Naaman was converted in his heart to the God of Israel,for he saith,"Thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods,but unto the Lord.In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant,that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there,and he leaneth on my hand,and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon;when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon,the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing."This the Prophet approved,and bid him "Go in peace."Here Naaman believed in his heart;but by bowing before the idol Rimmon,he denied the true God in effect as much as if he had done it with his lips.But then what shall we answer to our Saviour's saying,"Whosoever denieth me before men,I will deny him before my Father which is in heaven?"This we may say,that whatsoever a subject,as Naaman was,is compelled to in obedience to his sovereign,and doth it not in order to his own mind,but in order to the laws of his country,that action is not his,but his sovereign's;nor is it he that in this case denieth Christ before men,but his governor,and the law of his country.If any man shall accuse this doctrine as repugnant to true and unfeigned Christianity,I ask him,in case there should be a subject in any Christian Commonwealth that should be inwardly in his heart of the Mahomedan religion,whether if his sovereign command him to be present at the divine service of the Christian church,and that on pain of death,he think that Mahomedan obliged in conscience to suffer death for that cause,rather than to obey that command of his lawful prince.
If he say he ought rather to suffer death,then he authorizeth all private men to disobey their princes in maintenance of their religion,true or false:if he say he ought to be obedient,then he alloweth to himself that which he denieth to another,contrary to the words of our Saviour,"Whatsoever you would that men should do unto you,that do ye unto them";and contrary to the law of nature (which is the indubitable everlasting law of God),"Do not to another that which thou wouldest not he should do unto thee."
But what then shall we say of all those martyrs we read of in the history of the Church,that they have needlessly cast away their lives?For answer hereunto,we are to distinguish the persons that have been for that cause put to death;whereof some have received a calling to preach and profess the profess the kingdom of Christ openly;others have had no such calling,nor more has been required of them than their own faith.The former sort,if they have been put to death for bearing witness to this point,that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead,were true martyrs;for a martyr is,to give the true definition of the word,a witness of the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah;which none can be but those that those that conversed with him on earth,and saw him after he was risen:for a witness must have seen what he testifieth,or else his testimony is not good.And that none but such can properly be called martyrs of Christ is manifest out of the words of St.Peter,"Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst us,beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day he was taken up from us,must one be ordained to be a martyr"(that is,a witness)"with us of his resurrection":where we may observe that he which is to be a witness of truth of the resurrection of Christ,that is to say,of the truth of this fundamental article of Christian religion,that Jesus was the Christ,must be some Disciple that conversed with him,and saw him before and after his resurrection;and consequently must be one of his original Disciples:whereas they which were not so can witness no more,but that their antecessors said it,and are therefore but witnesses of other men's testimony,and are but second martyrs,or martyrs of Christ's witnesses.
He that to maintain every doctrine which he himself draweth out of the history of our Saviour's life,and of the Acts or Epistles of the Apostles,or which he believeth,upon the authority of a private man,will oppose the laws and authority of the civil state,is very far from being a martyr of Christ,or a martyr of his martyrs.It is one article only,which to die for meriteth so honourable a name,and that article is this,that Jesus is the Christ;that is to say,he that hath redeemed us,and shall come again to give us salvation,and eternal life in his glorious kingdom.To die for every tenet that serveth the ambition or profit of the clergy is not required;nor is it the death of the witness,but the testimony itself that makes the martyr:for the word signifieth nothing else but the man that beareth witness,whether he be put to death for his testimony,or not.
Also he that is not sent to preach this fundamental article,but taketh it upon him of his private authority,though he be a witness,and consequently a martyr,either primary of Christ,or secondary of his Apostles,Disciples,or their successors;yet is he not obliged to suffer death for that cause,because being not called thereto,it is not required at his hands;nor ought he to complain if he loseth the reward he expecteth from those that never set him on work.None therefore can be a martyr,neither of the first nor second degree,that have not a warrant to preach Christ come in the flesh;that is to say,none but such as are sent to the conversion of infidels.For no man is a witness to him that already believeth,and therefore needs no witness;but to them that deny,or doubt,or have not heard it.Christ sent his Apostles and his seventy Disciples with authority to preach;he sent not all that believed.And he sent them to unbelievers;"I send you,"saith he,"as sheep amongst wolves";not as sheep to other sheep.
Lastly,the points of their commission,as they are expressly set down in the gospel,contain none of them any authority over the congregation.
