No More Learning

)
"These signs follow them that beleeve in my Name; they shall cast out
Devills; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up Serpents,
and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; They shall
lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. " This to doe, was it that
Philip could not give; but the Apostles could, and (as appears by this
place) effectually did to every man that truly beleeved, and was by
a Minister of Christ himself Baptized: which power either Christs
Ministers in this age cannot conferre, or else there are very few true
Beleevers, or Christ hath very few Ministers.




And How Chosen What

That the first Deacons were chosen, not by the Apostles, but by a
Congregation of the Disciples; that is, of Christian men of all sorts,
is manifest out of Acts 6. where we read that the Twelve, after the
number of Disciples was multiplyed, called them together, and having
told them, that it was not fit that the Apostles should leave the Word
of God, and serve tables, said unto them (verse 3. ) "Brethren looke you
out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, and of
Wisdome, whom we may appoint over this businesse. " Here it is manifest,
that though the Apostles declared them elected; yet the Congregation
chose them; which also, (verse the fift) is more expressely said, where
it is written, that "the saying pleased the multitude, and they chose
seven, &c. "




Of Ecclesiasticall Revenue, Under The Law Of Moses

Under the Old Testament, the Tribe of Levi were onely capable of the
Priesthood, and other inferiour Offices of the Church. The land
was divided amongst the other Tribes (Levi excepted,) which by the
subdivision of the Tribe of Joseph, into Ephraim and Manasses, were
still twelve. To the Tribe of Levi were assigned certain Cities for
their habitation, with the suburbs for their cattell: but for their
portion, they were to have the tenth of the fruits of the land of their
Brethren. Again, the Priests for their maintenance had the tenth of that
tenth, together with part of the oblations, and sacrifices. For God had
said to Aaron (Numb. 18. 20. ) "Thou shalt have no inheritance in their
land, neither shalt thou have any part amongst them, I am thy part, and
thine inheritance amongst the Children of Israel. " For God being then
King, and having constituted the Tribe of Levi to be his Publique
Ministers, he allowed them for their maintenance, the Publique revenue,
that is to say, the part that God had reserved to himself; which were
Tythes, and Offerings: and that it is which is meant, where God saith, I
am thine inheritance. And therefore to the Levites might not unfitly
be attributed the name of Clergy from Kleros, which signifieth Lot, or
Inheritance; not that they were heirs of the Kingdome of God, more than
other; but that Gods inheritance, was their maintenance. Now seeing
in this time God himself was their King, and Moses, Aaron, and the
succeeding High Priests were his Lieutenants; it is manifest, that the
Right of Tythes, and Offerings was constituted by the Civill Power.

After their rejection of God in the demand of a King, they enjoyed still
the same revenue; but the Right thereof was derived from that, that the
Kings did never take it from them: for the Publique Revenue was at
the disposing of him that was the Publique Person; and that (till the
Captivity) was the King. And again, after the return from the Captivity,
they paid their Tythes as before to the Priest. Hitherto therefore
Church Livings were determined by the Civill Soveraign.




In Our Saviours Time, And After

Of the maintenance of our Saviour, and his Apostles, we read onely they
had a Purse, (which was carried by Judas Iscariot;) and, that of the
Apostles, such as were Fisher-men, did sometimes use their trade; and
that when our Saviour sent the Twelve Apostles to Preach, he forbad them
"to carry Gold, and Silver, and Brasse in their purses, for that
the workman is worthy of his hire:" (Mat. 10. 9,10. ) By which it
is probable, their ordinary maintenance was not unsuitable to their
employment; for their employment was (ver. 8. ) "freely to give, because
they had freely received;" and their maintenance was the Free Gift of
those that beleeved the good tyding they carryed about of the coming
of the Messiah their Saviour. To which we may adde, that which was
contributed out of gratitude, by such as our Saviour had healed of
diseases; of which are mentioned "Certain women (Luke 8. 2,3. ) which had
been healed of evill spirits and infirmities; Mary Magdalen, out of whom
went seven Devills; and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herods Steward; and
Susanna, and many others, which ministred unto him of their substance.

After our Saviours Ascension, the Christians of every City lived in
Common, (Acts 4. 34. ) upon the mony which was made of the sale of their
lands and possessions, and laid down at the feet of the Apostles, of
good will, not of duty; for "whilest the Land remained (saith S. Peter
to Ananias Acts 5. 4. ) was it not thine? and after it was sold, was it
not in thy power? " which sheweth he needed not to have saved his land,
nor his money by lying, as not being bound to contribute any thing at
all, unlesse he had pleased. And as in the time of the Apostles, so also
all the time downward, till after Constantine the Great, we shall
find, that the maintenance of the Bishops, and Pastors of the Christian
Church, was nothing but the voluntary contribution of them that had
embraced their Doctrine. There was yet no mention of Tythes: but
such was in the time of Constantine, and his Sons, the affection of
Christians to their Pastors, as Ammianus Marcellinus saith (describing
the sedition of Damasus and Ursinicus about the Bishopricke,) that it
was worth their contention, in that the Bishops of those times by the
liberality of their flock, and especially of Matrons, lived splendidly,
were carryed in Coaches, and sumptuous in their fare and apparell.

The Ministers Of The Gospel Lived On The Benevolence Of Their Flocks
But here may some ask, whether the Pastor were then bound to live upon
voluntary contribution, as upon almes, "For who (saith S. Paul 1 Cor. 9.
7. ) goeth to war at his own charges? or who feedeth a flock, and eatheth
not of the milke of the flock? " And again, (1 Cor. 9. 13. ) "Doe ye not
know that they which minister about holy things, live of the things of
the Temple; and they which wait at the Altar, partake with the Altar;"
that is to say, have part of that which is offered at the Altar for
their maintenance? And then he concludeth, "Even so hath the Lord
appointed, that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.
From which place may be inferred indeed, that the Pastors of the Church
ought to be maintained by their flocks; but not that the Pastors were to
determine, either the quantity, or the kind of their own allowance, and
be (as it were) their own Carvers. Their allowance must needs therefore
be determined, either by the gratitude, and liberality of every
particular man of their flock, or by the whole Congregation. By the
whole Congregation it could not be, because their Acts were then no
Laws: Therefore the maintenance of Pastors, before Emperours and Civill
Soveraigns had made Laws to settle it, was nothing but Benevolence. They
that served at the Altar lived on what was offered. In what court should
they sue for it, who had no Tribunalls? Or if they had Arbitrators
amongst themselves, who should execute their Judgments, when they had no
power to arme their Officers? It remaineth therefore, that there could
be no certaine maintenance assigned to any Pastors of the Church, but by
the whole Congregation; and then onely, when their Decrees should have
the force (not onely of Canons, but also) of Laws; which Laws could not
be made, but by Emperours, Kings, or other Civill Soveraignes. The Right
of Tythes in Moses Law, could not be applyed to the then Ministers
of the Gospell; because Moses and the High Priests were the Civill
Soveraigns of the people under God, whose Kingdom amongst the Jews was
present; whereas the Kingdome of God by Christ is yet to come.

Hitherto hath been shewn what the Pastors of the Church are; what are
the points of their Commission (as that they were to Preach, to Teach,
to Baptize, to be Presidents in their severall Congregations;) what is
Ecclesiasticall Censure, viz. Excommunication, that is to say, in those
places where Christianity was forbidden by the Civill Laws, a putting
of themselves out of the company of the Excommunicate, and where
Christianity was by the Civill Law commanded, a putting the
Excommunicate out of the Congregations of Christians; who elected the
Pastors and Ministers of the Church, (that it was, the Congregation);
who consecrated and blessed them, (that it was the Pastor); what was
their due revenue, (that it was none but their own possessions,
and their own labour, and the voluntary contributions of devout and
gratefull Christians). We are to consider now, what Office those persons
have, who being Civill Soveraignes, have embraced also the Christian
Faith.




The Civill Soveraign Being A Christian Hath The Right Of Appointing

Pastors

And first, we are to remember, that the Right of Judging what
Doctrines are fit for Peace, and to be taught the Subjects, is in all
Common-wealths inseparably annexed (as hath been already proved cha.
18. ) to the Soveraign Power Civill, whether it be in one Man, or in one
Assembly of men. For it is evident to the meanest capacity, that mens
actions are derived from the opinions they have of the Good, or Evill,
which from those actions redound unto themselves; and consequently,
men that are once possessed of an opinion, that their obedience to
the Soveraign Power, will bee more hurtfull to them, than their
disobedience, will disobey the Laws, and thereby overthrow the
Common-wealth, and introduce confusion, and Civill war; for the avoiding
whereof, all Civill Government was ordained. And therefore in all
Common-wealths of the Heathen, the Soveraigns have had the name of
Pastors of the People, because there was no Subject that could lawfully
Teach the people, but by their permission and authority.

This Right of the Heathen Kings, cannot bee thought taken from them by
their conversion to the Faith of Christ; who never ordained, that Kings
for beleeving in him, should be deposed, that is, subjected to any but
himself, or (which is all one) be deprived of the power necessary for
the conservation of Peace amongst their Subjects, and for their defence
against foraign Enemies. And therefore Christian Kings are still the
Supreme Pastors of their people, and have power to ordain what Pastors
they please, to teach the Church, that is, to teach the People committed
to their charge.

Again, let the right of choosing them be (as before the conversion
of Kings) in the Church, for so it was in the time of the Apostles
themselves (as hath been shewn already in this chapter); even so also
the Right will be in the Civill Soveraign, Christian. For in that he is
a Christian, he allowes the Teaching; and in that he is the Soveraign
(which is as much as to say, the Church by Representation,) the
Teachers hee elects, are elected by the Church. And when an Assembly of
Christians choose their Pastor in a Christian Common-wealth, it is the
Soveraign that electeth him, because tis done by his Authority; In the
same manner, as when a Town choose their Maior, it is the act of him
that hath the Soveraign Power: For every act done, is the act of him,
without whose consent it is invalid. And therefore whatsoever examples
may be drawn out of History, concerning the Election of Pastors, by the
People, or by the Clergy, they are no arguments against the Right of
any Civill Soveraign, because they that elected them did it by his
Authority.

Seeing then in every Christian Common-wealth, the Civill Soveraign is
the Supreme Pastor, to whose charge the whole flock of his Subjects is
committed, and consequently that it is by his authority, that all
other Pastors are made, and have power to teach, and performe all
other Pastorall offices; it followeth also, that it is from the Civill
Soveraign, that all other Pastors derive their right of Teaching,
Preaching, and other functions pertaining to that Office; and that they
are but his Ministers; in the same manner as the Magistrates of Towns,
Judges in Courts of Justice, and Commanders of Armies, are all but
Ministers of him that is the Magistrate of the whole Common-wealth,
Judge of all Causes, and Commander of the whole Militia, which is
alwayes the Civill Soveraign. And the reason hereof, is not because they
that Teach, but because they that are to Learn, are his Subjects.
For let it be supposed, that a Christian King commit the Authority of
Ordaining Pastors in his Dominions to another King, (as divers Christian
Kings allow that power to the Pope;) he doth not thereby constitute a
Pastor over himself, nor a Soveraign Pastor over his People; for that
were to deprive himself of the Civill Power; which depending on the
opinion men have of their Duty to him, and the fear they have of
Punishment in another world, would depend also on the skill, and loyalty
of Doctors, who are no lesse subject, not only to Ambition, but also
to Ignorance, than any other sort of men. So that where a stranger hath
authority to appoint Teachers, it is given him by the Soveraign in
whose Dominions he teacheth. Christian Doctors are our Schoolmasters
to Christianity; But Kings are Fathers of Families, and may receive
Schoolmasters for their Subjects from the recommendation of a stranger,
but not from the command; especially when the ill teaching them shall
redound to the great and manifest profit of him that recommends them:
nor can they be obliged to retain them, longer than it is for the
Publique good; the care of which they stand so long charged withall, as
they retain any other essentiall Right of the Soveraignty.




The Pastorall Authority Of Soveraigns Only Is De Jure Divino,

That Of Other Pastors Is Jure Civili

If a man therefore should ask a Pastor, in the execution of his Office,
as the chief Priests and Elders of the people (Mat. 21. 23. ) asked our
Saviour, "By what authority dost thou these things, and who gave thee
this authority:" he can make no other just Answer, but that he doth
it by the Authority of the Common-wealth, given him by the King, or
Assembly that representeth it. All Pastors, except the Supreme, execute
their charges in the Right, that is by the Authority of the Civill
Soveraign, that is, Jure Civili. But the King, and every other Soveraign
executeth his Office of Supreme Pastor, by immediate Authority from God,
that is to say, In Gods Right, or Jure Divino. And therefore none but
Kings can put into their Titles (a mark of their submission to God onely
) Dei Gratia Rex, &c. Bishops ought to say in the beginning of their
Mandates, "By the favour of the Kings Majesty, Bishop of such a
Diocesse;" or as Civill Ministers, "In his Majesties Name. " For in
saying, Divina Providentia, which is the same with Dei Gratia, though
disguised, they deny to have received their authority from the Civill
State; and sliely slip off the Collar of their Civill Subjection,
contrary to the unity and defence of the Common-wealth.




Christian Kings Have Power To Execute All Manner Of Pastoral Function

But if every Christian Soveraign be the Supreme Pastor of his own
Subjects, it seemeth that he hath also the Authority, not only to Preach
(which perhaps no man will deny;) but also to Baptize, and to Administer
the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; and to Consecrate both Temples, and
Pastors to Gods service; which most men deny; partly because they use
not to do it; and partly because the Administration of Sacraments,
and Consecration of Persons, and Places to holy uses, requireth the
Imposition of such mens hands, as by the like Imposition successively
from the time of the Apostles have been ordained to the like Ministery.
For proof therefore that Christian Kings have power to Baptize, and to
Consecrate, I am to render a reason, both why they use not to doe it,
and how, without the ordinary ceremony of Imposition of hands, they are
made capable of doing it, when they will.

There is no doubt but any King, in case he were skilfull in the
Sciences, might by the same Right of his Office, read Lectures of
them himself, by which he authorizeth others to read them in the
Universities. Neverthelesse, because the care of the summe of the
businesse of the Common-wealth taketh up his whole time, it were not
convenient for him to apply himself in Person to that particular. A King
may also if he please, sit in Judgment, to hear and determine all manner
of Causes, as well as give others authority to doe it in his name; but
that the charge that lyeth upon him of Command and Government, constrain
him to bee continually at the Helm, and to commit the Ministeriall
Offices to others under him. In the like manner our Saviour (who surely
had power to Baptize) Baptized none himselfe, but sent his Apostles and
Disciples to Baptize. (John 4. 2. ) So also S. Paul, by the necessity of
Preaching in divers and far distant places, Baptized few: Amongst all
the Corinthians he Baptized only Crispus, Cajus, and Stephanus; (1
Cor. 1. 14,16. ) and the reason was, because his principall Charge was to
Preach. (1 Cor. 1. 17. ) Whereby it is manifest, that the greater Charge,
(such as is the Government of the Church,) is a dispensation for the
lesse. The reason therefore why Christian Kings use not to Baptize, is
evident, and the same, for which at this day there are few Baptized by
Bishops, and by the Pope fewer.

And as concerning Imposition of Hands, whether it be needfull, for the
authorizing of a King to Baptize, and Consecrate, we may consider thus.

Imposition of Hands, was a most ancient publique ceremony amongst the
Jews, by which was designed, and made certain, the person, or other
thing intended in a mans prayer, blessing, sacrifice, consecration,
condemnation, or other speech. So Jacob in blessing the children of
Joseph (Gen. 48. 14. ) "Laid his right Hand on Ephraim the younger, and
his left Hand on Manasseh the first born;" and this he did Wittingly
(though they were so presented to him by Joseph, as he was forced in
doing it to stretch out his arms acrosse) to design to whom he intended
the greater blessing. So also in the sacrificing of the Burnt offering,
Aaron is commanded (Exod. 29. 10. ) "to Lay his Hands on the head of the
bullock;" and (ver. 15. ) "to Lay his Hand on the head of the ramme. "
The same is also said again, Levit. 1. 4. & 8. 14. Likewise Moses when he
ordained Joshua to be Captain of the Israelites, that is, consecrated
him to Gods service, (Numb. 27. 23. ) "Laid his hands upon him, and gave
him his Charge," designing and rendring certain, who it was they were
to obey in war. And in the consecration of the Levites (Numb. 8. 10. ) God
commanded that "the Children of Israel should Put their Hands upon the
Levites. " And in the condemnation of him that had blasphemed the Lord
(Levit. 24. 14. ) God commanded that "all that heard him should Lay their
Hands on his head, and that all the Congregation should stone him. " And
why should they only that heard him, Lay their Hands upon him, and not
rather a Priest, Levite, or other Minister of Justice, but that
none else were able to design, and demonstrate to the eyes of the
Congregation, who it was that had blasphemed, and ought to die? And
to design a man, or any other thing, by the Hand to the Eye is lesse
subject to mistake, than when it is done to the Eare by a Name.

And so much was this ceremony observed, that in blessing the whole
Congregation at once, which cannot be done by Laying on of Hands, yet
"Aaron (Levit. 9. 22. ) did lift up his Hand towards the people when he
blessed them. " And we read also of the like ceremony of Consecration of
Temples amongst the Heathen, as that the Priest laid his Hands on
some post of the Temple, all the while he was uttering the words of
Consecration. So naturall it is to design any individuall thing, rather
by the Hand, to assure the Eyes, than by Words to inform the Eare in
matters of Gods Publique service.

This ceremony was not therefore new in our Saviours time. For Jairus
(Mark 5. 23. ) whose daughter was sick, besought our Saviour (not to heal
her, but) "to Lay his Hands upon her, that shee might bee healed. " And
(Matth. 19. 13. ) "they brought unto him little children, that hee should
Put his Hands on them, and Pray. "

According to this ancient Rite, the Apostles, and Presbyters, and the
Presbytery it self, Laid Hands on them whom they ordained Pastors, and
withall prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost; and that
not only once, but sometimes oftner, when a new occasion was presented:
but the end was still the same, namely a punctuall, and religious
designation of the person, ordained either to the Pastorall Charge
in general, or to a particular Mission: so (Act. 6. 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 thy 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 (Act. 8. 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 S. Paul adviseth
Timothy (1 Tim. 5. 22. ) "Lay Hands suddenly on no man;" that is, designe
no man rashly to the Office of a Pastor. The whole Presbytery Laid their
Hands on Timothy, as we read 1 Tim. 4. 14. but this is to be understood,
as that some did it by the appointment of the Presbytery, and most
likely their Proestos, or Prolocutor, which it may be was St. Paul
himself. For in his 2 Epist. to Tim. ver. 6. he saith to him, "Stirre 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 Pastorall Office. We read
also, that St. Paul had Imposition of Hands twice; once from Ananias at
Damascus (Acts 9. 17,18. ) at the time of his Baptisme; and again (Acts
13. 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 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.