Chapter XLII: Of Power Ecclesiastical (3)

According to this ancient rite, the apostles, and presbyters, and the presbytery itself, laid hands on them whom they ordained pastors, and withal prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost; and that not only once, but sometimes oftener, when a new occasion was presented: but the end was still the same, namely a punctual and religious designation of the person, ordained either to the pastoral charge in general, or to a particular mission. So (_Acts_ vi. 6) _The apostles prayed, and laid their hands_ on the seven deacons; which was done, not to give them the Holy Ghost, (for they were full of the Holy Ghost before they were chosen, as appeareth immediately before, verse 3) but to design them to that office. And after Philip the deacon had converted certain persons in Samaria, Peter and John went down (_Acts_ viii. 17), _and laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost_. And not only an apostle, but a presbyter had this power: for St. Paul adviseth Timothy (_1 Tim._ v. 22) _Lay hands suddenly on no man_; that is, design no man rashly to the office of a pastor. The whole presbytery laid their hands on Timothy, as we read _1 Tim._ iv. 14: but this is to be understood, as that some did it by the appointment of the presbytery, and most likely their προεστὼς, or prolocutor, which it may be was St. Paul himself. For in his second Epistle to _Timothy_, (chap. i. 6) he saith to him, _Stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the laying on of my hands_: where note by the way, that by the Holy Ghost, is not meant the third person in the Trinity, but the gifts necessary to the pastoral office. We read also, that St. Paul had imposition of hands twice; once from Ananias at Damascus, (_Acts_ ix. 17, 18) at the time of his baptism; and again (_Acts_ xiii. 3) at Antioch, when he was first sent out to preach. The use then of this ceremony, considered in the ordination of pastors, was to design the person to whom they gave such power. But if there had been then any Christian, that had had the power of teaching before; the baptizing of him, that is, the making him a Christian, had given him no new power, but had only caused him to preach true doctrine, that is, to use his power aright; and therefore the imposition of hands had been unnecessary; baptism itself had been sufficient. But every sovereign, before Christianity, had the power of teaching, and ordaining teachers; and therefore Christianity gave them no new right, but only directed them in the way of teaching truth; and consequently they needed no imposition of hands, besides that which is done in baptism, to authorize them to exercise any part of the pastoral function, as namely, to baptize and consecrate. And in the Old Testament, though the priest only had right to consecrate, during the time that the sovereignty was in the high-priest; yet it was not so when the sovereignty was in the king. For we read (_1 Kings_ viii.) that Solomon blessed the people, consecrated the Temple, and pronounced that public prayer which is the pattern now for consecration of all Christian churches and chapels: whereby it appears, he had not only the right of ecclesiastical government, but also of exercising ecclesiastical functions.

[Sidenote: The civil sovereign, if a Christian, is head of the Church in
his own dominions.]

From this consolidation of the right politic and ecclesiastic in Christian sovereigns, it is evident, they have all manner of power over their subjects, that can be given to man, for the government of men’s external actions, both in policy and religion; and may make such laws as themselves shall judge fittest, for the government of their own subjects, both as they are the commonwealth, and as they are the Church; for both State and Church are the same men.

If they please, therefore, they may, as many Christian kings now do, commit the government of their subjects in matters of religion to the Pope; but then the Pope is in that point subordinate to them, and exerciseth that charge in another’s dominion _jure civili_, in the right of the civil sovereign; not _jure divino_, in God’s right; and may therefore be discharged of that office, when the sovereign, for the good of his subjects, shall think it necessary. They may also, if they please, commit the care of religion to one supreme pastor, or to an assembly of pastors; and give them what power over the Church, or one over another, they think most convenient; and what titles of honour, as of archbishops, bishops, priests, or presbyters, they will; and make such laws for their maintenance, either by tithes or otherwise, as they please, so they do it out of a sincere conscience, of which God only is the judge. It is the civil sovereign that is to appoint judges and interpreters of the canonical Scriptures; for it is he that maketh them laws. It is he also that giveth strength to excommunications; which but for such laws and punishments, as may humble obstinate libertines, and reduce them to union with the rest of the Church, would be contemned. In sum, he hath the supreme power in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil, as far as concerneth actions and words, for those only are known and may be accused; and of that which cannot be accused, there is no judge at all but God, that knoweth the heart. And these rights are incident to all sovereigns, whether monarchs or assemblies: for they that are the representants of a Christian people, are representants of the Church: for a Church, and a commonwealth of Christian people, are the same thing.

[Sidenote: Cardinal Bellarmine’s books, _De Summo Pontifice_
considered.]

Though this that I have here said, and in other places of this book, seem clear enough for the asserting of the supreme ecclesiastical power to Christian sovereigns; yet because the Pope of Rome’s challenge to that power universally, hath been maintained chiefly, and I think, as strongly as is possible, by Cardinal Bellarmine, in his controversy _De Summo Pontifice_; I have thought it necessary, as briefly as I can, to examine the grounds and strength of his discourse.

[Sidenote: The first book.]

Of five books he hath written of this subject, the first containeth three questions: one, which is simply the best government, _Monarchy_, _Aristocracy_, or _Democracy_; and concludeth for neither, but for a government mixed of all three: another, which of these is the best government of the Church; and concludeth for the mixed, but which should most participate of monarchy: the third, whether in this mixed monarchy, St. Peter had the place of monarch. Concerning his first conclusion, I have already sufficiently proved (chapter XVIII.) that all governments which men are bound to obey, are simple and absolute. In monarchy there is but one man supreme; and all other men that have any kind of power in the state, have it by his commission, during his pleasure, and execute it in his name: and in aristocracy and democracy, but one supreme assembly, with the same power that in monarchy belongeth to the monarch, which is not a mixed, but an absolute sovereignty. And of the three sorts, which is the best, is not to be disputed, where any one of them is already established; but the present ought always to be preferred, maintained, and accounted best; because it is against both the law of nature, and the divine positive law, to do anything tending to the subversion thereof. Besides, it maketh nothing to the power of any pastor, unless he have the civil sovereignty, what kind of government is the best; because their calling is not to govern men by commandment, but to teach them, and persuade them by arguments, and leave it to them to consider whether they shall embrace, or reject the doctrine taught. For monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, do mark out unto us three sorts of sovereigns, not of pastors; or, as we may say, three sorts of masters of families, not three sorts of schoolmasters for their children.

And therefore the second conclusion, concerning the best form of government of the Church, is nothing to the question of the Pope’s power without his own dominions. For in all other commonwealths his power, if he have any at all, is that of the schoolmaster only, and not of the master of the family.

For the third conclusion, which is, that St. Peter was monarch of the Church, he bringeth for his chief argument the place of St. Matthew (chap. xvi. 18, 19) _Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, &c. And I will give thee the keys of heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven._ Which place, well considered, proveth no more, but that the Church of Christ hath for foundation one only article; namely, that which Peter in the name of all the apostles professing, gave occasion to our Saviour to speak the words here cited. Which that we may clearly understand, we are to consider, that our Saviour preached by himself, by John the Baptist, and by his apostles, nothing but this article of faith, _that he was the Christ_; all other articles requiring faith no otherwise, than as founded on that. John began first, (_Matth._ iii. 2) preaching only this, _the kingdom of God is at hand_. Then our Saviour himself (_Matth._ iv. 17) preached the same: and to his twelve apostles, when he gave them their commission, (_Matth._ x. 7), there is no mention of preaching any other article but that. This was the fundamental article, that is the foundation of the Church’s faith. Afterwards the apostles being returned to him, he (_Matth._ xvi. 13) asketh them all, not Peter only, _who men said he was_; and they answered, that _some said he was John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the Prophets_. Then (verse 15) he asked them all again, not Peter only, _whom say ye that I am?_ Therefore St. Peter answered for them all, _Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God_; which I said is the foundation of the faith of the whole Church; from which our Saviour takes the occasion of saying, _upon this stone I will build my Church_: by which it is manifest, that by the foundation-stone of the Church, was meant the fundamental article of the Church’s faith. But why then, will some object, doth our Saviour interpose these words, _thou art Peter_? If the original of this text had been rigidly translated, the reason would easily have appeared. We are therefore to consider, that the apostle Simon was surnamed _Stone_, which is the signification of the Syriac word _Cephas_, and of the Greek word Πετρος. Our Saviour therefore, after the confession of that fundamental article, alluding to his name, said (as if it were in English) thus, Thou art _Stone_, and upon this Stone I will build my Church: which is as much as to say, this article, that _I am the Christ_, is the foundation of all the faith I require in those that are to be members of my Church. Neither is this allusion to a name, an unusual thing in common speech. But it had been a strange and obscure speech, if our Saviour, intending to build his Church on the person of St. Peter, had said, _thou art a stone, and upon this stone I will build my Church_; when it was so obvious, without ambiguity, to have said, _I will build my Church on thee_; and yet there had been still the same allusion to his name.

And for the following words, _I will give thee the keys of heaven, &c._ it is no more than what our Saviour gave also to all the rest of his disciples, (_Matth._ xviii. 18), _Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven_. But howsoever this be interpreted, there is no doubt but the power here granted belongs to all supreme pastors; such as are all Christian civil sovereigns in their own dominions. In so much, as if St. Peter, or our Saviour himself, had converted any of them to believe him, and to acknowledge his kingdom; yet, because his kingdom is not of this world, he had left the supreme care of converting his subjects to none but him; or else he must have deprived him of the sovereignty, to which the right of teaching is inseparably annexed. And thus much in refutation of his first book, wherein he would prove St. Peter to have been the monarch universal of the Church, that is to say, of all the Christians in the world.

[Sidenote: The second book.]

The second book hath two conclusions: one, that St. Peter was bishop of Rome, and there died: the other, that the Popes of Rome are his successors. Both which have been disputed by others. But supposing them true; yet if by Bishop of Rome, be understood either the monarch of the Church, or the supreme pastor of it; not Silvester, but Constantine, who was the first Christian emperor, was that bishop; and as Constantine, so all other Christian emperors, were of right supreme bishops of the Roman empire: I say, of the Roman empire, not of all Christendom; for other Christian sovereigns had the same right in their several territories, as to an office essentially adherent to their sovereignty. Which shall serve for answer to his second book.

[Sidenote: The third book.]

In the third book he handleth the question, whether the Pope be Antichrist? For my part, I see no argument that proves he is so, in that sense the Scripture useth the name: nor will I take any argument from the quality of Antichrist, to contradict the authority he exerciseth, or hath heretofore exercised, in the dominions of any other prince or state.

It is evident that the prophets of the Old Testament foretold, and the Jews expected a Messiah, that is, a Christ, that should re-establish amongst them the kingdom of God, which had been rejected by them in the time of Samuel, when they required a king after the manner of other nations. This expectation of theirs made them obnoxious to the imposture of all such, as had both the ambition to attempt the attaining of the kingdom, and the art to deceive the people by counterfeit miracles, by hypocritical life, or by orations and doctrine plausible. Our Saviour therefore, and his apostles, forewarned men of false prophets and of false Christs. False Christs are such as pretend to be the _Christ_, but are not, and are called properly _Antichrists_; in such sense, as when there happeneth a schism in the Church, by the election of two Popes, the one calleth the other _Antipapa_, or the false Pope. And therefore Antichrist in the proper signification hath two essential marks; one, that he denieth Jesus to be Christ; and another that he professeth himself to be Christ. The first mark is set down by St. John in his first Epistle, iv. 3, _Every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and this is the spirit of Antichrist_. The other mark is expressed in the words of our Saviour, (_Matth._ xxiv. 5) _many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ_; and again, (verse 23) _If any man shall say unto you, lo! here is Christ, there is Christ, believe it not_. And therefore Antichrist must be a false Christ; that is, some one of them that shall pretend themselves to be Christ. And out of these two marks, _to deny Jesus to be the Christ_, and _to affirm himself to be the Christ_, it followeth, that he must also be an _adversary of Jesus the true Christ_, which is another usual signification of the word Antichrist. But of these many Antichrists, there is one special one, ὁ Αντίχριστος, _the Antichrist_, or _Antichrist_ definitely, as one certain person; not indefinitely _an Antichrist_. Now, seeing the Pope of Rome neither pretendeth himself, nor denieth Jesus to be the Christ, I perceive not how he can be called Antichrist; by which word is not meant, one that falsely pretendeth to be _his lieutenant_ or _vicar-general_, but to be _He_. There is also some mark of the time of this special Antichrist, as (_Matth._ xxiv. 15), when that abominable destroyer, spoken of by Daniel (_Dan._ ix. 27) shall stand in the Holy place, and such tribulation as was not since the beginning of the world, nor ever shall be again, insomuch as if it were to last long, (_Matth._ xxiv. 22) _no flesh could be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened_, made fewer. But that tribulation is not yet come; for it is to be followed immediately (verse 29) by a darkening of the sun and moon, a falling of the stars, a concussion of the heavens, and the glorious coming again of our Saviour in the clouds. And therefore _the Antichrist_ is not yet come; whereas, many Popes are both come and gone. It is true, the Pope, in taking upon him to give laws to all Christian kings and nations, usurpeth a kingdom in this world, which Christ took not on him: but he doth it not _as Christ_, but as _for Christ_, wherein there is nothing of _the Antichrist_.

[Sidenote: Fourth book.]

In the fourth book, to prove the Pope to be the supreme judge in all questions of faith and manners, _which is as much as to be the absolute monarch of all Christians in the world_, he bringeth three propositions: the first, that his judgments are infallible: the second, that he can make very laws, and punish those that observe them not: the third, that our Saviour conferred all jurisdiction ecclesiastical on the Pope of Rome.

[Sidenote: Texts for the infallibility of the Pope’s judgment in points
of faith.]

For the infallibility of his judgments, he allegeth the Scriptures: and first, that of Luke, xxii. 31, 32: _Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren_. This, according to Bellarmine’s exposition, is, that Christ gave here to Simon Peter two privileges: one, that neither his faith should fail, nor the faith of any of his successors: the other, that neither he, nor any of his successors, should ever define any point concerning faith or manners erroneously, or contrary to the definition of a former Pope: which is a strange, and very much strained interpretation. But he that with attention readeth that chapter, shall find there is no place in the whole Scripture that maketh more against the Pope’s authority, than this very place. The Priests and Scribes seeking to kill our Saviour at the Passover, and Judas possessed with a resolution to betray him, and the day of killing the Passover being come, our Saviour celebrated the same with his apostles, which he said, till the kingdom of God was come he would do no more; and withal told them, that one of them was to betray him. Hereupon they questioned which of them it should be; and withal, seeing the next Passover their master would celebrate should be when he was king, entered into a contention, who should then be the greatest man. Our Saviour therefore told them, that the kings of the nations had dominion over their subjects, and are called by a name in Hebrew, that signifies bountiful; but I cannot be so to you, you must endeavour to serve one another; I ordain you a kingdom, but it is such as my Father hath ordained me; a kingdom that I am now to purchase with my blood, and not to possess till my second coming; then ye shall eat and drink at my table, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And then addressing himself to St. Peter, he saith; Simon, Simon, Satan seeks, by suggesting a present domination, to weaken your faith of the future; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail; thou therefore note this, being converted, and understanding my kingdom as of another world, confirm the same faith in thy brethren. To which St. Peter answered, as one that no more expected any authority in this world, _Lord, I am ready to go with thee, not only to prison, but to death_. Whereby it is manifest, St. Peter had not only no jurisdiction given him in this world, but a charge to teach all the other apostles, that they also should have none. And for the infallibility of St. Peter’s sentence definitive in matter of faith, there is no more to be attributed to it out of this text, than that Peter should continue in the belief of this point, namely, that Christ should come again and possess the kingdom at the day of judgment; which was not given by this text to all his successors; for we see they claim it in the world that now is.

The second place is that of Matth. xvi. 18, _Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it_. By which, as I have already shown in this chapter, is proved no more, than that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the confession of Peter, which gave occasion to that speech; namely this, that _Jesus is Christ the Son of God_.

The third text is John xxi. 16, 17: _Feed my sheep_; which contains no more but a commission of teaching. And if we grant the rest of the apostles to be contained in that name of _sheep_; then it is the supreme power of teaching: but it was only for the time that there were no Christian sovereigns already possessed of that supremacy. But I have already proved, that Christian sovereigns are in their own dominions the supreme pastors, and instituted thereto, by virtue of their being baptized, though without other imposition of hands. For such imposition, being a ceremony of designing the person, is needless, when he is already designed to the power of teaching what doctrine he will, by his institution to an absolute power over his subjects. For as I have proved before, sovereigns are supreme teachers, in general, by their office; and therefore oblige themselves, by their baptism, to teach the doctrine of Christ: and when they suffer others to teach their people, they do it at the peril of their own souls; for it is at the hands of the heads of families that God will require the account of the instruction of his children and servants. It is of Abraham himself, not of a hireling, that God saith (_Gen._ xviii. 19) _I know him that he will command his children, and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, and do justice and judgment_.

The fourth place is that of _Exod._ xxviii. 30: _Thou shalt put in the breast-plate of judgment, the Urim and the Thummim_: which he saith is interpreted by the Septuagint δήλωσιν κὰι ἀλήθειαν; that is, _evidence_ and _truth_: and thence concludeth, God hath given evidence and truth, which is almost infallibility, to the high-priest. But be it evidence and truth itself that was given; or be it but admonition to the priest to endeavour to inform himself clearly, and give judgment uprightly; yet in that it was given to the high-priest, it was given to the civil sovereign; (for such next under God was the high-priest in the commonwealth of Israel); and is an argument for evidence and truth, that is, for the ecclesiastical supremacy of civil sovereigns over their own subjects, against the pretended power of the Pope. These are all the texts he bringeth for the infallibility of the judgment of the Pope in point of faith.

[Sidenote: Texts for the same, in point of manners.]

For the infallibility of his judgment concerning manners, he bringeth one text, which is that of John xvi. 13: _When the Spirit of truth is come, he will lead you into all truth_: where, saith he, by _all truth_, is meant, at least _all truth necessary to salvation_. But with this mitigation, he attributeth no more infallibility to the Pope, than to any man that professeth Christianity and is not to be damned. For if any man err in any point, wherein not to err is necessary to salvation, it is impossible he should be saved; for that only is necessary to salvation, without which to be saved is impossible. What points these are, I shall declare out of the Scripture in the chapter following. In this place I say no more, but that though it were granted, the Pope could not possibly teach any error at all, yet doth not this entitle him to any jurisdiction in the dominions of another prince; unless we shall also say, a man is obliged in conscience to set on work upon all occasions the best workman, even then also when he hath formerly promised his work to another.

Besides the text, he argueth from reason, thus. If the Pope could err in necessaries, then Christ hath not sufficiently provided for the Church’s salvation; because he hath commanded her to follow the Pope’s directions. But this reason is invalid, unless he shew when and where Christ commanded that, or took at all any notice of a Pope. Nay, granting whatsoever was given to St. Peter, was given to the Pope; yet seeing there is in the Scripture no command to any man to obey St. Peter, no man can be just, that obeyeth him, when his commands are contrary to those of his lawful sovereign.

Lastly, it hath not been declared by the Church, nor by the Pope himself, that he is the civil sovereign of all the Christians in the world; and therefore all Christians are not bound to acknowledge his jurisdiction in point of manners. For the civil sovereignty, and supreme judicature in controversies of manners, are the same thing: and the makers of civil laws, are not only declarers, but also makers of the justice and injustice of actions; there being nothing in men’s manners that makes them righteous or unrighteous, but their conformity with the law of the sovereign. And therefore, when the Pope challengeth supremacy in controversies of manners, he teacheth men to disobey the civil sovereign; which is an erroneous doctrine, contrary to the many precepts of our Saviour and his apostles, delivered to us in the Scripture.

To prove the Pope has power to make laws, he allegeth many places; as first, (_Deut._ xvii. 12), _The man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest, that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel_. For answer whereunto, we are to remember that the high-priest, next and immediately under God, was the civil sovereign; and all judges were to be constituted by him. The words alleged sound therefore thus: _The man that will presume to disobey the civil sovereign for the time being, or any of his officers in the execution of their places, that man shall die, &c._; which is clearly for the civil sovereignty, against the universal power of the Pope.

Secondly, he allegeth that of Matth. xvi. 19, _Whatsoever ye shall bind, &c._ and interpreteth it for such _binding_ as is attributed (_Matth._ xxiii. 4) to the Scribes and Pharisees, _They bind heavy burthens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders_; by which is meant, he says, making of laws; and concludes thence, that the Pope can make laws. But this also maketh only for the legislative power of civil sovereigns. For the Scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses’ chair; but Moses next under God was sovereign of the people of Israel: and therefore our Saviour commanded them to do all that they should say, but not all that they should do: that is, to obey their laws, but not follow their example.

The third place is John xxi. 16, _Feed my sheep_; which is not a power to make laws, but a command to teach. Making laws belongs to the lord of the family; who by his own discretion chooseth his chaplain, as also a schoolmaster to teach his children.

The fourth place (_John_ xx. 21) is against him. The words are, _As my father sent me, so send I you_. But our Saviour was sent to redeem by his death such as should believe, and by his own and his apostles’ preaching to prepare them for their entrance into his kingdom; which he himself saith, is not of this world, and hath taught us to pray for the coming of it hereafter, though he refused (_Acts_ i. 6, 7) to tell his apostles when it should come; and in which, when it comes, the twelve apostles shall sit on twelve thrones, every one perhaps as high as that of St. Peter, to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Seeing then God the Father sent not our Saviour to make laws in this present world, we may conclude from the text, that neither did our Saviour send St. Peter to make laws here, but to persuade men to expect his second coming with a steadfast faith; and in the mean time, if subjects, to obey their princes; and if princes, both to believe it themselves, and to do their best to make their subjects do the same; which is the office of a bishop. Therefore this place maketh most strongly for the joining of the ecclesiastical supremacy to the civil sovereignty, contrary to that which Cardinal Bellarmine allegeth it for.

The fifth place is _Acts_ xv. 28, 29, _It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen, than these necessary things, that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication_. Here he notes the word _laying of burthens_ for the legislative power. But who is there, that reading this text, can say, this style of the apostles may not as properly be used in giving counsel, as in making laws? The style of a law is, _we command_: but, _we think good_, is the ordinary style of them, that but give advice; and they lay a burthen that give advice, though it be conditional, that is, if they to whom they give it, will attain their ends: and such is the burthen of abstaining from things strangled, and from blood; not absolute, but in case they will not err. I have shown before, (chapter XXV.) that law is distinguished from counsel in this, that the reason of a law is taken from the design and benefit of him that prescribeth it; but the reason of a counsel, from the design and benefit of him to whom the counsel is given. But here, the apostles aim only at the benefit of the converted Gentiles, namely their salvation; not at their own benefit; for having done their endeavour, they shall have their reward, whether they be obeyed or not. And therefore the acts of this council, were not laws, but counsels.

The sixth place is that of _Rom._ xiii, _Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God_; which is meant, he saith, not only of secular, but also of ecclesiastical princes. To which I answer, first, that there are no ecclesiastical princes but those that are also civil sovereigns; and their principalities exceed not the compass of their civil sovereignty; without those bounds, though they may be received for doctors, they cannot be acknowledged for princes. For if the apostle had meant, we should be subject both to our own princes, and also to the Pope, he had taught us a doctrine, which Christ himself hath told us is impossible, namely, _to serve two masters_. And though the apostle say in another place, (_2 Cor._ xiii. 10) _I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me_; it is not, that he challenged a power either to put to death, imprison, banish, whip, or fine any of them, which are punishments; but only to excommunicate, which, without the civil power, is no more but a leaving of their company, and having no more to do with them than with a heathen man or a publican; which in many occasions might be a greater pain to the excommunicant, than to the excommunicate.

The seventh place is _1 Cor._ iv. 21, _Shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and the spirit of lenity?_ But here again, it is not the power of a magistrate to punish offenders, that is meant by a rod; but only the power of excommunication, which is not in its own nature a punishment, but only a denouncing of punishment, that Christ shall inflict when he shall be in possession of his kingdom, at the day of judgment. Nor then also shall it be properly a punishment, as upon a subject that hath broken the law; but a revenge, as upon an enemy or revolter, that denieth the right of our Saviour to the kingdom. And therefore this proveth not the legislative power of any bishop, that has not also the civil power.

The eighth place is _1 Timothy_, iii. 2; _A bishop must be the husband of but one wife, vigilant, sober, &c._: which he saith was a law. I thought that none could make a law in the Church, but the monarch of the Church, St. Peter. But suppose this precept made by the authority of St. Peter; yet I see no reason why to call it a law, rather than an advice, seeing Timothy was not a subject, but a disciple of St. Paul; nor the flock under the charge of Timothy, his subjects in the kingdom, but his scholars in the school of Christ. If all the precepts he giveth Timothy be laws, why is not this also a law, (_1 Tim._ v. 23) _Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy health’s sake_. And why are not also the precepts of good physicians so many laws, but that it is not the imperative manner of speaking, but an absolute subjection to a person, that maketh his precepts laws?

In like manner, the ninth place, _1 Tim._ v. 19, _Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses_, is a wise precept, but not a law.

The tenth place is _Luke_ x. 16, _He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me_. And there is no doubt, but he that despiseth the counsel of those that are sent by Christ, despiseth the counsel of Christ himself. But who are those now that are sent by Christ, but such as are ordained pastors by lawful authority? And who are lawfully ordained, that are not ordained by the sovereign pastor? And who is ordained by the sovereign pastor in a Christian commonwealth, that is not ordained by the authority of the sovereign thereof? Out of this place therefore it followeth, that he which heareth his sovereign, being a Christian, heareth Christ; and he that despiseth the doctrine which his king, being a Christian, authorizeth, despiseth the doctrine of Christ: which is not that which Bellarmine intendeth here to prove, but the contrary. But all this is nothing to a law. Nay more, a Christian king, as a pastor and teacher of his subjects, makes not thereby his doctrines laws. He cannot oblige men to believe; though as a civil sovereign he may make laws suitable to his doctrine, which may oblige men to certain actions, and sometimes to such as they would not otherwise do, and which he ought not to command; and yet when they are commanded, they are laws; and the external actions done in obedience to them, without the inward approbation, are the actions of the sovereign, and not of the subject, which is in that case but as an instrument, without any motion of his own at all; because God hath commanded to obey them.

The eleventh is every place where the apostle for counsel putteth some word, by which men use to signify command; or calleth the following of his counsel by the name of obedience. And therefore they are alleged out of _1 Cor._ xi. 2, _I commend you for keeping my precepts as I delivered them to you_. The Greek is, _I commend you for keeping those things I delivered to you, as I delivered them_. Which is far from signifying that they were laws, or anything else, but good counsel. And that of _1 Thess._ iv. 2, _You know what commandments we gave you_: where the Greek word is παραγγελίας ἐδώκαμεν, equivalent to παρεδώκαμεν, _what we delivered to you_, as in the place next before alleged, which does not prove the traditions of the apostles to be any more than counsels; though as is said in the 8th verse, _he that despiseth them, despiseth not man, but God_. For our Saviour himself came not to judge, that is, to be king in this world; but to sacrifice himself for sinners, and leave doctors in his Church to lead, not to drive men to Christ, who never accepteth forced actions, (which is all the law produceth,) but the inward conversion of the heart; which is not the work of laws, but of counsel and doctrine.

And that of _2 Thess._ iii. 14, _If any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed_: where from the word _obey_, he would infer, that this epistle was a law to the Thessalonians. The epistles of the emperors were indeed laws. If therefore the epistle of St. Paul were also a law, they were to obey two masters. But the word _obey_, as it is in the Greek ὑπακούει, signifieth _hearkening to_ or _putting in practice_, not only that which is commanded by him that has right to punish, but also that which is delivered in a way of counsel for our good; and therefore St. Paul does not bid kill him that disobeys; nor beat, nor imprison, nor amerce him, which legislators may all do; but avoid his company, that he may be ashamed: whereby it is evident, it was not the empire of an apostle, but his reputation amongst the faithful, which the Christians stood in awe of.

The last place is that of _Heb._ xiii. 17, _Obey your leaders, and submit yourselves to them; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account_: and here also is intended by obedience, a following of their counsel. For the reason of our obedience is not drawn from the will and command of our pastors, but from our own benefit, as being the salvation of our souls they watch for, and not for the exaltation of their own power and authority. If it were meant here, that all they teach were laws, then not only the Pope, but every pastor in his parish should have legislative power. Again, they that are bound to obey their pastors, have no power to examine their commands. What then shall we say to St. John, who bids us (_1 Epistle_ iv. 1) _Not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world_? It is therefore manifest, that we may dispute the doctrine of our pastors; but no man can dispute a law. The commands of civil sovereigns are on all sides granted to be laws: if any else can make a law besides himself, all commonwealth, and consequently all peace and justice must cease; which is contrary to all laws both divine and human. Nothing therefore can be drawn from these, or any other places of Scripture, to prove the decrees of the Pope, where he has not also the civil sovereignty, to be laws.

[Sidenote: The question of superiority between the Pope and other
bishops.]

The last point he would prove, is this, _That our Saviour Christ has committed ecclesiastical jurisdiction immediately to none but the Pope_. Wherein he handleth not the question of supremacy between the Pope and Christian kings, but between the Pope and other bishops. And first, he says, it is agreed that the jurisdiction of bishops is at least in the general _de jure divino_, that is, in the right of God; for which he alleges St. Paul, _Eph._ iv. 11, where he says, that Christ after his ascension into heaven, _gave gifts to men, some apostles, some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors, and some teachers_; and thence infers, they have indeed their jurisdiction in God’s right; but will not grant they have it immediately from God, but derived through the Pope. But if a man may be said to have his jurisdiction _de jure divino_, and yet not immediately; what lawful jurisdiction, though but civil, is there in a Christian commonwealth, that is not also _de juro divino_? For Christian kings have their civil power from God immediately; and the magistrates under him exercise their several charges in virtue of his commission; wherein that which they do, is no less _de jure divino mediato_, than that which the bishops do in virtue of the Pope’s ordination. All lawful power is of God, immediately in the Supreme Governor, and mediately in those that have authority under him: so that either he must grant every constable in the state, to hold his office in the right of God; or he must not hold that any bishop holds his so, besides the Pope himself.

But this whole dispute, whether Christ left the jurisdiction to the Pope only, or to other bishops also, if considered out of those places where the Pope has the civil sovereignty, is a contention _de lana caprina_: for none of them, where they are not sovereigns, has any jurisdiction at all. For jurisdiction is the power of hearing and determining causes between man and man; and can belong to none but him that hath the power to prescribe the rules of right and wrong; that is, to make laws; and with the sword of justice to compel men to obey his decisions, pronounced either by himself, or by the judges he ordaineth thereunto; which none can lawfully do but the civil sovereign.

Therefore when he allegeth out of chapter vi. of _Luke_, that our Saviour called his disciples together, and chose twelve of them, which he named apostles, he proveth that he elected them (all, except Matthias, Paul and Barnabas,) and gave them power and command to preach, but not to judge of causes between man and man: for that is a power which he refused to take upon himself, saying, _Who made me a judge, or a divider, amongst you?_ and in another place, _My kingdom is not of this world_. But he that hath not the power to hear and determine causes between man and man, cannot be said to have any jurisdiction at all. And yet this hinders not, but that our Saviour gave them power to preach and baptize in all parts of the world, supposing they were not by their own lawful sovereign forbidden: for to our own sovereigns Christ himself, and his apostles, have in sundry places expressly commanded us in all things to be obedient.

The arguments by which he would prove, that bishops receive their jurisdiction from the Pope (seeing the Pope in the dominions of other princes hath no jurisdiction himself,) are all in vain. Yet because they prove, on the contrary, that all bishops receive jurisdiction, when they have it, from their civil sovereigns, I will not omit the recital of them.

The first is from chapter xi. of _Numbers_, where Moses not being able alone to undergo the whole burthen of administering the affairs of the people of Israel, God commanded him to choose seventy elders, and took part of the spirit of Moses, to put it upon those seventy elders: by which is understood, not that God weakened the spirit of Moses; for that had not eased him at all; but that they had all of them their authority from him; wherein he doth truly and ingenuously interpret that place. But seeing Moses had the entire sovereignty in the commonwealth of the Jews, it is manifest, that it is thereby signified, that they had their authority from the civil sovereign: and therefore that place proveth that bishops in every Christian commonwealth have their authority from the civil sovereign; and from the Pope in his own territories only, and not in the territories of any other state.

The second argument, is from the nature of monarchy; wherein all authority is in one man, and in others by derivation from him. But the government of the Church, he says, is monarchical. This also makes for Christian monarchs. For they are really monarchs of their own people; that is, of their own Church; for the Church is the same thing with a Christian people; whereas the power of the Pope, though he were St. Peter, is neither monarchy, nor hath anything of _archical_, nor _cratical_, but only of _didactical_; for God accepteth not a forced, but a willing obedience.

The third, is from that the _see_ of St. Peter is called by St. Cyprian, the _head_, the _source_, the _root_, the _sun_, from whence the authority of bishops is derived. But by the law of nature, which is a better principle of right and wrong than the word of any doctor that is but a man, the civil sovereign in every commonwealth, is the _head_, the _source_, the _root_, and the _sun_, from which all jurisdiction is derived. And therefore the jurisdiction of bishops, is derived from the civil sovereign.

The fourth, is taken from the inequality of their jurisdictions. For if God, saith he, had given it them immediately, he had given as well equality of jurisdiction, as of order: but we see, some are bishops but of one town, some of a hundred towns, and some of many whole provinces; which differences were not determined by the command of God; their jurisdiction therefore is not of God, but of man; and one has a greater, another a less, as it pleaseth the Prince of the Church. Which argument, if he had proved before, that the Pope had an universal jurisdiction over all Christians, had been for his purpose. But seeing that hath not been proved, and that it is notoriously known, the large jurisdiction of the Pope was given him by those that had it, that is, by the emperors of Rome, (for the patriarch of Constantinople, upon the same title, namely of being bishop of the capital city of the empire, and seat of the emperor, claimed to be equal to him), it followeth, that all other bishops have their jurisdiction from the sovereigns of the place wherein they exercise the same. And as for that cause they have not their authority _de jure divino_; so neither hath the Pope his _de jure divino_, except only where he is also the civil sovereign.

His fifth argument is this: _if bishops have their jurisdiction immediately from God, the Pope could not take it from them, for he can do nothing contrary to God’s ordination_; and this consequence is good, and well proved. _But_, saith he, _the Pope can do this, and has done it_. This also is granted, so he do it in his own dominions, or in the dominions of any other prince that hath given him that power; but not universally, in right of the popedom: for that power belongeth to every Christian sovereign, within the bounds of his own empire, and is inseparable from the sovereignty. Before the people of Israel had, by the commandment of God to Samuel, set over themselves a king, after the manner of other nations, the high-priest had the civil government; and none but he could make or depose an inferior priest. But that power was afterwards in the king, as may be proved by this same argument of Bellarmine; for if the priest, be he the high-priest or any other, had his jurisdiction immediately from God, then the king could not take it from him; _for he could do nothing contrary to God’s ordinance_. But it is certain that king Solomon (_1 Kings_ ii. 26, 27) deprived Abiathar the high-priest of his office, and placed Zadok (verse 35) in his room. Kings therefore may in like manner ordain and deprive bishops, as they shall think fit for the well-governing of their subjects.

His sixth argument is this, if bishops have their jurisdiction _de jure divino_, that is, _immediately from God_, they that maintain it, should bring some word of God to prove it: but they can bring none. The argument is good; I have therefore nothing to say against it. But it is an argument no less good, to prove the Pope himself to have no jurisdiction in the dominion of any other prince.

Lastly, he bringeth for argument the testimony of two popes, Innocent and Leo; and I doubt not he might have alleged, with as good reason, the testimonies of all the popes almost since St. Peter. For considering the love of power naturally implanted in mankind, whosoever were made Pope, he would be tempted to uphold the same opinion. Nevertheless, they should therein but do, as Innocent and Leo did, bear witness of themselves, and therefore their witness should not be good.

[Sidenote: Of the Pope’s temporal power.]

In the fifth book he hath four conclusions. The first is, _that the Pope is not lord of all the world_: the second, _that the Pope is not the lord of all the Christian world_: the third, _that the Pope, without his own territory, has not any temporal jurisdiction_ DIRECTLY. These three conclusions are easily granted. The fourth is, _that the Pope has, in the dominions of other princes, the supreme temporal power_ INDIRECTLY: which is denied; unless he mean by _indirectly_, that he has gotten it by indirect means, then is that also granted. But I understand, that when he saith he hath it _indirectly_, he means, that such temporal jurisdiction belongeth to him of right, but that this right is but a consequence of his pastoral authority, the which he could not exercise unless he have the other with it: and therefore to the pastoral power, which he calls spiritual, the supreme power civil is necessarily annexed; and that thereby he hath a right to change kingdoms, giving them to one and taking them from another, when he shall think it conduces to the salvation of souls.

Before I come to consider the arguments by which he would prove this doctrine, it will not be amiss to lay open the consequences of it; that princes and states, that have the civil sovereignty in their several commonwealths, may bethink themselves, whether it be convenient for them, and conducing to the good of their subjects, of whom they are to give an account at the day of judgment, to admit the same.