been guilty of great impropriety in eating the Lord's supper, as if they had forgotten the end and use of it; and they are set right by St. Paul, as related 1 Cor. xi. 23. 33. 34. : he also committed the like authority to his pastoral successors. The Epistles to Timothy and Titus are full of canons for the government of their respective churches. All these particulars laid together show that particular churches had power to settle matters of discipline, order, and decency, for themselves; and that there were no rules of this kind of universal obligation to all churches. As the Apostles, considered singly in the light of commissioned and inspired teachers, had no authority over the faith, neither had they when met together in council. We have but one instance of an Apostolic council, which was held at Jerusalem, of which the proceedings are recorded in Acts xvi. This matter was plainly one of discipline, not of the substance of faith; and it was determined by prudential considerations, arising from the circumstances of the Christian church at that time. This case fully stated and commented on.

There is a question arising out of this case, viz.-why were the particular orders to abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, &c. singled out, when the Jews were strongly attached to other points of the law? If we consider the case, the reason of this distinction will appear: the great concern being to prevent offence to the Jews, and thus to preserve peace in the church of Christ, it was necessary to guard against practices which lay open to every body's view in daily life: thus a Jew could not have dined at the table of a Christian without having some security that he should not meet with things offered to idols and the like; and thus all intercourse between them would have been cut off, &c. : but the great difficulty in this case lies in the word fornication; which seems to be an offence of a moral kind, in which the Jews had no particular concern. In the common sense of the word it could have no meaning here. In respect to things offered to idols, and the like, the Jews were not only forbidden the use of them, but all communication with those who had, even though they were strangers, (Lev. xvii. 12.) The word Topveía, which we translate fornication, includes all carnal impurity. The abominable lewdness which made part of the heathen worship will account for the worship of idols and whoredom being joined together in the decree of the council. So also they are joined together 1 Cor. vi. 9. and Rev. ii. 14. 20. Idolatry is also styled whoredom by the writers of the Old Testament; and the great powers which spread idolatry in the world were characterised under the image of a great whore; so that nobody is at a loss to understand the meaning of those writers, when they charge the people with going a whoring after other gods. What has been said in few words, the importance of the subject being considered, may show us the foundation and proper bounds of church authority in holy Scripture, and also the true foundation on which our reformation from the church of Rome stands. If that church asks why we have departed from some which it accounts articles of faith, we answer, because they are no part of the faith once delivered to the

saints: if we are pressed with the authority of the church which has received them, our answer is, that Christ Jesus was the author and finisher of the faith; to which nothing can be added, and from which nothing can be taken if it be asked why we have discarded much ceremony and discipline, we may, without entering into particular cases, answer that the church of England has as much authority to appoint rules for its members as the church of Rome has; that these have been settled ou prudential considerations of the circumstances of England, whose church is a far better judge in this respect than that of Rome. But, secondly; if we are to contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints, where are we to find this faith, and how can we distinguish it from the addition of later ages? When our Saviour came into the world, the case of the Jewish church was in this respect the same as ours: the evil had been long growing, and the ancient prophets had taken notice of it, as in Isaiah xxix. 13. but yet in our Saviour's time traditions were in such esteem, that the Scribes and Pharisees challenged him to answer this question: why do thy disciples transgress the traditions of the elders? (Mat. xv. 2.)—the very question this which is put to us by the church of Rome, and the darling point insisted on by their emissaries. But hear our Saviour's answer to it: why do you also transgress the commandments of God by your tradition?—a question hard to be answered, and which the rulers of the church of Rome should consider well, for they are much concerned in it. If that church pretends to have, by oral tradition, doctrines derived originally from the Apostles, the Jewish doctors referred theirs to Moses, from whom, as they supposed, they received them. The Jews had the writings of Moses and the Prophets; the church of Rome has those of the Apostles and Evangelists; yet neither allow their own to be a complete rule, but recur to tradition in order to supply the deficiency. Consider how our Saviour treated this pretence of the Jewish church, and it will direct us how to behave in the like case. He speaks of them as holding doctrines of their own, not of God, (Mark vii. 8. 9.): he shows how their traditions contradicted the law of Moses, and then tells them, you make the word of God of none effect, &c. : plainly considering the written law of Moses as the commandment of God, but the traditions of the elders as the law of men. To Moses and the Prophets, who make up the Scripture of the Jews, our Lord constantly appeals: he bids the Jews search the Scriptures; tells them they err, not knowing the Scriptures; and when he tells them that on the two commandments, of loving God and our neighbor, hang all the law and the prophets, he plainly declared that they contained the whole of their religion; for if he had considered the traditions as a rule of religion, he must have reduced them also to his general precepts. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, our Saviour has fully determined this point in the person of Abraham. The application of this case is easily made to our own: we have seen what our Saviour thought of the traditions, what of the law and prophets of the Jewish church. The Christian church has its Apostles and Evangelists, and also too many traditionary doctrines, not founded ·

in holy writ. What are we to do then? We cannot want better authority than our Saviour's to reject the traditions of men, and to hold fast the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets of the gospel ; that is, contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.

DISCOURSE LXII.

ROMANS, CHAP. XIII. VERSE 1.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

WE have, in this and the following verses, the duty which subjects owe to their temporal governors, taught and maintained by several arguments; to understand the sense and propriety of which, we must consider the circumstances of the time, place, and persons here concerned. There is no appearance in the gospel that our Saviour intended to alter the civil governments of the world. His errand was of a different nature; and he speaks of government only as occasion required. In Matt. xxii. 17. we find a captious question put to him by the Pharisees, whether it was lawful to pay tribute to the Roman emperor or not? The question arose from hence: that a certain Jewish sect held this payment to be unlawful. The author of this opinion was Judas of Galilee, who, when the nation was ordered to be taxed, raised a great rebellion. His fate is related fully by Josephus, and mentioned by Gamaliel in Acts v. 37. By degrees they gathered strength; and in the reign of Claudius ravaged many places in Samaria: their pretence for freedom was, as we learn from St. Chrysostom, that being the freemen of God, they ought not to be the subjects or slaves of men. They were called Galileans, their founder being of that country, as also many of his followers. By this name Christians went in the first ages; they are so called by several heathen writers: Julian thus also designates them. Hence the Christians going by the name of Galileans were thought by the heathens to entertain the opinions of those who refused obedience to earthly princes, and were for setting up an independent government. Thus Tertullus the orator accused St. Paul, (Acts xxiv. 5.); thus also did the Jews accuse the Christians to the magistrates of Thessalonica, (Acts xvii. 16.) Hence that question of the Pharisees, Is it lawful to pay tribute to Cæsar? for they hoped to have found something whereof to have impeached our Saviour before the Roman governor. The collectors of tax seem to have had the same jealousy concerning our Saviour, when in Matth. xvii. 24. they inquired of St. Peter whether his Master would pay tribute or no; to which he answers yes and our Saviour, though he intimates that he ought to have been exempted, says to St. Peter, when he had cast his hook

on.

into the sea, and taken the piece of money from the mouth of the fish, Give it them as tribute for me and yourself, lest we should offend them.' This scandal, which he and his Apostles lay under, urged both him and them to vindicate themselves, and to teach their followers such obedience to the higher powers as might leave no pretence for such an accusation. That the Apostles had reference to the same in pressing obedience of all kinds on their disciples, is evident from the argument with which they close their instructions; that the word of God be not blasphemed, or evil spoken of: this text commented on, showing that Christians were more liable to reproach in this case than in any other: hence the reason why our Lord bids St. Peter pay the tribute: hence St. Paul's orders to Titus, ch. ii. 5. and 10.: also Tim. vi. 1. See also 1 Peter, ii. 15, 16. Besides these reasons, drawn from the Apostle's own writings, St. Jerome, in his comment on Tit. iii. 1., and St. Chrysostom, on Rom. xiii., teach the same thing. Hence we may see why the Apostles so earnestly press their new converts with a more than ordinary obedience to their governors: the honor of Christ and the gospel was nearly concerned in their behavior, which ought to be dearer to them than their lives: this point enlarged St. Paul more especially labors this point, when he writes to the Christians at Rome, where the least disorder would be soonest taken notice of, and most improved to the prejudice of the gospel. If we examine what St. Paul has taught on this point, we shall find it built on reasons purposely adapted to confute the error of the Galileans and some judaizing Christians, and to require such a scrupulous obedience as might clear the gospel and its professors from the scandal thrown on them by the heathen. The doctrine of the former part of the text opposes that of the Galileans; and is supported in the latter part by arguments peculiarly adapted to combat their error. He allows what they say to be true respecting God; but this is so far from exempting them from subjection to temporal power, that it proves the contrary for the power of the magistrate being delegated from God, is therefore more especially to be regarded by those who pretend in a peculiar manner to be his servants. It was obvious to object to this reasoning, that the powers then in being could not be ordained by God, because they had thwarted all his purposes. To prevent which he purposely adds, oi dè ovσaɩ éžovoiaι, the powers which now be, are ordained of God; whence he draws this consequence, whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. In what sense the rulers of the world may be said to be the ordinance of God, and to derive their power from him, is to be found from the state of the world, which requires them to protect the innocent and defend the weak: therefore to pretend an exemption from their power is to act in opposition to his will. As some pretended to withdraw their obedience from the prince, because they had been made partakers of the freedom of the gospel, so others in a state of servitude thought they had a right to throw off their bondage for the same reason: the Apostle therefore uses the same way of arguing with them, exhorting them to submit to their

;

masters as unto God. Thus he lays down this general rule: Let every man abide in the same calling, &c. (1 Cor. vii. 20.); which he particularises in Ephes. vi. 5. 7. The same is somewhat differently expressed in Col. iii. and is treated with some warmth in 1 Tim. vi. 3-5. In all these passages he plainly refers to the opinion of such as taught that the gospel had introduced a perfect state of freedom, and therefore teaches his converts that Christianity should make them better, not worse servants; since they ought to obey from the heart, as serving God and not men. St. Peter also teaches the same: submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake. Hence it is plain that the Apostle's argument is chiefly directed against those who were for making religion the cloak of disloyalty, on the specious pretence of setting up the Lord Jesus. The Apostle uses a second argument to inforce his doctrine, laid down at first in the words of the text: Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: and here the first doubt is, where the argument begins; for the words immediately following those last treated of may either be taken as the first of the second argument, or as a farther conclusion drawn from the first: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. If they who resist the power, do resist the ordinance of God, then this consequence is so evident, that it can lose nothing of its force should it be taken as introducing a new argument; which on the whole it seems to do: reasons for this given. To go on with the argument: it is drawn from the common topic of hope and fear and by setting before us both the power and right of our governors to punish us, when we refuse to acknowlege their authority, it tacitly warns us to expect no protection from God against their just anger : it is absurd to expect assistance from God in opposition to his own authority delegated to earthly powers. The gospel in every page encourages its disciples to bear up against the afflictions or persecutions of the world, and to be exceeding glad, because their reward shall be great in heaven; but lest those who suffered as seditious subjects should entertain these hopes, he also warns them that the prince acts by the will of God in punishing such offenders. St. Peter, on the same subject, has the same view before him, (iv. 14, 15.) as he had before observed; what glory is it, if when ye shall be buffeted for your faults, ye take it patiently? St. Paul's second argument therefore is not a mere prudential motive to obedience; but it teaches us that we shall not only suffer, but deserve to suffer, which every Christian ought to fear more than the evil itself. The steps of the argument are, they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation, that is, punishment or judgment; the reason follows: for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil: hence we infer that by good works obedience is especially meant; and by evil works, resistance else his reason will not contain the proof of his doctrine: yet the Apostle is now disputing with those who considered themselves justified by the gospel in not thinking the resistance here spoken of an evil work. Does he then beg this most material point? No: but from his first argument, that whoever resists the power resisteth the ordinance of God, he proves resistance to be an evil work: he then