, direct us as them he did in those things which rising daily by new occasions are of necessity to be provided for; doth it not hereupon rather follow, that although not to them, yet to us there should be freedom and liberty granted to make laws?

Yea, but the Apostle St. Paul doth fearfully charge Timothy²⁵, even “in the sight of God who quickeneth all, and of Jesus Christ who witnessed that famous confession before Pontius Pilate²⁶, to keep what was commanded him safe and sound till the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ²⁷.” This doth exclude all liberty of changing the laws of Christ, whether by abrogation or addition, or howsoever. For in Timothy the whole Church of Christ receiveth charge concerning her duty; and that charge is to keep the Apostle’s commandment; and his commandment did contain the laws that concerned church government; and those laws he straitly requireth to be observed without breach or blame, till the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In Scripture we grant every one man’s lesson to be the common instruction of all men, so far forth as their cases are like; and that religiously to keep the Apostle’s commandments in whatsoever they may concern us we all stand bound. But touching that commandment which Timothy was charged with, we swerve undoubtedly from the Apostle’s precise meaning if we extend it so largely, that the arms thereof shall reach unto all things which were commanded him by the Apostle. The very words themselves do restrain themselves unto some one especial commandment among many. And therefore it is not said, “Keep the ordinances, laws, and constitutions, which thou hast received;” but τὴν ἐντολὴν, “that great commandment, which doth principally concern thee and thy calling;” that commandment which Christ did so often inculcate unto Peter²⁸; that commandment unto the careful discharge whereof they of Ephesus are exhorted, “Attend to yourselves, and to all the flock wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased by his own blood²⁹;” finally that commandment which unto the same Timothy is by the same Apostle even in the same form and manner afterwards again urged, “I charge thee in the sight of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, which will judge the quick and dead at his appearance and in his kingdom, preach the word of God³⁰.” When Timothy was instituted into the office, then was the credit and trust of this duty committed unto his faithful care. The doctrine of the Gospel was then given him, “as the precious talent or treasure of Jesus Christ³¹;” then received he for performance of this duty “the special gift of the Holy Ghost³².” “To keep this commandment immaculate and blameless” was to teach the Gospel of Christ without mixture of corrupt and unsound doctrine, such as a number did even in those times intermingle with the mysteries of Christian belief. “Till the appearance of Christ to keep it so,” doth not import the time wherein it should be kept, but rather the time whereunto the final reward for keeping it was reserved: according to that of St. Paul concerning himself, “I have kept the faith; for the residue there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous shall in that day render unto me³³.” If they that labour in this harvest should respect but the present fruit of their painful travel, a poor encouragement it were unto them to continue therein all the days of their life. But their reward is great in heaven; the crown of righteousness which shall be given them in that day is honourable. The fruit of their industry then shall they reap with full contentment and satisfaction, but not till then. Wherein the greatness of their reward is abundantly sufficient to countervail the tediousness of their expectation. Wherefore till then, they that are in labour must rest in hope. “O Timothy, keep that which is committed unto thy charge; that great commandment which thou hast received keep, till the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

In which sense although we judge the Apostle’s words to have been uttered, yet hereunto we do not require them to yield, that think any other construction more sound. If therefore it be rejected, and theirs esteemed more probable which hold, that the last words do import perpetual observation of the Apostle’s commandment imposed necessarily for ever upon the militant Church of Christ; let them withal consider, that then his commandment cannot so largely be taken, as to comprehend whatsoever the Apostle did command Timothy. For themselves do not all bind the Church unto some things whereof Timothy received charge, as namely unto that precept concerning the choice of widows³⁴. So as they cannot hereby maintain that all things positively commanded concerning the affairs of the Church were commanded for perpetuity. And we do not deny that certain things were commanded to be though positive yet perpetual in the Church.

They should not therefore urge against us places that seem to forbid change, but rather such as set down some measure of alteration, which measure if we have exceeded, then might they therewith charge us justly: whereas now they themselves both granting, and also using liberty to change, cannot in reason dispute absolutely against all change. Christ delivered no inconvenient or unmeet laws: sundry of ours they hold inconvenient: therefore such laws they cannot possibly hold to be Christ’s: being not his, they must of necessity grant them added unto his. Yet certain of those very laws so added they themselves do not judge unlawful; as they plainly confess both in matter of prescript attire and of rites appertaining to burial. Their own protestations are, that they plead against the inconvenience, not the unlawfulness of popish apparel³⁵; and against the inconvenience not the unlawfulness of ceremonies in burial. Therefore they hold it a thing not unlawful to add to the laws of Jesus Christ; and so consequently they yield that no law of Christ forbiddeth addition unto church laws.

The judgment of Calvin being alleged³⁶ against them, to whom of all men they attribute most³⁷; whereas his words be plain, that for ceremonies and external discipline the Church hath power to make laws: the answer which hereunto they make is, that indefinitely the speech is true, and that so it was meant by him; namely, that some things belonging unto external discipline and ceremonies are in the power and arbitrement of the Church; but neither was it meant, neither is it true generally, that all external discipline and all ceremonies are left to the order of the Church, inasmuch as the sacraments of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord are ceremonies, which yet the Church may not therefore abrogate. Again, Excommunication is a part of external discipline, which might also be cast away, if all external discipline were arbitrary and in the choice of the Church.

By which their answer it doth appear, that touching the names of ceremony and external discipline they gladly would have us so understood, as if we did herein contain a great deal more than we do. The fault which we find with them is, that they overmuch abridge the Church of her power in these things. Whereupon they recharge us, as if in these things we gave the Church a liberty which hath no limits or bounds; as if all things which the name of discipline containeth were of the Church’s free choice; so that we might either have church governors and government or want them, either retain or reject church censures as we list. They wonder at us, as at men which think it so indifferent what the Church doth in matter of ceremonies, that it may be feared lest we judge the very Sacraments themselves to be held at the Church’s pleasure.

No, the name of ceremonies we do not use in so large a meaning as to bring Sacraments within the compass and reach thereof, although things belonging unto the outward form and seemly administration of them are contained in that name, even as we use it. For the name of ceremonies we use as they themselves do, when they speak after this sort: “The doctrine and discipline of the Church, as the weightiest things, ought especially to be looked unto; but the ceremonies also, as mint and cummin, ought not to be neglected³⁸.” Besides, in the matter of external discipline or regiment itself, we do not deny but there are some things whereto the church is bound till the world’s end. So as the question is only how far the bounds of the Church’s liberty do reach. We hold, that the power which the Church hath lawfully to make laws and orders for itself doth extend unto sundry things of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and such other matters, whereto their opinion is that the Church’s authority and power doth not reach. Whereas therefore in disputing against us about this point, they take their compass a great deal wider than the truth of things can afford; producing reasons and arguments by way of generality, to prove that Christ hath set down all things belonging any way unto the form of ordering his Church, and hath absolutely forbidden change by addition or diminution, great or small: (for so their manner of disputing is:) we are constrained to make our defence, by shewing that Christ hath not deprived his Church so far of all liberty in making orders and laws for itself, and that they themselves do not think he hath so done. For are they able to shew that all particular customs, rites, and orders of reformed churches have been appointed by Christ himself? No: they grant that in matter of circumstance they alter that which they have received³⁹, but in things of substance, they keep the laws of Christ without change. If we say the same in our own behalf (which surely we may do with a great deal more truth) then must they cancel all that hath been before alleged, and begin to inquire afresh, whether we retain the laws that Christ hath delivered concerning matters of substance, yea or no. For our constant persuasion in this point is as theirs, that we have no where altered the laws of Christ farther than in such particularities only as have the nature of things changeable according to the difference of times, places, persons, and other the like circumstances. Christ hath commanded prayers to be made, sacraments to be ministered, his Church to be carefully taught and guided. Concerning every of these somewhat Christ hath commanded which must be kept till the world’s end. On the contrary side, in every of them somewhat there may be added, as the Church shall judge it expedient. So that if they will speak to purpose, all which hitherto hath been disputed of they must give over, and stand upon such particulars only as they can shew we have either added or abrogated otherwise than we ought, in the matter of church polity. Whatsoever Christ hath commanded for ever to be kept in his Church, the same we take not upon us to abrogate; and whatsoever our laws have thereunto added besides, of such quality we hope it is as no law of Christ doth any where condemn.

Wherefore that all may be laid together and gathered into a narrower room: First, so far forth as the Church is the mystical body of Christ and his invisible spouse, it needeth no external polity. That very part of the law divine which teacheth faith and works of righteousness is itself alone sufficient for the Church of God in that respect. But as the Church is a visible society and body politic, laws of polity it cannot want⁴⁰.

Secondly: Whereas therefore it cometh in the second place to be inquired, what laws are fittest and best for the Church; they who first embraced that rigorous and strict opinion, which depriveth the Church of liberty to make any kind of law for herself, inclined as it should seem thereunto, for that they imagined all things which the Church doth without commandment of Holy Scripture subject to that reproof which the Scripture itself useth in certain cases⁴¹ when divine authority ought alone to be followed. Hereupon they thought it enough for the cancelling of any kind of order whatsoever, to say, “The word of God teacheth it not, it is a device of the brain of man, away with it therefore out of the Church⁴².” St. Augustine was of another mind, who speaking of fasts on the Sunday saith⁴³, “That he which would choose out that day to fast on, should give thereby no small offence to the Church of God, which had received a contrary custom. For in these things, whereof the Scripture appointeth no certainty, the use of the people of God or the ordinances of our fathers must serve for a law. In which case if we will dispute, and condemn one sort by another’s custom, it will be but matter of endless contention; where, forasmuch as the labour of reasoning shall hardly beat into men’s heads any certain or necessary truth, surely it standeth us upon to take heed, lest with the tempest of strife the brightness of charity and love be darkened.”

If all things must be commanded of God which may be practised of his Church, I would know what commandment the Gileadites had to erect that altar which is spoken of in the Book of Josua⁴⁴. Did not congruity of reason induce them thereunto, and suffice for defence of their fact? I would know what commandment the women of Israel had yearly to mourn and lament in the memory of Jephtha’s daughter⁴⁵; what commandment the Jews had to celebrate their feast of Dedication, never spoken of in the law, yet solemnized even by our Saviour himself⁴⁶; what commandment finally they had for the ceremony of odours used about the bodies of the dead, after which custom notwithstanding (sith it was their custom) our Lord was contented that his own most precious body should be entombed⁴⁷. Wherefore to reject all orders of the Church which men have established, is to think worse of the laws of men in this respect, than either the judgment of wise men alloweth, or the law of God itself will bear.

Howbeit they which had once taken upon them to condemn all things done in the Church and not commanded of God to be done, saw it was necessary for them (continuing in defence of this their opinion) to hold that needs there must be in Scripture set down a complete particular form of church polity, a form prescribing how all the affairs of the Church must be ordered, a form in no respect lawful to be altered by mortal men⁴⁸. For reformation of which oversight and error in them, there were that thought it a part of Christian love and charity to instruct them better⁴⁹, and to open unto them the difference between matters of perpetual necessity to all men’s salvation, and matters of ecclesiastical polity: the one both fully and plainly taught in holy Scripture, the other not necessary to be in such sort there prescribed; the one not capable of any diminution or augmentation at all by men, the other apt to admit both. Hereupon the authors of the former opinion were presently seconded by other wittier and better learned⁵⁰, who being loth that the form of church polity which they sought to bring in should be otherwise than in the highest degree accounted of, took⁵¹ first an exception against the difference between church polity and matters of necessity unto salvation⁵²; secondly, against the restraint of Scripture, which they say receiveth injury at our hands, when we teach that it teacheth not as well matters of polity as of faith and salvation⁵³. Thirdly, Constrained hereby we have been therefore both to maintain that distinction, as a thing not only true in itself, but by them likewise so acknowledged, though unawares⁵⁴; Fourthly, and to make manifest that from Scripture we offer not to derogate the least thing that truth thereunto doth claim, inasmuch as by us it is willingly confest, that the Scripture of God is a storehouse abounding with inestimable treasures of wisdom and knowledge in many kinds, over and above things in this one kind barely necessary; yea, even that matters of ecclesiastical polity are not therein omitted, but taught also, albeit not so taught as those other things before mentioned⁵⁵. For so perfectly are those things taught, that nothing can ever need to be added, nothing ever cease to be necessary; these on the contrary side, as being of a far other nature and quality, not so strictly nor everlastingly commanded in Scripture, but that unto the complete form of church polity much may be requisite which the Scripture teacheth not, and much which it hath taught become unrequisite, sometime because we need not use it, sometime also because we cannot. In which respect for mine own part, although I see that certain reformed churches, the Scottish especially and French, have not that which best agreeth with the sacred Scripture⁵⁶, I mean the government that is by Bishops, inasmuch as both those churches are fallen under a different kind of regiment; which to remedy it is for the one altogether too late, and too soon for the other during their present affliction and trouble⁵⁷: this their defect and imperfection I had rather lament in such case than exagitate, considering that men oftentimes without any fault of their own may be driven to want that kind of polity or regiment which is best, and to content themselves with that, which either the irremediable error of former times, or the necessity of the present hath cast upon them.

Fifthly, Now because that position first-mentioned, which holdeth it necessary that all things which the Church may lawfully do in her own regiment be commanded in holy Scripture, hath by the later defenders thereof been greatly qualified; who, though perceiving it to be over extreme, are notwithstanding loth to acknowledge any oversight therein, and therefore labour what they may to salve it by construction; we have for the more perspicuity delivered what was thereby meant at the first⁵⁸: sixthly, how injurious a thing it were unto all the churches of God for men to hold it in that meaning⁵⁹: seventhly, and how imperfect their interpretations are who so much labour to help it, either by dividing commandments of Scripture into two kinds, and so defending that all things must be commanded, if not in special yet in general precepts⁶⁰; eighthly, or by taking it as meant, that in case the Church do devise any new order, she ought therein to follow the direction of Scripture only, and not any starlight of man’s reason⁶¹. Ninthly, both which evasions being cut off, we have in the next place declared after what sort the Church may lawfully frame to herself laws of polity, and in what reckoning such positive laws both are with God and should be with men⁶². Tenthly, furthermore, because to abridge the liberty of the Church in this behalf, it hath been made a thing very odious, that when God himself hath devised some certain laws and committed them to sacred Scripture, man by abrogation, addition, or any way, should presume to alter and change them; it was of necessity to be examined, whether the authority of God in making, or his care in committing those his laws unto Scripture, be sufficient arguments to prove that God doth in no case allow they should suffer any such kind of change⁶³. Eleventhly, the last refuge for proof that divine laws of Christian church polity may not be altered by extinguishment of any old or addition of new in that kind, is partly a marvellous strange discourse, that Christ (unless he should shew himself not so faithful as Moses, or not so wise as Lycurgus and Solon⁶⁴) must needs have set down in holy Scripture some certain complete and unchangeable form of polity⁶⁵: and partly a coloured show of some evidence where change of that sort of laws may seem expressly forbidden, although in truth nothing less be done⁶⁶.

I might have added hereunto their more familiar and popular disputes, as, The Church is a city, yea the city of the great King; and the life of a city is polity: The Church is the house of the living God; and what house can there be without some order for the government of it? In the royal house of a prince there must be officers for government, such as not any servant in the house but the prince whose the house is shall judge convenient. So the house of God must have orders for the government of it, such as not any of the household but God himself hath appointed. It cannot stand with the love and wisdom of God to leave such order untaken as is necessary for the due government of his Church. The numbers, degrees, orders, and attire of Salomon’s servants, did shew his wisdom; therefore he which is greater than Salomon hath not failed to leave in his house such orders for government thereof, as may serve to be a looking-glass for his providence, care, and wisdom, to be seen in⁶⁷. That little spark of the light of nature which remaineth in us may serve us for the affairs of this life. “But as in all other matters concerning the kingdom of heaven, so principally in this which concerneth the very government of that kingdom, needful it is we should be taught of God. As long as men are persuaded of any order that it is only of men, they presume of their own understanding, and they think to devise another not only as good, but better than that which they have received. By severity of punishment this presumption and curiosity may be restrained. But that cannot work such cheerful obedience as is yielded where the conscience hath respect to God as the author of laws and orders. This was it which countenanced the laws of Moses, made concerning outward polity for the administration of holy things. The like some lawgivers of the heathens did pretend, but falsely; yet wisely discerning the use of this persuasion. For the better obedience’ sake therefore it was expedient that God should be author of the polity of his Church.”

But to what issue doth all this come? A man would think that they which hold out with such discourses were of nothing more fully persuaded than of this, that the Scripture hath set down a complete form of church polity, universal, perpetual, altogether unchangeable. For so it would follow, if the premises were sound and strong to such effect as is pretended. Notwithstanding, they which have thus formally maintained argument in defence of the first oversight, are by the very evidence of truth themselves constrained to make this in effect their conclusion, that the Scripture of God hath many things concerning church polity; that of those many some are of greater weight, some of less; that what hath been urged as touching immutability of laws, it extendeth in truth no farther than only to laws wherein things of greater moment are prescribed. Now those things of greater moment, what are they? Forsooth⁶⁸, “doctors, pastors, lay-elders, elderships compounded of these three; synods, consisting of many elderships; deacons, women-church-servants or widows; free consent of the people unto actions of greatest moment, after they be by churches or synods orderly resolved.” All “this form” of polity (if yet we may term that a form of building, when men have laid a few rafters together, and those not all of the soundest neither) but howsoever, all this form they conclude is prescribed in such sort, that to add to it any thing as of like importance (for so I think they mean) or to abrogate of it any thing at all, is unlawful. In which resolution if they will firmly and constantly persist, I see not but that concerning the points which hitherto have been disputed of, they must agree that they have molested the Church with needless opposition, and henceforward as we said before betake themselves wholly unto the trial of particulars, whether every of those things which they esteem as principal, be either so esteemed of, or at all established for perpetuity in holy Scripture; and whether any particular thing in our Church polity be received other than the Scripture alloweth of, either in greater things or in smaller.

The matters wherein Church polity is conversant are the public religious duties of the Church, as the administration of the word and sacraments, prayers, spiritual censures, and the like. To these the Church standeth always bound. Laws of polity, are laws which appoint in what manner these duties shall be performed.

In performance whereof because all that are of the Church cannot jointly and equally work, the first thing in polity required is a difference of persons in the Church, without which difference those functions cannot in orderly sort be executed. Hereupon we hold that God’s clergy are a state, which hath been and will be, as long as there is a Church upon earth, necessary by the plain word of God himself; a state whereunto the rest of God’s people must be subject as touching things that appertain to their souls’ health. For where polity is, it cannot but appoint some to be leaders of others, and some to be led by others. “If the blind lead the blind, they both perish⁶⁹.” It is with the clergy, if their persons be respected, even as it is with other men; their quality many times far beneath that which the dignity of their place requireth. Howbeit according to the order of polity, they being the “lights of the world⁷⁰,” others (though better and wiser) must that way be subject unto them.

Again, forasmuch as where the clergy are any great multitude, order doth necessarily require that by degrees they be distinguished; we hold there have ever been and ever ought to be in such case at leastwise two sorts of ecclesiastical persons, the one subordinate unto the other; as to the Apostles in the beginning, and to the Bishops always since, we find plainly both in Scripture and in all ecclesiastical records, other ministers of the word and sacraments have been.

Moreover, it cannot enter into any man’s conceit to think it lawful, that every man which listeth should take upon him charge in the Church; and therefore a solemn admittance is of such necessity, that without it there can be no church-polity.

A number of particularities there are, which make for the more convenient being of these principal and perpetual parts in ecclesiastical polity, but yet are not of such constant use and necessity in God’s Church. Of this kind are, times and places appointed for the exercise of religion; specialties belonging to the public solemnity of the word, the sacraments, and prayer; the enlargement or abridgment of functions ministerial depending upon those two principal before-mentioned; to conclude, even whatsoever doth by way of formality and circumstance concern any public action of the Church. Now although that which the Scripture hath of things in the former kind be for ever permanent: yet in the later both much of that which the Scripture teacheth is not always needful; and much the Church of God shall always need which the Scripture teacheth not.

So as the form of polity by them set down for perpetuity is three ways faulty: faulty in omitting some things which in Scripture are of that nature, as namely the difference that ought to be of Pastors when they grow to any great multitude: faulty in requiring Doctors, Deacons, Widows, and such like, as things of perpetual necessity by the law of God, which in truth are nothing less: faulty also in urging some things by Scripture immutable, as their Lay-elders, which the Scripture neither maketh immutable nor at all teacheth, for any thing either we can as yet find or they have hitherto been able to prove. But hereof more in the books that follow.

As for those marvellous discourses whereby they adventure to argue that God must needs have done the thing which they imagine was to be done; I must confess I have often wondered at their exceeding boldness herein. When the question is whether God have delivered in Scripture (as they affirm he hath) a complete, particular, immutable form of church polity, why take they that other both presumptuous and superfluous labour to prove he should have done it; there being no way in this case to prove the deed of God, saving only by producing that evidence wherein he hath done it? But if there be no such thing apparent upon record, they do as if one should demand a legacy by force and virtue of some written testament, wherein there being no such thing specified, he pleadeth that there it must needs be, and bringeth arguments from the love or goodwill which always the testator bore him; imagining, that these or the like proofs will convict a testament to have that in it which other men can no where by reading find. In matters which concern the actions of God, the most dutiful way on our part is to search what God hath done, and with meekness to admire that, rather than to dispute what he in congruity of reason ought to do. The ways which he hath whereby to do all things for the greatest good of his Church are moe in number than we can search, other in nature than that we should presume to determine which of many should be the fittest for him to choose, till such time as we see he hath chosen of many some one; which one we then may boldly conclude to be the fittest, because he hath taken it before the rest. When we do otherwise, surely we exceed our bounds; who and where we are we forget; and therefore needful it is that our pride in such cases be controlled, and our disputes beaten back with those demands of the blessed Apostle, “How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who was his counsellor⁷¹?”

---

← That neither God’s being the author of laws, · Contents · How great use Ceremonies have in the Church →

Footnotes

1. Heb. iii. 6. “Either that commendation of the son before the servant is a false testimony, or the son ordained a permanent government in the Church. If permanent, then not to be changed. What then do they, that [not only] hold it may be changed at the magistrate’s pleasure, but advise the magistrate by his positive laws to proclaim, that it is his will, that if there shall be a church within his dominions, he will maim and deform the same?” M. M. [Martin Marprelate, “Ha’ ye any work for a Cooper?”] p. 16. “He that was as faithful as Moses, left as clear instruction for the government of the Church: But Christ was as faithful as Moses: Ergo.” Demonst. of Discip. cap. i. [p. 3. See also Theses Martinianæ, 5th Thesis. “If Christ did not ordain a church government which at the pleasure of man cannot be changed, then he is inferior unto Moses: for the government placed by him might no man alter, and thereto might no man add any thing. Heb. iii. 2, 3.” Eccl. Disc. fol. 7. “Ne illum aliqua parte prophetici muneris spoliemus, aut servum, quantumvis fidelem, unigenito Filio, et tanquam Eliezerum Isaaco in paterna domo præferamus.” Counterpoison, p. 9. Penry’s Appellation to the High Court of Parliament, p. 18.] ↩

2. John xvii. 8. ↩

3. “Either God hath left a prescript form of government now, or else he is less careful under the New Testament than under the Old.” Demonst. of Disc. cap. i. [T. C. i. 62. ap. Whitg. Def. 304.] ↩

4. [Philemon. Fragm. Incert. xliii. ed. Cler. = p. 841. Meineke, 1847.πολύ γ’ ἐστὶ πάντων ζω̑ον ἀθλιώτατον ἄνθρωπος, εἴ τις ἐξετάζοι κατὰ τρόπον. τὸν γὰρ βίον περίεργον εἰς τὰ πάντ’ ἔχων, ἀπορει̑ τὰ πλει̑στα διὰ τέλους, πονει̑ τ’ ἀεί. καὶ τοι̑ς μὲν ἄλλοις πα̑σιν ἡ γη̑ θηρίοις ἑκου̑σα παρέχει τὴν καθ’ ἡμέραν τροϕὴν, αὐτὴ πορίζουσ’, οὐ λαβου̑σα· πάνυ μόλις ὥσπερ τὸ κατὰ χρέος κεϕάλαιον ἐκτίει τὸ σπέρμα, τοὺς τόκους ἀνευρίσκουσ’ ἀεὶ πρόϕασίν τιν’ αὐχμὸν, ἢ πάγην, ἵν’ ἀποστερῃ̑ (πάχνην ἀποστερει̑).] K. ↩

5. Ecclesiast. Disc. lib. i. [fol. 5. “In vetere Ecclesia Judæorum omnia quæ ad regendum non modo civilem sed etiam ecclesiasticum statum [pertinent] … . diligenter descripta sunt, et a Deo præcepta, a Mose literis commendata.”] ↩

6. Rom. xi. 17. ↩

7. Ephes. ii. 12-16. ↩

8. Deut. iv. 5. ↩

9. Deut. iv. 12-14. ↩

10. Deut. v. 22. ↩

11. Deut. v. 27. ↩

12. Deut. v. 28-31. ↩

13. “Whereas you say, that they (the Jews) had nothing but what was determined by the law, and we have many things undetermined and left to the order of the Church; I will offer, for one that you shall bring that we have left to the order of the Church, to shew you that they had twenty which were undecided by the express word of God.” T. C. lib. i. p. 35. [22.] ↩

14. T. C. in the table to his second book. ↩

15. “If he will needs separate the worship of God from the external polity, yet as the Lord set forth the one, so he left nothing undescribed in the other.” T. C. lib. ii. p. 446. ↩

16. Levit. xxiv. 12. ↩

17. [“Sabboth,” A. B.] ↩

18. Numb. xv. 33-35. ↩

19. Numb. ix. ↩

20. Numb. xxvii. ↩

21. Gen. xviii. 18. ↩

22. Gen. xlix. 10. ↩

23. [Comp. Hamlet, v. 2. 62, “mighty opposites.”] 1886. ↩

24. T. C. lib. ii. p. 440. ↩

25. [See Eccl. Disc. fol. 10. “Sed universum hunc locum de disciplina a Deo profecta, et prophetica immobili atque perpetua, et omnium ecclesiarum communi, gravissima illa Pauli ad Timotheum de eadem conservanda obtestatione concludamus. Qui quum discipulum suum omnem domus Dei, quæ est Ecclesia, administrandæ rationem docuisset, ‘Denuncio,’ inquit, ‘tibi, in conspectu Dei illius qui vivificat omnia, et Jesu Christi, qui præclaram illam confessionem Pontio Pilato professus est, ut hæc mandata sine labe et sine reprehensione custodias usque ad apparitionem Domini nostri Jesu Christi:’ &c. quæ gravissimis verbis Apostolus persecutus est. Unde primo colligimus, disciplinæ quam ea epistola Paulus tradidisset, Deum omnipotentem auctorem esse, et Servatorem nostrum Jesum Christum: ut qui ejusdem violatæ ultores et vindices significantur. Tum constantem esse atque immutabilem, quæ nulla hominum neque gratia variari, neque auctoritate frangi debeat: cum non solum ἐντολὴ καὶ παραγγελία appelletur, sed jubeatur etiam ἄσπιλος καὶ ἀνεπίληπτος conservari. Postremo non certi alicujus temporis præceptum esse, sed perpetuum, et quod ad omnia Ecclesiæ tempora pertineat: quum tam diserte præceptum sit, ut usque in adventum Domini nostri Jesu Christi conservetur.”] ↩

26. John xviii. 36, 37. ↩

27. 1 Tim. vi. 13, 14. ↩

28. John xxi. 15. ↩

29. Acts xx. 28. ↩

30. 2 Tim. iv. 1. ↩

31. 1 Tim. vi. 20. τὴν πᾳρακαταθήκην. ↩

32. 1 Tim. iv. 14. ↩

33. 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8. ↩

34. [1 Tim. v. 9. See T. C. i. 153. al. 191. Whitg. Def. 693.] ↩

35. “My reasons do never conclude the unlawfulness of these ceremonies of burial, but the inconvenience and inexpedience of them.” T. C. lib. iii. p. 241. And in the table. “Of the inconvenience, not of the unlawfulness, of popish apparel and ceremonies in burial.” ↩

36. [By Archbishop Whitgift: see Answer, p. 25-29, and Def. 109-113. The passage from Calvin is the following: “Quia Dominus … quicquid ad salutem necessarium erat, sacris suis oraculis tum fideliter complexus est, tum perspicue enarravit, in his solus magister est audiendus. Quia autem in externa disciplina et ceremoniis non voluit sigillatim præscribere quid sequi debeamus, quod istud pendere a temporum conditione prævideret, neque judicaret unam sæculis omnibus formam convenire, confugere hic oportet ad generales, quas dedit, regulas; ut ad eas exigantur, quæcunque ad ordinem et decorum præcipi necessitas Ecclesiæ postulabit.” Instit. c. xiii. § 31, ed. 1550, or lib. iv. c. x. § 30, according to the present arrangement. All Whitgift’s quotations from the Institution specify chapter and section only. The division of the work into books first took place in the edition of 1559: and Whitgift used an earlier copy. See Def. 391. 508.] ↩

37. “Upon the indefinite speaking of M. Calvin, saying, ‘ceremonies and external discipline,’ without adding ‘all’ or ‘some,’ you go about subtlely to make men believe, that M. Calvin had placed the whole external discipline in the power and arbiterment of the Church. For if all external discipline were arbitrary, and in the choice of the Church, excommunication also (which is a part of it) might be cast away; which I think you will not say.” And in the very next words before: “Where you would give to understand that ceremonies and external discipline are not prescribed particularly by the word of God, and therefore left to the order of the Church: you must understand that all external discipline is not left to the order of the Church, being particularly prescribed in the Scriptures: no more than all ceremonies are left to the order of the Church, as the Sacrament of Baptism, and Supper of the Lord.” T. C. lib. i. p. 32. [and 33, al. 19. Whitgf. Def. 111.] ↩

38. T. C. lib. iii. p. 171. ↩

39. “We deny not but certain things are left to the order of the Church, because they are of the nature of those which are varied by times, places, persons, and other circumstances, and so could not at once be set down and established for ever.” T. C. lib. i. p. 27. [15.] ↩

40. [See above, ch. i.] ↩

41. Isa. xxix. 14; Col. ii. 22. ↩

42. [See above, ch. ii. 1.] ↩

43. August. Ep. 86. [al. 36, t. ii. 68. “Quisquis hunc diem jejunio decernendum putaverit, … . non parvo scandalo erit Ecclesiæ: nec immerito. In his enim rebus de quibus nihil certi statuit Scriptura divina, mos populi Dei, vel instituta majorum pro lege tenenda sunt. De quibus si disputare voluerimus, et ex aliorum consuetudine alios improbare, orietur interminata luctatio: quæ labore sermocinationis cum certa documenta nulla veritatis insinuet, utique cavendum est, ne tempestate contentionis serenitatem caritatis obnubilet.”] ↩

44. Josh. xxii. 10. ↩

45. Judges xi. 40. ↩

46. John x. 22. ↩

47. John xix. 40. ↩

48. [1 Admon. to the Parl. fol. 1. ap. Whitg. Def. 76. “Seeing that nothing in this mortal life is more diligently to be sought for, and carefully to be looked unto, than the restitution of true religion, and reformation of God’s Church: it shall be your parts (dearly beloved) in this present parliament assembled, as much as in you lieth to promote the same, and to employ your whole labour and study not only in abandoning all popish remnants both in ceremonies and regiment, but also in bringing in and placing in God’s Church those things only, which the Lord himself in his word commandeth.”] ↩

49. [Vide Whitgift’s Answer to the Admonition, p. 20-29.] ↩

50. [By this it should seem that Hooker did not consider Cartwright himself as one of the authors of the Admonition.] ↩

51. [See above, ch. ii. 2.] ↩

52. [T. C. 1 Reply, p. 14.] ↩

53. [T. C. ibid.] ↩

54. [In ch. iii.] ↩

55. [In ch. iv.] ↩

56. [Saravia, De diversis Ministrorum Gradibus, Prol. ad Lect. “De hoc novo Ecclesiæ regendæ modo idem censeo, quod alii de Episcoporum regimine judicant; nempe quod sit humanus et ferendus, ubi alius melior obtineri non potest: et contra ille qui improbatur tanquam humanus mihi videtur esse divinus; utpote qui tam in Veteri quam in Novo Testamento a Deo sit institutus.” Sutcliffe, False Semblant of counterfeit Discipline detected, p. 8. “We say, that so much as Christ hath appointed to be observed, as that there be pastors to teach, and a certain government, and such like discipline, is diligently to be kept. Where He hath left it free, there the governors of the Church, i. e. Christian princes and bishops, may set orders and see the same executed: and the orders appointed by Christ, and canons and customs of the Church, we call ecclesiastical discipline: and this we account to be changeable so far forth as is not by Christ commanded to be kept.”] ↩

57. [The first part of Hooker’s work was licensed to the press, March 9, 1592-3. The affliction meant is therefore the civil war in France, not the secession from protestantism of Henry IV: which was not made known till after June that year. Davila, lib. xiii. p. 697, comp. p. 692. Venice, 1692.] ↩

58. [In ch. v.] ↩

59. [In ch. vi.] ↩

60. [In ch. vii.] ↩

61. [In ch. viii.] ↩

62. [In ch. ix.] ↩

63. [In ch. x.] ↩

64. “Nisi reip. suæ statum omnem constituerit, magistratus ordinarit, singulorum munera potestatemque descripserit, quæ judiciorum forique ratio habenda, quomodo civium finiendæ lites: non solum minus Ecclesiæ Christianæ providit quam Moses olim Judaicæ, sed quam a Lycurgo, Solone, Numa, civitatibus suis prospectum sit.” Lib. de Ecclesiast. Discip. [fol. 8, or p. 10 of T. C.’s translation.] ↩

65. [In ch. xi. 1-8.] ↩

66. [Ch. xi. 9.] ↩

67. [Eccl. Disc. fol. 143. “Christianæ Ecclesiæ, tanquam domus Dei (ut a Paulo appellatur) οἰκονομίαν qui attentius et accuratius consideraverit, animadvertet profecto incredibilem quandam illam in omnibus ejus partibus et divinam sapientiam, ac tanto quidem illa Salomonis in sacra historia magis admirabilem, quanto sapientior Salomone fuerit qui omnem hujus domus ordinem rationemque descripsit. Sive enim ministrorum ordines, sive accubitus, sive varium pro cujusque dignitate ornatum et habitum consideremus, quod ad Ecclesiæ non modo salutem conservandam, sed etiam dignitatem illustrandam ornandamque aut prudenter excogitari, aut cum judicio atque ratione disponi collocarique potuerit: quid in hac οἰκονομία requiratur?”] ↩

68. The Defence of Godly Ministers against D. Bridges, p. 133. ↩

69. Luke vi. 39. ↩

70. Matt. v. 14. ↩

71. Rom. xi. 33, 34. ↩