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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is evident that the prophets of the Old Testament foretold, and the Jews expected a Messiah, that is, a Christ, that should re-establish amongst them the kingdom of God, which had been rejected by them in the time of Samuel, when they required a king after the manner of other nations. This expectation of theirs made them obnoxious to the imposture of all such, as had both the ambition to attempt the attaining of the kingdom, and the art to deceive the people by counterfeit miracles, by hypocritical life, or by orations and doctrine plausible. Our Saviour therefore, and his apostles, forewarned men of false prophets and of false Christs. False Christs are such as pretend to be the Christ, but are not, and are called properly Antichrists; in such sense, as when there happeneth a schism in the Church, by the election of two Popes, the one calleth the other Antipapa, or the false Pope. And therefore Antichrist in the proper signification hath two essential marks; one, that he denieth Jesus to be Christ; and another that he professeth himself to be Christ. The first mark is set down by St. John in his first Epistle, iv. 3, Every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and this is the spirit of Antichrist. The other mark is expressed in the words of our Saviour, (Matth. xxiv. 5) many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and again, (verse 23) If any man shall say unto you, lo! here is Christ, there is Christ, believe it not. And therefore Antichrist must be a false Christ; that is, some one of them that shall pretend themselves to be Christ. And out of these two marks, to deny Jesus to be the Christ, and to affirm himself to be the Christ, it followeth, that he must also be an adversary of Jesus the true Christ, which is another usual signification of the word Antichrist. But of these many Antichrists, there is one special one, ὁ Αντίχριστος, the Antichrist, or Antichrist definitely, as one certain person; not indefinitely an Antichrist. Now, seeing the Pope of Rome neither pretendeth himself, nor denieth Jesus to be the Christ, I perceive not how he can be called Antichrist; by which word is not meant, one that falsely pretendeth to be his lieutenant or vicar-general, but to be He. There is also some mark of the time of this special Antichrist, as (Matth. xxiv. 15), when that abominable destroyer, spoken of by Daniel (Dan. ix. 27) shall stand in the Holy place, and such tribulation as was not since the beginning of the world, nor ever shall be again, insomuch as if it were to last long, (Matth. xxiv. 22) no flesh could be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened, made fewer. But that tribulation is not yet come; for it is to be followed immediately (verse 29) by a darkening of the sun and moon, a falling of the stars, a concussion of the heavens, and the glorious coming again of our Saviour in the clouds. And therefore the Antichrist is not yet come; whereas, many Popes are both come and gone. It is true, the Pope, in taking upon him to give laws to all Christian kings and nations, usurpeth a kingdom in this world, which Christ took not on him: but he doth it not as Christ, but as for Christ, wherein there is nothing of the Antichrist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sixth place is that of Rom. xiii, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God; which is meant, he saith, not only of secular, but also of ecclesiastical princes. To which I answer, first, that there are no ecclesiastical princes but those that are also civil sovereigns; and their principalities exceed not the compass of their civil sovereignty; without those bounds, though they may be received for doctors, they cannot be acknowledged for princes. For if the apostle had meant, we should be subject both to our own princes, and also to the Pope, he had taught us a doctrine, which Christ himself hath told us is impossible, namely, to serve two masters. And though the apostle say in another place, (2 Cor. xiii. 10) I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me; it is not, that he challenged a power either to put to death, imprison, banish, whip, or fine any of them, which are punishments; but only to excommunicate, which, without the civil power, is no more but a leaving of their company, and having no more to do with them than with a heathen man or a publican; which in many occasions might be a greater pain to the excommunicant, than to the excommunicate.

The seventh place is 1 Cor. iv. 21, Shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and the spirit of lenity? But here again, it is not the power of a magistrate to punish offenders, that is meant by a rod; but only the power of excommunication, which is not in its own nature a punishment, but only a denouncing of punishment, that Christ shall inflict when he shall be in possession of his kingdom, at the day of judgment. Nor then also shall it be properly a punishment, as upon a subject that hath broken the law; but a revenge, as upon an enemy or revolter, that denieth the right of our Saviour to the kingdom. And therefore this proveth not the legislative power of any bishop, that has not also the civil power.

The eighth place is 1 Timothy, iii. 2; A bishop must be the husband of but one wife, vigilant, sober, &c.: which he saith was a law. I thought that none could make a law in the Church, but the monarch of the Church, St. Peter. But suppose this precept made by the authority of St. Peter; yet I see no reason why to call it a law, rather than an advice, seeing Timothy was not a subject, but a disciple of St. Paul; nor the flock under the charge of Timothy, his subjects in the kingdom, but his scholars in the school of Christ. If all the precepts he giveth Timothy be laws, why is not this also a law, (1 Tim. v. 23) Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy health’s sake. And why are not also the precepts of good physicians so many laws, but that it is not the imperative manner of speaking, but an absolute subjection to a person, that maketh his precepts laws?

In like manner, the ninth place, 1 Tim. v. 19, Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses, is a wise precept, but not a law.

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

The eleventh is every place where the apostle for counsel putteth some word, by which men use to signify command; or calleth the following of his counsel by the name of obedience. And therefore they are alleged out of 1 Cor. xi. 2, I commend you for keeping my precepts as I delivered them to you. The Greek is, I commend you for keeping those things I delivered to you, as I delivered them. Which is far from signifying that they were laws, or anything else, but good counsel. And that of 1 Thess. iv. 2, You know what commandments we gave you: where the Greek word is παραγγελίας ἐδώκαμεν, equivalent to παρεδώκαμεν, what we delivered to you, as in the place next before alleged, which does not prove the traditions of the apostles to be any more than counsels; though as is said in the 8th verse, he that despiseth them, despiseth not man, but God. For our Saviour himself came not to judge, that is, to be king in this world; but to sacrifice himself for sinners, and leave doctors in his Church to lead, not to drive men to Christ, who never accepteth forced actions, (which is all the law produceth,) but the inward conversion of the heart; which is not the work of laws, but of counsel and doctrine.

And that of 2 Thess. iii. 14, If any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed: where from the word obey, he would infer, that this epistle was a law to the Thessalonians. The epistles of the emperors were indeed laws. If therefore the epistle of St. Paul were also a law, they were to obey two masters. But the word obey, as it is in the Greek ὑπακούει, signifieth hearkening to or putting in practice, not only that which is commanded by him that has right to punish, but also that which is delivered in a way of counsel for our good; and therefore St. Paul does not bid kill him that disobeys; nor beat, nor imprison, nor amerce him, which legislators may all do; but avoid his company, that he may be ashamed: whereby it is evident, it was not the empire of an apostle, but his reputation amongst the faithful, which the Christians stood in awe of.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His fifth argument is this: if bishops have their jurisdiction immediately from God, the Pope could not take it from them, for he can do nothing contrary to God’s ordination; and this consequence is good, and well proved. But, saith he, the Pope can do this, and has done it. This also is granted, so he do it in his own dominions, or in the dominions of any other prince that hath given him that power; but not universally, in right of the popedom: for that power belongeth to every Christian sovereign, within the bounds of his own empire, and is inseparable from the sovereignty. Before the people of Israel had, by the commandment of God to Samuel, set over themselves a king, after the manner of other nations, the high-priest had the civil government; and none but he could make or depose an inferior priest. But that power was afterwards in the king, as may be proved by this same argument of Bellarmine; for if the priest, be he the high-priest or any other, had his jurisdiction immediately from God, then the king could not take it from him; for he could do nothing contrary to God’s ordinance. But it is certain that king Solomon (1 Kings ii. 26, 27) deprived Abiathar the high-priest of his office, and placed Zadok (verse 35) in his room. Kings therefore may in like manner ordain and deprive bishops, as they shall think fit for the well-governing of their subjects.

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

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

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

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

When it is said, the Pope hath not, in the territories of other states, the supreme civil power directly; we are to understand, he doth not challenge it, as other civil sovereigns do, from the original 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 sovereigns is derived originally from the consent of every one of those that are to be governed; whether they that choose him, do 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 do it, to save their lives, by submission to a conquering enemy. The Pope therefore, when he disclaimeth the supreme civil power over other states directly, denieth no more, but that his right cometh to him by that way; he ceaseth not for all that, to claim it another way; and that is, without the consent of them that are to be governed, by a right given him by God, which he 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 be granted to be his right, depose princes and states, as often as it is for the salvation of souls, that is, as often as he will; for he claimeth also the sole power to judge whether it be to the salvation of men’s souls or not. And this is the doctrine, not only that Bellarmine here, and many other doctors, teach in their sermons and books, but also that some councils have decreed, and the Popes have accordingly, when the occasion hath served them, put in practice. For the fourth council of Lateran, held under Pope Innocent the Third, in the third chapter De Hæreticis, hath this canon: If a king, at the Pope’s admonition, do not purge his kingdom of heretics, and being excommunicate for the same, make not satisfaction within a year, his subjects are absolved of their obedience. And the practice hereof hath been seen on divers occasions; as in the deposing of Chilperic, king of France; in the translation of the Roman empire to Charlemagne; in the oppression of John, king of England; in transferring the kingdom 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 unjust, 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 temporal and spiritual 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 civil power is subject to the spiritual: therefore he that hath the supreme power spiritual, hath right to command temporal princes, and dispose of their temporals in order to the spiritual. As for the distinction of temporal and spiritual, let us consider in what sense it may be said intelligibly, that the temporal or civil power is subject to the spiritual. There be but two ways that those words can be made sense. For when we 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 we cannot understand, that one power hath power over another power; or 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 saddler to the art of a rider. If then it be granted, that the civil government be ordained as a means to bring us to a spiritual felicity; yet it does not follow, that if a king have the civil power, and the Pope the spiritual, that therefore the king is bound to obey the Pope, more than every saddler 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 civil power is subject to the spiritual, his meaning is, that the civil sovereign is subject to the spiritual sovereign. And the argument stands thus, The civil sovereign is subject to the spiritual; therefore the spiritual prince may command temporal princes. Where the conclusion is the same with the antecedent he should have proved. But to prove it, he allegeth first, this reason: Kings and popes, clergy and laity, make but one commonwealth; that is to say, but one Church: and in all bodies the members depend one upon another: but things spiritual depend not of things temporal: therefore temporal depend on spiritual, and therefore are subject to them. In which argumentation there be two gross errors: one is, that all Christian kings, popes, clergy, and all other Christian men, make but one commonwealth. For it is evident that France is one commonwealth, Spain another, and Venice a third, &c. And these consist of Christians; and therefore also are several bodies of Christians; that is to say, several Churches: and their several sovereigns represent them, whereby they are capable of commanding and obeying, of doing and suffering, as a natural man; which no general or universal Church is, till it have a representant; which it hath not on earth: for if it had, there is no doubt but that all Christendom were one commonwealth, whose sovereign were that representant, both in things spiritual and temporal. 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 Christ’s only vicar, yet he cannot exercise his government, till our Saviour’s second coming: and then also it is not the Pope, but St. Peter himself with the other apostles, that are to be judges of the world.

The other error in this his first argument is, that he says, the members of every commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true, they cohere together; but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the commonwealth; which failing, the commonwealth is dissolved into a civil war, no one man so much as cohering to another, for want of a common dependance on a known sovereign; just as the members of the natural body dissolve into earth, for want of a soul to hold them together. Therefore there is nothing in this similitude, from whence to infer a dependance of the laity on the clergy, or of the temporal officers on the spiritual; but of both on the civil sovereign; which ought indeed to direct his civil commands to the salvation of souls; but is not therefore subject to any but God himself. 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 himself 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 civil sovereign.

His second argument is this; Every commonwealth, because it is supposed to be perfect and sufficient in itself, may command any other commonwealth 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 itself against the injuries he goes about to do them: much more may a spiritual commonwealth command a temporal one to change the administration of their government, and may depose princes, and institute others, when they cannot otherwise defend the spiritual good.

That a commonwealth, to defend itself against injuries, may lawfully do 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 spiritual commonwealth, distinct from a civil commonwealth, then might the prince thereof, upon injury done him, or upon want of caution that injury be not done him in time to come, repair and secure himself by war; which is, in sum, deposing, killing, or subduing, or doing any act of hostility. But by the same reason, it would be no less lawful for a civil sovereign, upon the like injuries done, or feared, to make war upon the spiritual sovereign; which I believe is more than Cardinal Bellarmine would have inferred from his own proposition.

But spiritual commonwealth there is none in this world: for it is the same thing with the kingdom of Christ, which he himself saith, is not of this world; but shall be in the next world at the resurrection, when they that have lived justly, and believed that he was the Christ, shall, though they died natural bodies, rise spiritual bodies; and then it is, that our Saviour shall judge the world, and conquer his adversaries, and make a spiritual commonwealth. In the meantime, seeing there are no men on earth whose bodies are spiritual, there can be no spiritual commonwealth amongst men that are yet in the flesh; unless we call preachers, that have commission to teach, and prepare men for their reception into the kingdom of Christ at the resurrection, a commonwealth; which I have proved already to be none.

The third argument is this; It is not lawful for Christians to tolerate an infidel, or heretical king, in case he endeavour to draw them to his heresy or infidelity. But to judge whether a king draw his subjects to heresy 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 he maketh, though it be concerning religion, do violate their faith, contrary to the divine law, both natural and positive: nor is there any judge of heresy amongst subjects, but their own civil sovereign. For heresy is nothing else but a private opinion obstinately maintained, contrary to the opinion which the public person, that is to say, the representant of the commonwealth, hath commanded to be taught. By which it is manifest, that an opinion publicly appointed to be taught, cannot be heresy; nor the sovereign princes that authorize them, heretics. For heretics are none but private men, that stubbornly defend some doctrine, prohibited by their lawful sovereigns.

But to prove that Christians are not to tolerate infidel or heretical kings, he allegeth a place in Deut. xvii. 15, where God forbiddeth the Jews, when they shall set a king over themselves, to choose a stranger: and from thence inferreth, that it is unlawful for a Christian to choose a king that is not a Christian. And it is true, that he that is a Christian, that is, he that hath already obliged himself to receive our Saviour, when he shall come, for his king, shall tempt God too much in choosing for king in this world, one that he knoweth will endeavour, both by terror and persuasion, to make him violate his faith. But it is, saith he, the same danger, to choose one that is not a Christian, for king, and not to depose him when he 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 be unjust; but to depose him when he is chosen, is in no case just. For it is always violation of faith, and consequently against the law of nature, which is the eternal law of God. Nor do we read that any such doctrine was accounted Christian in the time of the apostles; nor in the time of the Roman emperors, till the Popes had the civil sovereignty of Rome. But to this he hath replied, that the Christians of old deposed not Nero, nor Dioclesian, nor Julian, nor Valens an Arian, for this cause only, that they wanted temporal forces. Perhaps so. But did our Saviour, who for calling for, might have had twelve legions of immortal, invulnerable angels to assist him, want forces to depose Cæsar, or at least Pilate, that unjustly, without finding fault in him, delivered him to the Jews to be crucified? Or if the apostles wanted temporal 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 only 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 public doctrine, an heretic) that authorize the teaching of an error. And whereas for the temporal power of the Pope, he allegeth further, that St. Paul (1 Cor. vi.) 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 go to law one with another before the heathen judges; which is a wholesome precept, and full of charity, fit to be practised also in the best Christian commonwealths. And for the danger that may arise to religion, by the subjects tolerating of a heathen, or an erring prince, it is a point of which a subject is no competent judge; or if he be, the Pope’s temporal subjects may judge also of the Pope’s doctrine. For every Christian prince, as I have formerly proved, is no less supreme pastor of his own subjects, than the Pope of his.

The fourth argument, is taken from the baptism of kings; wherein, that they may be made Christians, they submit their sceptres to Christ; and promise to keep and defend the Christian faith. This is true; for Christian kings are no more but Christ’s subjects: but they may, for all that, be the Pope’s fellows; for they are supreme pastors of their own subjects; and the Pope is no more but king and pastor, even in Rome itself.

The fifth argument, is drawn from the words spoken by our Saviour, Feed my sheep; by which was given all power necessary for a pastor; as the power to chase away wolves, such as are heretics; the power to shut up rams, if they be mad, or push at the other sheep with their horns, such as are evil, though Christian, kings; and power to give the flock convenient food. From whence he 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, heretics, the place he quoteth is (Matth. vii. 15) Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. But neither are heretics false prophets, or at all prophets: nor, admitting heretics for the wolves there meant, were the apostles commanded to kill them, or if they were kings, to depose them; but to beware of, fly, and avoid them: nor was it to St. Peter, nor to any of the apostles, but to the multitude of the Jews that followed him into the mountain, men for the most part not yet converted, that he gave this counsel, to beware of false prophets: which therefore, if it confer a power of chasing away kings, was given, not only to private men, but to men that were not at all Christians. And as to the power of separating, and shutting up of furious rams, by which he meaneth Christian kings that refuse to submit themselves to the Roman pastor, our Saviour refused to take upon him that power in this world himself, but advised to let the corn and tares grow up together till the day of judgment: much less did he give it to St. Peter, or can St. Peter give it to the Popes. St. Peter, and all other pastors, are bidden to esteem those Christians that disobey the Church, that is, that disobey the Christian sovereign, as heathen men, and as publicans. Seeing then, men challenge to the Pope no authority over heathen princes, they ought to challenge none over those that are to be esteemed as heathen.

But from the power to teach only, he inferreth also a coercive power in the Pope over kings. The pastor, saith he, must give his flock convenient food: therefore the Pope may, and ought to compel kings to do their duty. Out of which it followeth, that the Pope, as pastor of Christian men, is king of kings: which all Christian kings ought indeed either to confess, or else they ought to take upon themselves the supreme pastoral charge, every one in his own dominion.

His sixth and last argument, is from examples. To which I answer, first, that examples prove nothing: secondly, that the examples he allegeth make not so much as a probability of right. The fact of Jehoiada, in killing Athaliah, (2 Kings xi.) was either by the authority of king Joash, or it was a horrible crime in the high-priest, which ever after the election of king Saul was a mere subject. The fact of St. Ambrose, in excommunicating Theodosius the emperor, if it were true he did so, was a capital crime. And for the Popes, Gregory I, Gregory II, Zachary, and Leo III, their judgments are void, as given in their own cause; and the acts done by them conformably to this doctrine, are the greatest crimes, especially that of Zachary, that are incident to human nature. And thus much of Power Ecclesiastical; wherein I had been more brief, forbearing to examine these arguments of Bellarmine, if they had been his as a private man, and not as the champion of the Papacy against all other Christian Princes and States.