No More Learning

) 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 of him a Christian, had given him no new Power,
but had onely caused him to preach true Doctrine, that is, to use
his Power aright; and therefore the Imposition of Hands had been
unnecessary; Baptisme it selfe had been sufficient. But every Soveraign,
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 Baptisme) to
authorize them to exercise any part of the Pastorall 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
Soveraignty was in the High Priest; yet it was not so when the
Soveraignty was in the King: For we read (1 Kings 8. ) That Solomon
Blessed the People, Consecrated the Temple, and pronounced that Publique
Prayer, which is the pattern now for Consecration of all Christian
Churches, and Chappels: whereby it appears, he had not only the right
of Ecclesiasticall Government; but also of exercising Ecclesiasticall
Functions.




The Civill Soveraigne If A Christian, Is Head Of The Church

In His Own Dominions

From this consolidation of the Right Politique, and Ecclesiastique in
Christian Soveraigns, it is evident, they have all manner of Power over
their Subjects, that can be given to man, for the government of mens
externall 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 Common-wealth, 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 doe)
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 anothers Dominion Jure Civili, in the Right of
the Civill Soveraign; not Jure Divino, in Gods Right; and may therefore
be discharged of that Office, when the Soveraign 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 honor, as of Bishops,
Archbishops, Priests, or Presbyters, they will; and make such Laws for
their maintenance, either by Tithes, or otherwise, as they please,
so they doe it out of a sincere conscience, of which God onely is
the Judge. It is the Civill Soveraign, that is to appoint Judges, and
Interpreters of the Canonicall 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 bee
contemned. In summe, he hath the Supreme Power in all causes, as well
Ecclesiasticall, as Civill, as far as concerneth actions, and words, for
these onely are known, and may be accused; and of that which cannot be
accused, there is no Judg at all, but God, that knoweth the heart.
And these Rights are incident to all Soveraigns, whether Monarchs, or
Assemblies: for they that are the Representants of a Christian People,
are Representants of the Church: for a Church, and a Common-wealth of
Christian People, are the same thing.




Cardinal Bellarmines Books De Summo Pontifice Considered

Though this that I have here said, and in other places of this Book,
seem cleer enough for the asserting of the Supreme Ecclesiasticall Power
to Christian Soveraigns; yet because the Pope of Romes challenge to that
Power universally, hath been maintained chiefly, and I think as strongly
as is possible, by Cardinall Bellarmine, in his Controversie De Summo
Pontifice; I have thought it necessary, as briefly as I can, to examine
the grounds, and strength of his Discourse.




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 mixt of all there: Another, which of these is the best
Government of the Church; and concludeth for the mixt, but which should
most participate of Monarchy: the third, whether in this mixt Monarchy,
St. Peter had the place of Monarch. Concerning his first Conclusion, I
have already sufficiently proved (chapt. 18. ) 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 Mixt, but an Absolute Soveraignty. 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 alwaies to be preferred,
maintained, and accounted best; because it is against both the Law of
Nature, and the Divine positive Law, to doe any thing tending to the
subversion thereof. Besides, it maketh nothing to the Power of
any Pastor, (unlesse he have the Civill Soveraignty,) what kind of
Government is the best; because their Calling is not to govern men by
Commandement, but to teach them, and perswade 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 Soveraigns, 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 Popes Power
without his own Dominions: For in all other Common-wealths his Power (if
hee have any at all) is that of the Schoolmaster onely, 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 chiefe argument the place of S. Matth.
(chap. 16. 18, 19. ) "Thou art Peter, And upon this rock I will build my
Church, &c. And I will give thee the keyes 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
onely 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 wee may cleerly understand, we are to consider, that our
Saviour preached by himself, by John 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, (Mat. 3. 2. ) preaching only this, "The Kingdome of God is at
hand. " Then our Saviour himself (Mat. 4. 17. ) preached the same: And to
his Twelve Apostles, when he gave them their Commission (Mat. 10. 7. )
there is no mention of preaching any other Article but that. This was
the fundamentall Article, that is the Foundation of the Churches Faith.
Afterwards the Apostles being returned to him, he asketh them all, (Mat.
16. 13) not Peter onely, "Who men said he was;" and they answered, that
"some said he was John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias,
or one of the Prophets:" Then (ver. 15. ) he asked them all again, (not
Peter onely) "Whom say yee that I am? " Therefore 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 Fundamentall Article of the Churches Faith. But why then (will
some object) doth our Saviour interpose these words, "Thou art Peter"?
If the originall 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 Syriacke word Cephas, and of the Greek word Petrus). Our Saviour
therefore after the confession of that Fundamentall 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 bee members of my Church: Neither is this
allusion to a name, an unusuall 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 Keyes of Heaven, &c. "
it is no more than what our Saviour gave also to all the rest of his
Disciples (Matth. 18. 18. ) "Whatsoever yee 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 Civill Soveraignes in their own Dominions. In so much, as if
St. Peter, or our Saviour himself had converted any of them to beleeve
him, and to acknowledge his Kingdome; yet because his Kingdome is not of
this world, he had left the supreme care of converting his subjects to
none but him; or else hee must have deprived him of the Soveraignty,
to which the Right of Teaching is inseparably annexed. And thus much in
refutation of his first Book, wherein hee would prove St. Peter to have
been the Monarch Universall of the Church, that is to say, of all the
Christians in the world.




The Second Book

The second Book hath two Conclusions: One, that S. Peter was Bishop
of Rome, and there dyed: The other, that the Popes of Rome are his
Successors. Both which have been disputed by others. But supposing them
to be true; yet if by Bishop of Rome bee understood either the
Monarch of the Church, or the Supreme Pastor of it; not Silvester, but
Constantine (who was the first Christian Emperour) 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
Christendome: For other Christian Soveraigns had the same Right in their
severall Territories, as to an Office essentially adhaerent to their
Soveraignty. Which shall serve for answer to his second Book.




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 that 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 Kingdome, and the art to deceive the People by counterfeit
miracles, by hypocriticall 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 Schisme 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 essentiall
marks; One, that he denyeth Jesus to be Christ; and another that he
professeth himselfe to bee Christ. The first Mark is set down by S. John
in his 1 Epist. 4. ch. 3. ver. "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,
(Mat. 24. 5. ) "Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ;" and
again, "If any man shall say unto you, Loe, here is Christ, there is
Christ beleeve 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 himselfe to be the Christ," it followeth, that he must also be
an "Adversary of the true Christ," which is another usuall signification
of the word Antichrist. But of these many Antichrists, there is one
speciall one, O Antichristos, The Antichrist, or Antichrist definitely,
as one certaine person; not indefinitely An Antichrist. Now seeing the
Pope of Rome, neither pretendeth himself, nor denyeth 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
Generall, but to be Hee. There is also some Mark of the time of this
speciall Antichrist, as (Mat. 24. 15. ) when that abominable Destroyer,
spoken of by Daniel, (Dan. 9. 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, (ver. 22. ) "no
flesh could be saved; but for the elects sake those days shall be
shortened" (made fewer). But that tribulation is not yet come; for it
is to be followed immediately (ver. 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 cloudes. 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 Kingdome 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.




The Fourth Book

In the fourth Book, to prove the Pope to be the supreme Judg in all
questions of Faith and Manners, (which is as much as to be the absolute
Monarch of all Christians in the world,) be 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 Ecclesiasticall on the Pope of
Rome.




Texts For The Infallibility Of The Popes Judgement In Points Of Faith

For the Infallibility of his Judgments, he alledgeth the Scriptures: and
first, that of Luke 22. 31. "Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired you that
hee may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith
faile not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy Brethren. " This,
according to Bellarmines exposition, is, that Christ gave here to Simon
Peter two priviledges: one, that neither his Faith should fail, 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 Popes Authority,
than this very place. The Priests and Scribes seeking to kill our
Saviour at the Passeover, and Judas possessed with a resolution to
betray him, and the day of killing the Passeover being come, our Saviour
celebrated the same with his Apostles, which he said, till the Kingdome
of God was come hee would doe no more; and withall told them, that one
of them was to betray him: Hereupon they questioned, which of them it
should be; and withall (seeing the next Passeover their Master would
celebrate should be when he was King) entred into a contention, who
should then be the greater 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 Bountifull; but I cannot
be so to you, you must endeavour to serve one another; I ordain you a
Kingdome, but it is such as my Father hath ordained mee; a Kingdome that
I am now to purchase with my blood, and not to possesse till my second
coming; then yee 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 Kingdome as of another world, confirm
the same faith in thy Brethren: To which S. Peter answered (as one that
no more expected any authority in this world) "Lord I am ready to goe
with thee, not onely to Prison, but to Death. " Whereby it is manifest,
S. Peter had not onely 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. Peters 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 beleef of this point, namely, that
Christ should come again, and possesse the Kingdome at the day of
Judgement; which was not given by the Text to all his Successors; for
wee see they claim it in the World that now is.

The second place is that of Matth. 16. "Thou art Peter, and upon this
rocke I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail
against it. " By which (as I have already shewn 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 Sonne Of God.

The third text is John 21. ver. 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 onely for the time that there were no
Christian Soveraigns already possessed of that Supremacy. But I have
already proved, that Christian Soveraignes are in their owne Dominions
the supreme Pastors, and instituted thereto, by vertue of their being
Baptized, though without other Imposition of Hands. For such imposition
being a Ceremony of designing the person, is needlesse, when hee 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, Soveraigns are supreme Teachers (in generall) by their Office
and therefore oblige themselves (by their Baptisme) to teach the
Doctrine of Christ: And when they suffer others to teach their people,
they doe it at the perill 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. 18. 19) "I know him that he will
command his Children, and his houshold after him, that they keep the way
of the Lord, and do justice and judgement.

The fourth place is that of Exod. 28. 30. "Thou shalt put in the
Breastplate of Judgment, the Urim and the Thummin:" which hee saith is
interpreted by the Septuagint, delosin kai aletheian, that is, Evidence
and Truth: And thence concludeth, God had given Evidence, and Truth,
(which is almost infallibility,) to the High Priest. But be it Evidence
and Truth it selfe that was given; or be it but Admonition to the Priest
to endeavour to inform himself cleerly, and give judgment uprightly;
yet in that it was given to the High Priest, it was given to the Civill
Soveraign: For next under God was the High Priest in the Common-wealth
of Israel; and is an argument for Evidence and Truth, that is, for the
Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of Civill Soveraigns over their own Subjects,
against the pretended Power of the Pope. These are all the Texts hee
bringeth for the Infallibility of the Judgement of the Pope, in point of
Faith.




Texts For The Same In Point Of Manners

For the Infallibility of his Judgment concerning Manners, hee bringeth
one Text, which is that of John 16. 13. "When the Spirit of truth is
come, hee 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 erre in any point, wherein not to erre is necessary to
Salvation, it is impossible he should be saved; for that onely 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,
unlesse 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 erre
in necessaries, then Christ hath not sufficiently provided for the
Churches Salvation; because he hath commanded her to follow the Popes
directions. But this Reason is invalid, unlesse he shew when, and where
Christ commanded that, or took at all any notice of a Pope: Nay granting
whatsoever was given to S. 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
bee just, that obeyeth him, when his commands are contrary to those of
his lawfull Soveraign.

Lastly, it hath not been declared by the Church, nor by the Pope
himselfe, that he is the Civill Soveraign of all the Christians in the
world; and therefore all Christians are not bound to acknowledge his
Jurisdiction in point of Manners. For the Civill Soveraignty, and
supreme Judicature in controversies of Manners, are the same thing: And
the Makers of Civill Laws, are not onely Declarers, but also Makers
of the justice, and injustice of actions; there being nothing in mens
Manners that makes them righteous, or unrighteous, but their conformity
with the Law of the Soveraign. And therefore when the Pope challengeth
Supremacy in controversies of Manners, hee teacheth men to disobey the
Civill Soveraign; 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 alledgeth many places; as
first, Deut. 17. 12. "The man that will doe 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 evill from Israel. " For answer whereunto, we are to
remember that the High Priest (next and immediately under God) was the
Civill Soveraign; and all Judges were to be constituted by him. The
words alledged sound therefore thus. "The man that will presume to
disobey the Civill Soveraign for the time being, or any of his Officers
in the execution of their places, that man shall die, &c. " which is
cleerly for the Civill Soveraignty, against the Universall power of the
Pope.

Secondly, he alledgeth that of Matth. 16. "Whatsoever yee shall bind,
&c. " and interpreteth it for such Binding as is attributed (Matth.
23. 4. ) to the Scribes and Pharisees, "They bind heavy burthens, and
grievous to be born, and lay them on mens shoulders;" by which is meant
(he sayes) Making of Laws; and concludes thence, the Pope can make
Laws. But this also maketh onely for the Legislative power of Civill
Soveraigns: For the Scribes, and Pharisees sat in Moses Chaire,
but Moses next under God was Soveraign of the People of Israel: and
therefore our Saviour commanded them to doe 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 21. 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 owne discretion chooseth his Chaplain, as also a
Schoolmaster to Teach his children.

The fourth place John 20. 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 Beleeve; and by his own, and his Apostles
preaching to prepare them for their entrance into his Kingdome; which he
himself saith, is not of this world, and hath taught us to pray for the
coming of it hereafter, though hee refused (Acts 1. 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, wee may
conclude from the Text, that neither did our Saviour send S. Peter to
make Laws here, but to perswade men to expect his second comming with
a stedfast faith; and in the mean time, if Subjects, to obey their
Princes; and if Princes, both to beleeve it themselves, and to do their
best to make their Subjects doe the same; which is the Office of a
Bishop. Therefore this place maketh most strongly for the joining of the
Ecclesiasticall Supremacy to the Civill Soveraignty, contrary to that
which Cardinall Bellarmine alledgeth it for.

The fift place is Acts 15. 28. "It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit,
and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden, than these necessary
things, that yee abstaine from meats offered to Idols, and from bloud,
and from things strangled, and from fornication. " Here hee notes the
word Laying Of Burdens for the Legislative Power. But who is there,
that reading this Text, can say, this stile of the Apostles may not as
properly be used in giving Counsell, as in making Laws? The stile of a
Law is, We Command: But, We Think Good, is the ordinary stile of them,
that but give Advice; and they lay a Burthen that give Advice, though
it bee conditionall, 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 bloud; not absolute, but in case they will not
erre. I have shewn before (chap. 25. ) that Law, is distinguished from
Counsell, in this, that the reason of a Law, is taken from the designe,
and benefit of him that prescribeth it; but the reason of a Counsell,
from the designe, and benefit of him, to whom the Counsell is given. But
here, the Apostles aime onely 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 Councell, were not Laws, but Counsells.

The sixt place is that of Rom. 13. "Let every Soul be subject to the
Higher Powers, for there is no Power but of God;" which is meant, he
saith not onely of Secular, but also of Ecclesiasticall Princes.
To
which I answer, first, that there are no Ecclesiasticall Princes but
those that are also Civill Soveraignes; and their Principalities exceed
not the compasse of their Civill Soveraignty; 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, "I write these
things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpnesse,
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 onely to Excommunicate,
which (without the Civill Power) is no more but a leaving of their
company, and having no more to doe 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. 4. 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
onely the Power of Excommunication, which is not in its owne nature
a Punishment, but onely a Denouncing of punishment, that Christ shall
inflict, when he shall be in possession of his Kingdome, at the day of
Judgment. Nor then also shall it bee properly a Punishment, as upon a
Subject that hath broken the Law; but a Revenge, as upon an Enemy, or
Revolter, that denyeth the Right of our Saviour to the Kingdome: And
therefore this proveth not the Legislative Power of any Bishop, that has
not also the Civill Power.

The eighth place is, Timothy 3. 2. "A Bishop must be the husband but of
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 Kingdome, but his
Scholars in the Schoole of Christ: If all the Precepts he giveth
Timothy, be Laws, why is not this also a Law, "Drink no longer water,
but use a little wine for thy healths sake"? And why are not also
the Precepts of good Physitians, so many Laws? but that it is not the
Imperative manner of speaking, but an absolute Subjection to a Person,
that maketh his Precept Laws.

In like manner, the ninth place, 1 Tim. 5. 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 10. 16. "He that heareth you, heareth mee; and
he that despiseth you, despiseth me. " And there is no doubt, but he that
despiseth the Counsell of those that are sent by Christ, despiseth
the Counsell of Christ himself. But who are those now that are sent by
Christ, but such as are ordained Pastors by lawfull Authority? and who
are lawfully ordained, that are not ordained by the Soveraign
Pastor? and who is ordained by the Soveraign Pastor in a Christian
Common-wealth, that is not ordained by the authority of the Soveraign
thereof? Out of this place therefore it followeth, that he which heareth
his Soveraign being a Christian, heareth Christ; and hee 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 beleeve; though
as a Civill Soveraign 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 externall actions done in
obedience to them, without the inward approbation, are the actions of
the Soveraign, and not of the Subject, which is in that case but as
an instrument, without any motion of his owne at all; because God hath
commanded to obey them.

The eleventh, is every place, where the Apostle for Counsell, putteth
some word, by which men use to signifie Command; or calleth the
following of his Counsell, by the name of Obedience. And therefore they
are alledged out of 1 Cor. 11. 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 any thing else, but good Counsell.
And that of 1 Thess. 4. 2. "You know what commandements we gave you:"
where the Greek word is paraggelias edokamen, equivalent to paredokamen,
what wee delivered to you, as in the place next before alledged, which
does not prove the Traditions of the Apostles, to be any more than
Counsells; 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 Counsell, and Doctrine.

And that of 2 Thess. 3. 14. "If any man Obey not our word by this
Epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may bee
ashamed": where from the word Obey, he would inferre, that this Epistle
was a Law to the Thessalonians. The Epistles of the Emperours were
indeed Laws. If therefore the Epistle of S. Paul were also a Law, they
were to obey two Masters. But the word Obey, as it is in the Greek
upakouei, signifieth Hearkening To, or Putting In Practice, not onely
that which is Commanded by him that has right to punish, but also that
which is delivered in a way of Counsell 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 bee ashamed: whereby it is evident, it was not the Empire of an
Apostle, but his Reputation amongst the Faithfull, which the Christians
stood in awe of.

The last place is that of Heb. 13. 17. "Obey your Leaders, and submit
your selves 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 Counsell: 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 onely 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 wee
say to St. John who bids us (1 Epist. chap. 4. ver. 1. ) "Not to beleeve
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 wee may dispute the Doctrine of our Pastors; but no man
can dispute a Law. The Commands of Civill Soveraigns are on all sides
granted to be Laws: if any else can make a Law besides himselfe, all
Common-wealth, and consequently all Peace, and Justice must cease; which
is contrary to all Laws, both Divine and Humane. 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 Civill Soveraignty, to be
Laws.

The Question Of Superiority Between The Pope And Other Bishops The last
point hee would prove, is this, "That our Saviour Christ has committed
Ecclesiasticall 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 sayes it is
agreed, that the Jurisdiction of Bishops, is at least in the generall
De Jure Divino, that is, in the Right of God; for which he alledges S.
Paul, Ephes. 4. 11. where hee sayes, 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 inferres,
they have indeed their Jurisdiction in Gods 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 lawfull Jurisdiction, though but Civill, is there in a
Christian Common-wealth, that is not also De Jure Divino? For Christian
Kings have their Civill Power from God immediately; and the Magistrates
under him exercise their severall charges in vertue of his Commission;
wherein that which they doe, is no lesse De Jure Divino Mediato, than
that which the Bishops doe, in vertue of the Popes Ordination. All
lawfull Power is of God, immediately in the Supreme Governour, and
mediately in those that have Authority under him: So that either hee
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 himselfe.

But this whole Dispute, whether Christ left the Jurisdiction to the Pope
onely, or to other Bishops also, if considered out of these places where
the Pope has the Civill Soveraignty, is a contention De Lana Caprina:
For none of them (where they are not Soveraigns) 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 compell men to obey his Decisions,
pronounced either by himself, or by the Judges he ordaineth thereunto;
which none can lawfully do, but the Civill Soveraign.

Therefore when he alledgeth out of the 6 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 himselfe, saying, "Who made me a Judge, or a
Divider, amongst you? " and in another place, "My Kingdome is not of this
world. " But hee 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
lawfull Soveraign forbidden: For to our own Soveraigns Christ himself,
and his Apostles have in sundry places expressely 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 Civill Soveraigns, I will not omit the recitall of
them.

The first, is from Numbers 11. where Moses not being able alone to
undergoe the whole burthen of administring 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 it 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 Soveraignty in the Common-wealth of the
Jews, it is manifest, that it is thereby signified, that they had their
Authority from the Civill Soveraign: and therefore that place proveth,
that Bishops in every Christian Common-wealth have their Authority from
the Civill Soveraign; 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 Monarchicall. 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 hee were
S. Peter, is neither Monarchy, nor hath any thing of Archicall, nor
Craticall, but onely of Didacticall; For God accepteth not a forced, but
a willing obedience.

The third, is, from that the Sea of S. Peter is called by S. Cyprian,
the Head, the Source, the Roote, 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 Civill Soveraign in every Common-wealth, 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 Civill
Soveraign.

The fourth, is taken from the Inequality of their Jurisdictions: For
if God (saith he) had given it them immediately, he had given aswell
Equality of Jurisdiction, as of Order: But wee see, some are Bishops but
of own 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 lesse, as it pleaseth the Prince of the Church. Which
argument, if he had proved before, that the Pope had had an Universall
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 Emperours of Rome, (for the Patriarch of Constantinople, upon the
same title, namely, of being Bishop of the Capitall City of the Empire,
and Seat of the Emperour, claimed to be equal to him,) it followeth,
that all other Bishops have their Jurisdiction from the Soveraigns 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 onely where hee is also the Civill Soveraign.

His fift argument is this, "If Bishops have their Jurisdiction
immediately from God, the Pope could not take it from them, for he can
doe nothing contrary to Gods 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 doe 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 Popedome: For that power belongeth to
every Christian Soveraign, within the bounds of his owne Empire, and is
inseparable from the Soveraignty. 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 Civill Government; and
none but he could make, nor depose an inferiour 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 Gods ordinance: But it
is certain, that King Solomon (1 Kings 2. 26. ) deprived Abiathar the High
Priest of his office, and placed Zadok (verse 35. ) in his room. Kings
therefore may in the like manner Ordaine, and Deprive Bishops, as they
shall thinke 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 maintaine 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 lesse good, to prove the Pope himself to have no
Jurisdiction in the Dominion of any other Prince.

Lastly, hee bringeth for argument, the testimony of two Popes, Innocent,
and Leo; and I doubt not but hee might have alledged, with as good
reason, the testimonies of all the Popes almost since S. Peter: For
considering the love of Power naturally implanted in mankind, whosoever
were made Pope, he would be tempted to uphold the same opinion.
Neverthelesse, they should therein but doe, as Innocent, and Leo did,
bear witnesse of themselves, and therefore their witness should not be
good.




Of The Popes Temporall Power

In the fift Book he hath four Conclusions. The first is, "That the Pope
in not Lord of all the world:" the second, "that the Pope is not Lord
of all the Christian world:" The third, "That the Pope (without his owne
Territory) has not any Temporall Jurisdiction DIRECTLY:" These three
Conclusions are easily granted. The fourth is, "That the Pope has (in
the Dominions of other Princes) the Supreme Temporall Power INDIRECTLY:"
which is denyed; unlesse 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 Temporall
Jurisdiction belongeth to him of Right, but that this Right is but a
Consequence of his Pastorall Authority, the which he could not exercise,
unlesse he have the other with it: And therefore to the Pastorall Power
(which he calls Spirituall) the Supreme Power Civill is necessarily
annexed; and that thereby hee hath a Right to change Kingdomes, 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 hee would prove this
doctrine, it will not bee amisse to lay open the Consequences of it;
that Princes, and States, that have the Civill Soveraignty in their
severall Common-wealths, may bethink themselves, whether it bee
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.

When it is said, the Pope hath not (in the Territories of other States)
the Supreme Civill Power Directly; we are to understand, he doth
not challenge it, as other Civill Soveraigns doe, from the originall
submission thereto of those that are to be governed. For it is evident,
and has already been sufficiently in this Treatise demonstrated, that
the Right of all Soveraigns, is derived originally from the consent of
every one of those that are to bee governed; whether they that choose
him, doe it for their common defence against an Enemy, as when they
agree amongst themselves to appoint a Man, or an Assembly of men to
protect them; or whether they doe it, to save their lives, by submission
to a conquering Enemy. The Pope therefore, when he disclaimeth the
Supreme Civill Power over other States Directly, denyeth no more, but
that his Right cometh to him by that way; He ceaseth not for all that,
to claime it another way; and that is, (without the consent of them
that are to be governed) by a Right given him by God, (which hee calleth
Indirectly,) in his Assumption to the Papacy. But by what way soever he
pretend, the Power is the same; and he may (if it bee granted to be his
Right) depose Princes and States, as often as it is for the Salvation
of Soules, that is, as often as he will; for he claimeth also the Sole
Power to Judge, whether it be to the salvation of mens Souls, or not.
And this is the Doctrine, not onely that Bellarmine here, and many other
Doctors teach in their Sermons and Books, but also that some
Councells have decreed, and the Popes have decreed, and the Popes have
accordingly, when the occasion hath served them, put in practise. For
the fourth Councell of Lateran held under Pope Innocent the third, (in
the third Chap. De Haereticis,) hath this Canon. "If a King at the
Popes admonition, doe not purge his Kingdome of Haeretiques, and being
Excommunicate for the same, make not satisfaction within a year, his
subjects are absolved of their Obedience. " And the practise hereof hath
been seen on divers occasions; as in the Deposing of Chilperique, King
of France; in the Translation of the Roman Empire to Charlemaine; in
the Oppression of John King of England; in Transferring the Kingdome
of Navarre; and of late years, in the League against Henry the third of
France, and in many more occurrences. I think there be few Princes that
consider not this as Injust, and Inconvenient; but I wish they would
all resolve to be Kings, or Subjects. Men cannot serve two Masters: They
ought therefore to ease them, either by holding the Reins of Government
wholly in their own hands; or by wholly delivering them into the
hands of the Pope; that such men as are willing to be obedient, may be
protected in their obedience. For this distinction of Temporall, and
Spirituall Power is but words. Power is as really divided, and as
dangerously to all purposes, by sharing with another Indirect Power, as
with a Direct one. But to come now to his Arguments.

The first is this, "The Civill Power is subject to the Spirituall:
Therefore he that hath the Supreme Power Spirituall, hath right to
command Temporall Princes, and dispose of their Temporalls in order to
the Spirituall. As for the distinction of Temporall, and Spirituall,
let us consider in what sense it may be said intelligibly, that the
Temporall, or Civill Power is subject to the Spirituall. There be but
two ways that those words can be made sense. For when wee say, one Power
is subject to another Power, the meaning either is, that he which hath
the one, is subject to him that hath the other; or that the one Power is
to the other, as the means to the end. For wee cannot understand, that
one Power hath Power over another Power; and that one Power can have
Right or Command over another: For Subjection, Command, Right, and
Power are accidents, not of Powers, but of Persons: One Power may be
subordinate to another, as the art of a Sadler, to the art of a Rider.
If then it be granted, that the Civill Government be ordained as a means
to bring us to a Spirituall felicity; yet it does not follow, that if a
King have the Civill Power, and the Pope the Spirituall, that therefore
the King is bound to obey the Pope, more then every Sadler is bound to
obey every Rider. Therefore as from Subordination of an Art, cannot be
inferred the Subjection of the Professor; so from the Subordination of
a Government, cannot be inferred the Subjection of the Governor. When
therefore he saith, the Civill Power is Subject to the Spirituall, his
meaning is, that the Civill Soveraign, is Subject to the Spirituall
Soveraign. And the Argument stands thus, "The Civil Soveraign, is
subject to the Spirituall; Therefore the Spirituall Prince may
command Temporall Princes. " Where the conclusion is the same, with the
Antecedent he should have proved. But to prove it, he alledgeth
first, this reason, "Kings and Popes, Clergy and Laity make but one
Common-wealth; that is to say, but one Church: And in all Bodies the
Members depend one upon another: But things Spirituall depend not
of things Temporall: Therefore, Temporall depend on Spirituall. And
therefore are Subject to them. " In which Argumentation there be two
grosse errours: one is, that all Christian Kings, Popes, Clergy, and all
other Christian men, make but one Common-wealth: For it is evident that
France is one Common-wealth, Spain another, and Venice a third, &c. And
these consist of Christians; and therefore also are severall Bodies
of Christians; that is to say, severall Churches: And their severall
Soveraigns Represent them, whereby they are capable of commanding and
obeying, of doing and suffering, as a natural man; which no Generall or
Universall Church is, till it have a Representant; which it hath not on
Earth: for if it had, there is no doubt but that all Christendome were
one Common-wealth, whose Soveraign were that Representant, both in
things Spirituall and Temporall: And the Pope, to make himself this
Representant, wanteth three things that our Saviour hath not given
him, to Command, and to Judge, and to Punish, otherwise than (by
Excommunication) to run from those that will not Learn of him: For
though the Pope were Christs onely Vicar, yet he cannot exercise his
government, till our Saviours second coming: And then also it is not the
Pope, but St. Peter himselfe, with the other Apostles, that are to be
Judges of the world.

The other errour in this his first Argument is, that he sayes, the
Members of every Common-wealth, as of a naturall Body, depend one of
another: It is true, they cohaere together; but they depend onely on the
Soveraign, which is the Soul of the Common-wealth; which failing, the
Common-wealth is dissolved into a Civill war, no one man so much
as cohaering to another, for want of a common Dependance on a known
Soveraign; Just as the Members of the naturall Body dissolve into Earth,
for want of a Soul to hold them together. Therefore there is nothing in
this similitude, from whence to inferre a dependance of the Laity on the
Clergy, or of the Temporall Officers on the Spirituall; but of both on
the Civill Soveraign; which ought indeed to direct his Civill commands
to the Salvation of Souls; but is not therefore subject to any but God
himselfe. And thus you see the laboured fallacy of the first Argument,
to deceive such men as distinguish not between the Subordination of
Actions in the way to the End; and the Subjection of Persons one to
another in the administration of the Means. For to every End, the Means
are determined by Nature, or by God himselfe supernaturally: but the
Power to make men use the Means, is in every nation resigned (by the
Law of Nature, which forbiddeth men to violate their Faith given) to the
Civill Soveraign.

His second Argument is this, "Every Common-wealth, (because it is
supposed to be perfect and sufficient in it self,) may command any
other Common-wealth, not subject to it, and force it to change the
administration of the Government, nay depose the Prince, and set another
in his room, if it cannot otherwise defend it selfe against the injuries
he goes about to doe them: much more may a Spirituall Common-wealth
command a Temporall one to change the administration of their
Government, and may depose Princes, and institute others, when they
cannot otherwise defend the Spirituall Good. "

That a Common-wealth, to defend it selfe against injuries, may lawfully
doe all that he hath here said, is very true; and hath already in that
which hath gone before been sufficiently demonstrated. And if it were
also true, that there is now in this world a Spirituall Common-wealth,
distinct from a Civill Common-wealth, then might the Prince thereof,
upon injury done him, or upon want of caution that injury be not done
him in time to come, repaire, and secure himself by Warre; which is in
summe, deposing, killing, or subduing, or doing any act of Hostility.
But by the same reason, it would be no lesse lawfull for a Civill
Soveraign, upon the like injuries done, or feared, to make warre
upon the Spirituall Soveraign; which I beleeve is more than Cardinall
Bellarmine would have inferred from his own proposition.

But Spirituall Common-wealth there is none in this world: for it is the
same thing with the Kingdome of Christ; which he himselfe saith, is not
of this world; but shall be in the next world, at the Resurrection, when
they that have lived justly, and beleeved that he was the Christ, shall
(though they died Naturall bodies) rise Spirituall bodies; and then it
is, that our Saviour shall judge the world, and conquer his Adversaries,
and make a Spirituall Common-wealth. In the mean time, seeing there are
no men on earth, whose bodies are Spirituall; there can be no Spirituall
Common-wealth amongst men that are yet in the flesh; unlesse wee call
Preachers, that have Commission to Teach, and prepare men for
their reception into the Kingdome of Christ at the Resurrection, a
Common-wealth; which I have proved to bee none.

The third Argument is this; "It is not lawfull for Christians to
tolerate an Infidel, or Haereticall King, in case he endeavour to draw
them to his Haeresie, or Infidelity. But to judge whether a King draw
his subjects to Haeresie, or not, belongeth to the Pope. Therefore hath
the Pope Right, to determine whether the Prince be to be deposed, or not
deposed. "

To this I answer, that both these assertions are false. For Christians,
(or men of what Religion soever,) if they tolerate not their King,
whatsoever law hee maketh, though it bee concerning Religion, doe
violate their faith, contrary to the Divine Law, both Naturall and
Positive: Nor is there any Judge of Haeresie amongst Subjects, but
their own Civill Soveraign; for "Haeresie is nothing else, but a private
opinion, obstinately maintained, contrary to the opinion which the
Publique Person (that is to say, the Representant of the Common-wealth)
hath commanded to bee taught. " By which it is manifest, that an
opinion publiquely appointed to bee taught, cannot be Haeresie; nor the
Soveraign Princes that authorize them, Haeretiques. For Haeretiques are
none but private men, that stubbornly defend some Doctrine, prohibited
by their lawful Soveraigns.

But to prove that Christians are not to tolerate Infidell, or
Haereticall Kings, he alledgeth a place in Deut. 17. where God
forbiddeth the Jews, when they shall set a King over themselves, to
choose a stranger; And from thence inferreth, that it is unlawfull for
a Christian, to choose a King, that is not a Christian. And 'tis true,
that he that is a Christian, that is, hee that hath already obliged
himself to receive our Saviour when he shall come, for his King, shal
tempt God too much in choosing for King in this world, one that hee
knoweth will endeavour, both by terrour, and perswasion to make him
violate his faith. But, it is (saith hee) the same danger, to choose one
that is not a Christian, for King, and not to depose him, when hee
is chosen. To this I say, the question is not of the danger of not
deposing; but of the Justice of deposing him. To choose him, may in some
cases bee unjust; but to depose him, when he is chosen, is in no case
Just. For it is alwaies violation of faith, and consequently against the
Law of Nature, which is the eternal Law of God. Nor doe wee read, that
any such Doctrine was accounted Christian in the time of the Apostles;
nor in the time of the Romane Emperours, till the Popes had the Civill
Soveraignty of Rome. But to this he hath replyed, that the Christians of
old, deposed not Nero, nor Diocletian, nor Julian, nor Valens an Arrian,
for this cause onely, that they wanted Temporall forces. Perhaps so. But
did our Saviour, who for calling for, might have had twelve Legions
of immortall, invulnerable Angels to assist him, want forces to depose
Caesar, or at least Pilate, that unjustly, without finding fault in him,
delivered him to the Jews to bee crucified? Or if the Apostles wanted
Temporall forces to depose Nero, was it therefore necessary for them in
their Epistles to the new made Christians, to teach them, (as they did)
to obey the Powers constituted over them, (whereof Nero in that time was
one,) and that they ought to obey them, not for fear of their wrath,
but for conscience sake? Shall we say they did not onely obey, but also
teach what they meant not, for want of strength? It is not therefore
for want of strength, but for conscience sake, that Christians are to
tolerate their Heathen Princes, or Princes (for I cannot call any one
whose Doctrine is the Publique Doctrine, an Haeretique) that authorize
the teaching of an Errour. And whereas for the Temporall Power of the
Pope, he alledgeth further, that St. Paul (1 Cor. 6. ) appointed Judges
under the Heathen Princes of those times, such as were not ordained by
those Princes; it is not true. For St. Paul does but advise them,
to take some of their Brethren to compound their differences, as
Arbitrators, rather than to goe to law one with another before the
Heathen Judges; which is a wholsome Precept, and full of Charity, fit
to bee practised also in the Best Christian Common-wealths. And for
the danger that may arise to Religion, by the Subjects tolerating of an
Heathen, or an Erring Prince, it is a point, of which a Subject is no
competent Judge; or if hee bee, the Popes Temporall Subjects may judge
also of the Popes Doctrine. For every Christian Prince, as I have
formerly proved, is no lesse Supreme Pastor of his own Subjects, than
the Pope of his.

The fourth Argument, is taken from the Baptisme of Kings; wherein, that
they may be made Christians they submit their Scepters to Christ; and
promise to keep, and defend the Christian Faith. This is true; for
Christian Kings are no more but Christs Subjects: but they may, for all
that, bee the Popes Fellowes; for they are Supreme Pastors of their own
Subjects; and the Pope is no more but King, and Pastor, even in Rome it
selfe.

The fifth Argument, is drawn from the words spoken by our Saviour, Feed
My Sheep; by which was give all Power necessary for a Pastor; as the
Power to chase away Wolves, such as are Haeretiques; the Power to shut
up Rammes, if they be mad, or push at the other Sheep with their Hornes,
such as are Evill (though Christian) Kings; and Power to give the Flock
convenient food: From whence hee inferreth, that St. Peter had these
three Powers given him by Christ. To which I answer, that the last of
these Powers, is no more than the Power, or rather Command to Teach.
For the first, which is to chase away Wolves, that is, Haeretiques, the
place hee quoteth is (Matth. 7. 15. ) "Beware of false Prophets which
come to you in Sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravening Wolves.