For their employment, as deacons, was to serve the congregation; though

upon occasion they omitted not to preach the gospel, and maintain the

doctrine of Christ, every one according to his gifts, as St. Stephen

did; and both to preach and baptize, as Philip did. For that Philip,

which (_Acts_ viii. 5) preached the gospel at Samaria, and (verse 38)

baptized the Eunuch, was Philip the deacon, not Philip the apostle. For

it is manifest (verse 1) that when Philip preached in Samaria, the

apostles were at Jerusalem, and (verse 14) _when they heard that Samaria

had received the word of God, sent Peter and John to them_; by

imposition of whose hands, they that were baptized (verse 15), received,

which before by the baptism of Philip they had not received, the Holy

Ghost. For it was necessary for the conferring of the Holy Ghost, that

their baptism should be administered or confirmed by a minister of the

word, not by a minister of the Church. And therefore to confirm the

baptism of those that Philip the deacon had baptized, the apostles sent

out of their own number from Jerusalem to Samaria, Peter and John; who

conferred on them that before were but baptized, those graces that were

signs of the Holy Spirit, which at that time did accompany all true

believers; which what they were may be understood by that which St. Mark

saith (chap. xvi. 17), _these signs follow them that believe in my name;

they shall cast out devils; 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 do, was it that Philip could not give; but the apostles could,

and, as appears by this place, effectually did to every man that truly

believed and was by a minister of Christ himself baptized: which power

either Christ’s ministers in this age cannot confer, or else there are

very few true believers, or Christ hath very few ministers.

[Sidenote: And how chosen.]

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_ vi, where we read that the _Twelve_, after the

number of disciples was multiplied, 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, look you

out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and of

wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business_. Here it is manifest,

that though the apostles declared them elected; yet the congregation

chose them; which also (verse 5) is more expressly said, where it is

written, that _the saying pleased the whole multitude, and they chose

seven, &c._

[Sidenote: Of ecclesiastical revenue, under the law of Moses.]

Under the Old Testament, the tribe of Levi were only capable of the

priesthood, and other inferior 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 Manasseh, were still

twelve. To the tribe of Levi were assigned certain cities for their

habitation, with the suburbs for their cattle: 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._ xviii. 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 public ministers, he

allowed them for their maintenance the public revenue, that is to say,

the part that God had reserved to himself; which were tithes and

offerings: and that is it 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 κλῆρος, which signifieth lot or

inheritance; not that they were heirs of the kingdom of God, more than

other; but that God’s 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 tithes and offerings was constituted by the civil power.

After their rejection of God in the demanding 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 public revenue was

at the disposing of him that was the public person; and that, till the

Captivity, was the king. And again, after the return from the Captivity,

they paid their tithes as before to the priest. Hitherto therefore

Church livings were determined by the civil sovereign.

[Sidenote: In our Saviour’s time, and after.]

Of the maintenance of our Saviour and his apostles, we read only they

had a purse, which was carried by Judas Iscariot; and that of the

apostles, such as were fishermen did sometimes use their trade; and that

when our Saviour sent the twelve apostles to preach, he forbad them

(_Matth._ x. 9, 10): _to carry gold, and silver, and brass in their

purses, for that the workman is worthy of his hire_. By which it is

probable, their ordinary maintenance was not unsuitable to their

employment; for their employment was (verse 8) _freely to give, because

they had freely received_; and their maintenance was the _free gift_ of

those that believed the good tiding they carried about of the coming of

the Messiah their Saviour. To which we may add, that which was

contributed out of gratitude by such as our Saviour had healed of

diseases; of which are mentioned (_Luke_ viii. 2, 3) _Certain women

which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities; Mary Magdalen,

out of whom went seven devils; and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s

steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of

their substance_.

After our Saviour’s ascension, the Christians of every city lived in

common (_Acts_ iv. 34,35) upon the money 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, _whilst the land remained_, saith St.

Peter to Ananias (_Acts_ v. 4), _was it not thine? and after it was

sold, was it not in thy power?_ which sheweth he needed not have saved

his land nor his money by lying, as not being bound to contribute any

thing at all, unless 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 tithes: 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 Ursicinus about the bishopric, 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 carried in coaches, and were sumptuous in their fare and apparel.

[Sidenote: The ministers of the Gospel lived on the benevolence of their

flocks.]

But here may some ask, whether the pastors were then bound to live upon

voluntary contribution, as upon alms; _For who_, saith St. Paul (_1

Cor._ ix. 7) _goeth to war at his own charges? or who feedeth a flock,

and eateth not of the milk of the flock?_ And again, (verse 13) _Do 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, (verse 14) _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 emperors and civil

sovereigns had made laws to settle it, was nothing but benevolence. They

that served at the altar lived on what was offered. So may the pastors

also take what is offered them by their flock; but not exact what is not

offered. In what court should they sue for it, who had no tribunals? Or,

if they had arbitrators amongst themselves, who should execute their

judgments, when they had no power to arm their officers? It remaineth,

therefore, that there could be no certain maintenance assigned to any

pastors of the Church, but by the whole congregation; and then only,

when their decrees should have the force, not only of _canons_, but also

of _laws_; which laws could not be made, but by emperors, kings, or

other civil sovereigns. The right of tithes in Moses’ law, could not be

applied to the then ministers of the gospel; because Moses and the

high-priests were the civil sovereigns of the people under God, whose

kingdom amongst the Jews was present; whereas the kingdom 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 several congregations; what is

ecclesiastical censure, viz. excommunication, that is to say, in those

places where Christianity was forbidden by the civil laws, a putting of

themselves out of the company of the excommunicate, and where

Christianity was by the civil 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 grateful Christians. We are to

consider now, what office in the Church those persons have, who being

civil sovereigns, have embraced also the Christian faith.

[Sidenote: That the civil sovereign, 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

commonwealths inseparably annexed, as hath been already proved (chapter

XVIII.), to the sovereign power civil, whether it be in one man, or in

one assembly of men. For it is evident to the meanest capacity, that

men’s actions are derived from the opinions they have of the good or

evil, which from those actions redound unto themselves; and

consequently, men that are once possessed of an opinion, that their

obedience to the sovereign power will be more hurtful to them than their

disobedience, will disobey the laws, and thereby overthrow the

commonwealth, and introduce confusion and civil war; for the avoiding

whereof, all civil government was ordained. And therefore in all

commonwealths of the heathen, the sovereigns 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 be thought taken from them by

their conversion to the faith of Christ; who never ordained that kings,

for believing 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 foreign 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 shown already in this chapter; even so also the

right will be in the civil sovereign, Christian. For in that he is a

Christian, he allows the teaching; and in that he is the sovereign,

which is as much as to say, the Church by representation, the teachers

he elects are elected by the Church. And when an assembly of Christians

choose their pastor in a Christian commonwealth, it is the sovereign

that electeth him, because it is done by his authority; in the same

manner, as when a town choose their mayor, it is the act of him that

hath the sovereign 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 civil

sovereign, because they that elected them did it by his authority.

Seeing then in every Christian commonwealth, the civil sovereign 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 perform all other

pastoral offices; it followeth also, that it is from the civil sovereign

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 commonwealth, judge of all

causes, and commander of the whole militia, which is always the civil

sovereign. 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 sovereign pastor over his people; for that were to

deprive himself of the civil 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 less 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 sovereign 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 public good; the care

of which they stand so long charged withal, as they retain any other

essential right of the sovereignty.

[Sidenote: The pastoral authority of sovereigns only is _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 (_Matth._ xxi. 23) asked

our Saviour, _By what authority doest 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 commonwealth, 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 civil

sovereign, that is, _jure civili_. But the king, and every other

sovereign, executeth his office of supreme pastor by immediate authority

from God, that is to say, in _God’s right_ or _jure divino_. And

therefore none but kings can put into their titles a mark of their

submission to God only, _Dei gratiâ rex_, &c. Bishops ought to say in

the beginning of their mandates, _By the favour of the King’s Majesty,

bishop of such a diocese_; or as civil ministers, _in His Majesty’s

name_. For in saying, _Divinâ providentiâ_, which is the same with _Dei

gratiâ_, though disguised, they deny to have received their authority

from the civil state; and slily slip off the collar of their civil

subjection, contrary to the unity and defence of the commonwealth.

[Sidenote: Christian kings have power to execute all manner of pastoral

function.]

But if every Christian sovereign 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 Lord’s Supper: and to consecrate both

temples and pastors to God’s 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 men’s hands, as by the like imposition

successively from the time of the apostles have been ordained to the

like ministry. 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 do 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 skilful 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.

Nevertheless, because the care of the sum of the business of the

commonwealth 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 do it in his name; but that the charge,

that lieth upon him of command and government, constrain him to be

continually at the helm, and to commit the ministerial offices to others

under him. In the like manner our Saviour, who surely had power to

baptize, baptized none (_John_ iv. 2) himself, but sent his apostles and

disciples to baptize. So also St. Paul, by the necessity of preaching in

divers and far distant places, baptized few: amongst all the Corinthians

he baptized only (_1 Cor._ i. 14, 16,) Crispus, Gaius, and Stephanas;

and the reason was, (_1 Cor._ i. 17) because his principal charge was to

preach. Whereby it is manifest, that the greater charge, such as is the

government of the Church, is a dispensation for the less. 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 needful for the

authorising of a king to baptize and consecrate, we may consider thus:

Imposition of hands, was a most ancient public ceremony amongst the

Jews, by which was designed, and made certain, the person, or other

thing intended in a man’s prayer, blessing, sacrifice, consecration,

condemnation, or other speech. So Jacob, in blessing the children of

Joseph (_Gen._ xlviii. 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 across) to design to whom he

intended the greater blessing. So also in the sacrificing of the burnt

offering, Aaron is commanded (_Exod._ xxix. 10) _to lay his hands on the

head of the bullock_: and (verse 15) _to lay his hand on the head of the

ram_. The same is also said again _Levit._ i. 4, and viii. 14. Likewise

Moses, when he ordained Joshua to be captain of the Israelites, that is,

consecrated him to God’s service, (_Numb._ xxvii. 23) _Laid his hands

upon him, and gave him his charge_, designing and rendering certain, who

it was they were to obey in war. And in the consecration of the Levites

(_Numb._ viii. 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._ xxiv. 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 to

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 less subject to mistake, than when it is done to

the ear 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._ ix. 22) _did lift up his hands toward 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 natural it is to design any individual thing, rather by

the hand, to assure the eyes, than by words to inform the ear, in

matters of God’s public service.

This ceremony was not therefore new in our Saviour’s time. For Jairus

(_Mark_ v. 23), whose daughter was sick, besought our Saviour, not to

heal her, but _to lay his hands upon her that she might be healed_. And

(_Matthew_ xix. 13) _they brought unto him little children, that he

should put his hands on them, and pray_.

According to this ancient rite, the apostles, and presbyters, and the

presbytery itself, laid hands on them whom they ordained pastors, and

withal prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost; and that

not only once, but sometimes oftener, when a new occasion was presented:

but the end was still the same, namely a punctual and religious

designation of the person, ordained either to the pastoral charge in

general, or to a particular mission. So (_Acts_ vi. 6) _The apostles

prayed, and laid their hands_ on the seven deacons; which was done, not

to give them the Holy Ghost, (for they were full of the Holy Ghost

before they were chosen, as appeareth immediately before, verse 3) but

to design them to that office. And after Philip the deacon had converted

certain persons in Samaria, Peter and John went down (_Acts_ viii. 17),

_and laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost_. And

not only an apostle, but a presbyter had this power: for St. Paul

adviseth Timothy (_1 Tim._ v. 22) _Lay hands suddenly on no man_; that

is, design no man rashly to the office of a pastor. The whole presbytery

laid their hands on Timothy, as we read _1 Tim._ iv. 14: but this is to

be understood, as that some did it by the appointment of the presbytery,

and most likely their προεστὼς, or prolocutor, which it may be was St.

Paul himself. For in his second Epistle to _Timothy_, (chap. i. 6) he

saith to him, _Stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the laying

on of my hands_: where note by the way, that by the Holy Ghost, is not

meant the third person in the Trinity, but the gifts necessary to the

pastoral office. We read also, that St. Paul had imposition of hands

twice; once from Ananias at Damascus, (_Acts_ ix. 17, 18) at the time of

his baptism; and again (_Acts_ xiii. 3) at Antioch, when he was first

sent out to preach. The use then of this ceremony, considered in the

ordination of pastors, was to design the person to whom they gave such

power. But if there had been then any Christian, that had had the power

of teaching before; the baptizing of him, that is, the making him a

Christian, had given him no new power, but had only caused him to preach

true doctrine, that is, to use his power aright; and therefore the

imposition of hands had been unnecessary; baptism itself had been

sufficient. But every sovereign, before Christianity, had the power of

teaching, and ordaining teachers; and therefore Christianity gave them

no new right, but only directed them in the way of teaching truth; and

consequently they needed no imposition of hands, besides that which is

done in baptism, to authorize them to exercise any part of the pastoral

function, as namely, to baptize and consecrate. And in the Old

Testament, though the priest only had right to consecrate, during the

time that the sovereignty was in the high-priest; yet it was not so when

the sovereignty was in the king. For we read (_1 Kings_ viii.) that

Solomon blessed the people, consecrated the Temple, and pronounced that

public prayer which is the pattern now for consecration of all Christian

churches and chapels: whereby it appears, he had not only the right of

ecclesiastical government, but also of exercising ecclesiastical

functions.

[Sidenote: The civil sovereign, if a Christian, is head of the Church in

his own dominions.]

From this consolidation of the right politic and ecclesiastic in

Christian sovereigns, it is evident, they have all manner of power over

their subjects, that can be given to man, for the government of men’s

external actions, both in policy and religion; and may make such laws as

themselves shall judge fittest, for the government of their own

subjects, both as they are the commonwealth, and as they are the Church;

for both State and Church are the same men.

If they please, therefore, they may, as many Christian kings now do,

commit the government of their subjects in matters of religion to the

Pope; but then the Pope is in that point subordinate to them, and

exerciseth that charge in another’s dominion _jure civili_, in the right

of the civil sovereign; not _jure divino_, in God’s right; and may

therefore be discharged of that office, when the sovereign, for the good

of his subjects, shall think it necessary. They may also, if they

please, commit the care of religion to one supreme pastor, or to an

assembly of pastors; and give them what power over the Church, or one

over another, they think most convenient; and what titles of honour, as

of archbishops, bishops, priests, or presbyters, they will; and make

such laws for their maintenance, either by tithes or otherwise, as they

please, so they do it out of a sincere conscience, of which God only is

the judge. It is the civil sovereign that is to appoint judges and

interpreters of the canonical Scriptures; for it is he that maketh them

laws. It is he also that giveth strength to excommunications; which but

for such laws and punishments, as may humble obstinate libertines, and

reduce them to union with the rest of the Church, would be contemned. In

sum, he hath the supreme power in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as

civil, as far as concerneth actions and words, for those only are known

and may be accused; and of that which cannot be accused, there is no

judge at all but God, that knoweth the heart. And these rights are

incident to all sovereigns, whether monarchs or assemblies: for they

that are the representants of a Christian people, are representants of

the Church: for a Church, and a commonwealth of Christian people, are

the same thing.

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

considered.]

Though this that I have here said, and in other places of this book,

seem clear enough for the asserting of the supreme ecclesiastical power

to Christian sovereigns; yet because the Pope of Rome’s challenge to

that power universally, hath been maintained chiefly, and I think, as

strongly as is possible, by Cardinal Bellarmine, in his controversy _De

Summo Pontifice_; I have thought it necessary, as briefly as I can, to

examine the grounds and strength of his discourse.

[Sidenote: The first book.]

Of five books he hath written of this subject, the first containeth

three questions: one, which is simply the best government, _Monarchy_,

_Aristocracy_, or _Democracy_; and concludeth for neither, but for a

government mixed of all three: another, which of these is the best

government of the Church; and concludeth for the mixed, but which should

most participate of monarchy: the third, whether in this mixed monarchy,

St. Peter had the place of monarch. Concerning his first conclusion, I

have already sufficiently proved (chapter XVIII.) that all governments

which men are bound to obey, are simple and absolute. In monarchy there

is but one man supreme; and all other men that have any kind of power in

the state, have it by his commission, during his pleasure, and execute

it in his name: and in aristocracy and democracy, but one supreme

assembly, with the same power that in monarchy belongeth to the monarch,

which is not a mixed, but an absolute sovereignty. And of the three

sorts, which is the best, is not to be disputed, where any one of them

is already established; but the present ought always to be preferred,

maintained, and accounted best; because it is against both the law of

nature, and the divine positive law, to do anything tending to the

subversion thereof. Besides, it maketh nothing to the power of any

pastor, unless he have the civil sovereignty, what kind of government is

the best; because their calling is not to govern men by commandment, but

to teach them, and persuade them by arguments, and leave it to them to

consider whether they shall embrace, or reject the doctrine taught. For

monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, do mark out unto us three sorts of

sovereigns, not of pastors; or, as we may say, three sorts of masters of

families, not three sorts of schoolmasters for their children.

And therefore the second conclusion, concerning the best form of

government of the Church, is nothing to the question of the Pope’s power

without his own dominions. For in all other commonwealths his power, if

he have any at all, is that of the schoolmaster only, and not of the

master of the family.

For the third conclusion, which is, that St. Peter was monarch of the

Church, he bringeth for his chief argument the place of St. Matthew

(chap. xvi. 18, 19) _Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my

Church, &c. And I will give thee the keys of heaven; whatsoever thou

shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt

loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven._ Which place, well

considered, proveth no more, but that the Church of Christ hath for

foundation one only article; namely, that which Peter in the name of all

the apostles professing, gave occasion to our Saviour to speak the words

here cited. Which that we may clearly understand, we are to consider,

that our Saviour preached by himself, by John the Baptist, and by his

apostles, nothing but this article of faith, _that he was the Christ_;

all other articles requiring faith no otherwise, than as founded on

that. John began first, (_Matth._ iii. 2) preaching only this, _the

kingdom of God is at hand_. Then our Saviour himself (_Matth._ iv. 17)

preached the same: and to his twelve apostles, when he gave them their

commission, (_Matth._ x. 7), there is no mention of preaching any other

article but that. This was the fundamental article, that is the

foundation of the Church’s faith. Afterwards the apostles being returned

to him, he (_Matth._ xvi. 13) asketh them all, not Peter only, _who men

said he was_; and they answered, that _some said he was John the

Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the Prophets_. Then

(verse 15) he asked them all again, not Peter only, _whom say ye that I

am?_ Therefore St. Peter answered for them all, _Thou art Christ, the

Son of the living God_; which I said is the foundation of the faith of

the whole Church; from which our Saviour takes the occasion of saying,

_upon this stone I will build my Church_: by which it is manifest, that

by the foundation-stone of the Church, was meant the fundamental article

of the Church’s faith. But why then, will some object, doth our Saviour

interpose these words, _thou art Peter_? If the original of this text

had been rigidly translated, the reason would easily have appeared. We

are therefore to consider, that the apostle Simon was surnamed _Stone_,

which is the signification of the Syriac word _Cephas_, and of the Greek

word Πετρος. Our Saviour therefore, after the confession of that

fundamental article, alluding to his name, said (as if it were in

English) thus, Thou art _Stone_, and upon this Stone I will build my

Church: which is as much as to say, this article, that _I am the

Christ_, is the foundation of all the faith I require in those that are

to be members of my Church. Neither is this allusion to a name, an

unusual thing in common speech. But it had been a strange and obscure

speech, if our Saviour, intending to build his Church on the person of

St. Peter, had said, _thou art a stone, and upon this stone I will build

my Church_; when it was so obvious, without ambiguity, to have said, _I

will build my Church on thee_; and yet there had been still the same

allusion to his name.

And for the following words, _I will give thee the keys of heaven, &c._

it is no more than what our Saviour gave also to all the rest of his

disciples, (_Matth._ xviii. 18), _Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth,

shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall

be loosed in heaven_. But howsoever this be interpreted, there is no

doubt but the power here granted belongs to all supreme pastors; such as

are all Christian civil sovereigns in their own dominions. In so much,

as if St. Peter, or our Saviour himself, had converted any of them to

believe him, and to acknowledge his kingdom; yet, because his kingdom is

not of this world, he had left the supreme care of converting his

subjects to none but him; or else he must have deprived him of the

sovereignty, to which the right of teaching is inseparably annexed. And

thus much in refutation of his first book, wherein he would prove St.

Peter to have been the monarch universal of the Church, that is to say,

of all the Christians in the world.

[Sidenote: The second book.]

The second book hath two conclusions: one, that St. Peter was bishop of

Rome, and there died: the other, that the Popes of Rome are his

successors. Both which have been disputed by others. But supposing them

true; yet if by Bishop of Rome, be understood either the monarch of the

Church, or the supreme pastor of it; not Silvester, but Constantine, who

was the first Christian emperor, was that bishop; and as Constantine, so

all other Christian emperors, were of right supreme bishops of the Roman

empire: I say, of the Roman empire, not of all Christendom; for other

Christian sovereigns had the same right in their several territories, as

to an office essentially adherent to their sovereignty. Which shall

serve for answer to his second book.

[Sidenote: The third book.]

In the third book he handleth the question, whether the Pope be

Antichrist? For my part, I see no argument that proves he is so, in that

sense the Scripture useth the name: nor will I take any argument from

the quality of Antichrist, to contradict the authority he exerciseth, or

hath heretofore exercised, in the dominions of any other prince or

state.

It is evident that the prophets of the Old Testament foretold, and the

Jews expected a Messiah, that is, a Christ, that should re-establish

amongst them the kingdom of God, which had been rejected by them in the

time of Samuel, when they required a king after the manner of other

nations. This expectation of theirs made them obnoxious to the imposture

of all such, as had both the ambition to attempt the attaining of the

kingdom, and the art to deceive the people by counterfeit miracles, by

hypocritical life, or by orations and doctrine plausible. Our Saviour

therefore, and his apostles, forewarned men of false prophets and of

false Christs. False Christs are such as pretend to be the _Christ_, but

are not, and are called properly _Antichrists_; in such sense, as when

there happeneth a schism in the Church, by the election of two Popes,

the one calleth the other _Antipapa_, or the false Pope. And therefore

Antichrist in the proper signification hath two essential marks; one,

that he denieth Jesus to be Christ; and another that he professeth

himself to be Christ. The first mark is set down by St. John in his

first Epistle, iv. 3, _Every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus

Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and this is the spirit of

Antichrist_. The other mark is expressed in the words of our Saviour,

(_Matth._ xxiv. 5) _many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ_;

and again, (verse 23) _If any man shall say unto you, lo! here is

Christ, there is Christ, believe it not_. And therefore Antichrist must

be a false Christ; that is, some one of them that shall pretend

themselves to be Christ. And out of these two marks, _to deny Jesus to

be the Christ_, and _to affirm himself to be the Christ_, it followeth,

that he must also be an _adversary of Jesus the true Christ_, which is

another usual signification of the word Antichrist. But of these many

Antichrists, there is one special one, ὁ Αντίχριστος, _the Antichrist_,

or _Antichrist_ definitely, as one certain person; not indefinitely _an

Antichrist_. Now, seeing the Pope of Rome neither pretendeth himself,

nor denieth Jesus to be the Christ, I perceive not how he can be called

Antichrist; by which word is not meant, one that falsely pretendeth to

be _his lieutenant_ or _vicar-general_, but to be _He_. There is also

some mark of the time of this special Antichrist, as (_Matth._ xxiv.

15), when that abominable destroyer, spoken of by Daniel (_Dan._ ix. 27)

shall stand in the Holy place, and such tribulation as was not since the

beginning of the world, nor ever shall be again, insomuch as if it were

to last long, (_Matth._ xxiv. 22) _no flesh could be saved; but for the

elect’s sake those days shall be shortened_, made fewer. But that

tribulation is not yet come; for it is to be followed immediately (verse

29) by a darkening of the sun and moon, a falling of the stars, a

concussion of the heavens, and the glorious coming again of our Saviour

in the clouds. And therefore _the Antichrist_ is not yet come; whereas,

many Popes are both come and gone. It is true, the Pope, in taking upon

him to give laws to all Christian kings and nations, usurpeth a kingdom

in this world, which Christ took not on him: but he doth it not _as

Christ_, but as _for Christ_, wherein there is nothing of _the

Antichrist_.

[Sidenote: Fourth book.]

In the fourth book, to prove the Pope to be the supreme judge in all

questions of faith and manners, _which is as much as to be the absolute

monarch of all Christians in the world_, he bringeth three propositions:

the first, that his judgments are infallible: the second, that he can

make very laws, and punish those that observe them not: the third, that

our Saviour conferred all jurisdiction ecclesiastical on the Pope of

Rome.

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

of faith.]

For the infallibility of his judgments, he allegeth the Scriptures: and

first, that of Luke, xxii. 31, 32: _Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired

you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy

faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren_.

This, according to Bellarmine’s exposition, is, that Christ gave here to

Simon Peter two privileges: one, that neither his faith should fail, nor

the faith of any of his successors: the other, that neither he, nor any

of his successors, should ever define any point concerning faith or

manners erroneously, or contrary to the definition of a former Pope:

which is a strange, and very much strained interpretation. But he that

with attention readeth that chapter, shall find there is no place in the

whole Scripture that maketh more against the Pope’s authority, than this

very place. The Priests and Scribes seeking to kill our Saviour at the

Passover, and Judas possessed with a resolution to betray him, and the

day of killing the Passover being come, our Saviour celebrated the same

with his apostles, which he said, till the kingdom of God was come he

would do no more; and withal told them, that one of them was to betray

him. Hereupon they questioned which of them it should be; and withal,

seeing the next Passover their master would celebrate should be when he

was king, entered into a contention, who should then be the greatest

man. Our Saviour therefore told them, that the kings of the nations had

dominion over their subjects, and are called by a name in Hebrew, that

signifies bountiful; but I cannot be so to you, you must endeavour to

serve one another; I ordain you a kingdom, but it is such as my Father

hath ordained me; a kingdom that I am now to purchase with my blood, and

not to possess till my second coming; then ye shall eat and drink at my

table, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And then

addressing himself to St. Peter, he saith; Simon, Simon, Satan seeks, by

suggesting a present domination, to weaken your faith of the future; but

I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail; thou therefore

note this, being converted, and understanding my kingdom as of another

world, confirm the same faith in thy brethren. To which St. Peter

answered, as one that no more expected any authority in this world,

_Lord, I am ready to go with thee, not only to prison, but to death_.

Whereby it is manifest, St. Peter had not only no jurisdiction given him

in this world, but a charge to teach all the other apostles, that they

also should have none. And for the infallibility of St. Peter’s sentence

definitive in matter of faith, there is no more to be attributed to it

out of this text, than that Peter should continue in the belief of this

point, namely, that Christ should come again and possess the kingdom at

the day of judgment; which was not given by this text to all his

successors; for we see they claim it in the world that now is.

The second place is that of Matth. xvi. 18, _Thou art Peter, and upon

this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not

prevail against it_. By which, as I have already shown in this chapter,

is proved no more, than that the gates of hell shall not prevail against

the confession of Peter, which gave occasion to that speech; namely

this, that _Jesus is Christ the Son of God_.

The third text is John xxi. 16, 17: _Feed my sheep_; which contains no

more but a commission of teaching. And if we grant the rest of the

apostles to be contained in that name of _sheep_; then it is the supreme

power of teaching: but it was only for the time that there were no

Christian sovereigns already possessed of that supremacy. But I have

already proved, that Christian sovereigns are in their own dominions the

supreme pastors, and instituted thereto, by virtue of their being

baptized, though without other imposition of hands. For such imposition,

being a ceremony of designing the person, is needless, when he is

already designed to the power of teaching what doctrine he will, by his

institution to an absolute power over his subjects. For as I have proved

before, sovereigns are supreme teachers, in general, by their office;

and therefore oblige themselves, by their baptism, to teach the doctrine

of Christ: and when they suffer others to teach their people, they do it

at the peril of their own souls; for it is at the hands of the heads of

families that God will require the account of the instruction of his

children and servants. It is of Abraham himself, not of a hireling, that

God saith (_Gen._ xviii. 19) _I know him that he will command his

children, and his household after him, that they keep the way of the

Lord, and do justice and judgment_.

The fourth place is that of _Exod._ xxviii. 30: _Thou shalt put in the

breast-plate of judgment, the Urim and the Thummim_: which he saith is

interpreted by the Septuagint δήλωσιν κὰι ἀλήθειαν; that is, _evidence_

and _truth_: and thence concludeth, God hath given evidence and truth,

which is almost infallibility, to the high-priest. But be it evidence

and truth itself that was given; or be it but admonition to the priest

to endeavour to inform himself clearly, and give judgment uprightly; yet

in that it was given to the high-priest, it was given to the civil

sovereign; (for such next under God was the high-priest in the

commonwealth of Israel); and is an argument for evidence and truth, that

is, for the ecclesiastical supremacy of civil sovereigns over their own

subjects, against the pretended power of the Pope. These are all the

texts he bringeth for the infallibility of the judgment of the Pope in

point of faith.

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

For the infallibility of his judgment concerning manners, he bringeth

one text, which is that of John xvi. 13: _When the Spirit of truth is

come, he will lead you into all truth_: where, saith he, by _all truth_,

is meant, at least _all truth necessary to salvation_. But with this

mitigation, he attributeth no more infallibility to the Pope, than to

any man that professeth Christianity and is not to be damned. For if any

man err in any point, wherein not to err is necessary to salvation, it

is impossible he should be saved; for that only is necessary to

salvation, without which to be saved is impossible. What points these

are, I shall declare out of the Scripture in the chapter following. In

this place I say no more, but that though it were granted, the Pope

could not possibly teach any error at all, yet doth not this entitle him

to any jurisdiction in the dominions of another prince; unless we shall

also say, a man is obliged in conscience to set on work upon all

occasions the best workman, even then also when he hath formerly

promised his work to another.

Besides the text, he argueth from reason, thus. If the Pope could err in

necessaries, then Christ hath not sufficiently provided for the Church’s

salvation; because he hath commanded her to follow the Pope’s

directions. But this reason is invalid, unless he shew when and where

Christ commanded that, or took at all any notice of a Pope. Nay,

granting whatsoever was given to St. Peter, was given to the Pope; yet

seeing there is in the Scripture no command to any man to obey St.

Peter, no man can be just, that obeyeth him, when his commands are

contrary to those of his lawful sovereign.

Lastly, it hath not been declared by the Church, nor by the Pope

himself, that he is the civil sovereign of all the Christians in the

world; and therefore all Christians are not bound to acknowledge his

jurisdiction in point of manners. For the civil sovereignty, and supreme

judicature in controversies of manners, are the same thing: and the

makers of civil laws, are not only declarers, but also makers of the

justice and injustice of actions; there being nothing in men’s manners

that makes them righteous or unrighteous, but their conformity with the

law of the sovereign. And therefore, when the Pope challengeth supremacy

in controversies of manners, he teacheth men to disobey the civil

sovereign; which is an erroneous doctrine, contrary to the many precepts

of our Saviour and his apostles, delivered to us in the Scripture.

To prove the Pope has power to make laws, he allegeth many places; as

first, (_Deut._ xvii. 12), _The man that will do presumptuously, and

will not hearken unto the priest, that standeth to minister there before

the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou

shalt put away the evil from Israel_. For answer whereunto, we are to

remember that the high-priest, next and immediately under God, was the

civil sovereign; and all judges were to be constituted by him. The words

alleged sound therefore thus: _The man that will presume to disobey the

civil sovereign for the time being, or any of his officers in the

execution of their places, that man shall die, &c._; which is clearly

for the civil sovereignty, against the universal power of the Pope.

Secondly, he allegeth that of Matth. xvi. 19, _Whatsoever ye shall bind,

&c._ and interpreteth it for such _binding_ as is attributed (_Matth._

xxiii. 4) to the Scribes and Pharisees, _They bind heavy burthens, and

grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders_; by which is

meant, he says, making of laws; and concludes thence, that the Pope can

make laws. But this also maketh only for the legislative power of civil

sovereigns. For the Scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses’ chair; but Moses

next under God was sovereign of the people of Israel: and therefore our

Saviour commanded them to do all that they should say, but not all that

they should do: that is, to obey their laws, but not follow their

example.

The third place is John xxi. 16, _Feed my sheep_; which is not a power

to make laws, but a command to teach. Making laws belongs to the lord of

the family; who by his own discretion chooseth his chaplain, as also a

schoolmaster to teach his children.

The fourth place (_John_ xx. 21) is against him. The words are, _As my

father sent me, so send I you_. But our Saviour was sent to redeem by

his death such as should believe, and by his own and his apostles’

preaching to prepare them for their entrance into his kingdom; which he

himself saith, is not of this world, and hath taught us to pray for the

coming of it hereafter, though he refused (_Acts_ i. 6, 7) to tell his

apostles when it should come; and in which, when it comes, the twelve

apostles shall sit on twelve thrones, every one perhaps as high as that

of St. Peter, to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Seeing then God the

Father sent not our Saviour to make laws in this present world, we may

conclude from the text, that neither did our Saviour send St. Peter to

make laws here, but to persuade men to expect his second coming with a

steadfast faith; and in the mean time, if subjects, to obey their

princes; and if princes, both to believe it themselves, and to do their

best to make their subjects do the same; which is the office of a

bishop. Therefore this place maketh most strongly for the joining of the

ecclesiastical supremacy to the civil sovereignty, contrary to that

which Cardinal Bellarmine allegeth it for.

The fifth place is _Acts_ xv. 28, 29, _It hath seemed good to the Holy

Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen, than these

necessary things, that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from

blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication_. Here he notes

the word _laying of burthens_ for the legislative power. But who is

there, that reading this text, can say, this style of the apostles may

not as properly be used in giving counsel, as in making laws? The style

of a law is, _we command_: but, _we think good_, is the ordinary style

of them, that but give advice; and they lay a burthen that give advice,

though it be conditional, that is, if they to whom they give it, will

attain their ends: and such is the burthen of abstaining from things

strangled, and from blood; not absolute, but in case they will not err.

I have shown before, (chapter XXV.) that law is distinguished from

counsel in this, that the reason of a law is taken from the design and

benefit of him that prescribeth it; but the reason of a counsel, from

the design and benefit of him to whom the counsel is given. But here,

the apostles aim only at the benefit of the converted Gentiles, namely

their salvation; not at their own benefit; for having done their

endeavour, they shall have their reward, whether they be obeyed or not.

And therefore the acts of this council, were not laws, but counsels.

The sixth place is that of _Rom._ xiii, _Let every soul be subject to

the higher powers, for there is no power but of God_; which is meant, he

saith, not only of secular, but also of ecclesiastical princes. To which

I answer, first, that there are no ecclesiastical princes but those that

are also civil sovereigns; and their principalities exceed not the

compass of their civil sovereignty; without those bounds, though they

may be received for doctors, they cannot be acknowledged for princes.

For if the apostle had meant, we should be subject both to our own

princes, and also to the Pope, he had taught us a doctrine, which Christ

himself hath told us is impossible, namely, _to serve two masters_. And

though the apostle say in another place, (_2 Cor._ xiii. 10) _I write

these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness,

according to the power which the Lord hath given me_; it is not, that he

challenged a power either to put to death, imprison, banish, whip, or

fine any of them, which are punishments; but only to excommunicate,

which, without the civil power, is no more but a leaving of their

company, and having no more to do with them than with a heathen man or a

publican; which in many occasions might be a greater pain to the

excommunicant, than to the excommunicate.

The seventh place is _1 Cor._ iv. 21, _Shall I come unto you with a rod,

or in love, and the spirit of lenity?_ But here again, it is not the

power of a magistrate to punish offenders, that is meant by a rod; but

only the power of excommunication, which is not in its own nature a

punishment, but only a denouncing of punishment, that Christ shall

inflict when he shall be in possession of his kingdom, at the day of

judgment. Nor then also shall it be properly a punishment, as upon a

subject that hath broken the law; but a revenge, as upon an enemy or

revolter, that denieth the right of our Saviour to the kingdom. And

therefore this proveth not the legislative power of any bishop, that has

not also the civil power.

The eighth place is _1 Timothy_, iii. 2; _A bishop must be the husband

of but one wife, vigilant, sober, &c._: which he saith was a law. I

thought that none could make a law in the Church, but the monarch of the

Church, St. Peter. But suppose this precept made by the authority of St.

Peter; yet I see no reason why to call it a law, rather than an advice,

seeing Timothy was not a subject, but a disciple of St. Paul; nor the

flock under the charge of Timothy, his subjects in the kingdom, but his

scholars in the school of Christ. If all the precepts he giveth Timothy

be laws, why is not this also a law, (_1 Tim._ v. 23) _Drink no longer

water, but use a little wine for thy health’s sake_. And why are not

also the precepts of good physicians so many laws, but that it is not

the imperative manner of speaking, but an absolute subjection to a

person, that maketh his precepts laws?

In like manner, the ninth place, _1 Tim._ v. 19, _Against an elder

receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses_, is a wise

precept, but not a law.

The tenth place is _Luke_ x. 16, _He that heareth you, heareth me; and

he that despiseth you, despiseth me_. And there is no doubt, but he that

despiseth the counsel of those that are sent by Christ, despiseth the

counsel of Christ himself. But who are those now that are sent by

Christ, but such as are ordained pastors by lawful authority? And who

are lawfully ordained, that are not ordained by the sovereign pastor?

And who is ordained by the sovereign pastor in a Christian commonwealth,

that is not ordained by the authority of the sovereign thereof? Out of

this place therefore it followeth, that he which heareth his sovereign,

being a Christian, heareth Christ; and he that despiseth the doctrine

which his king, being a Christian, authorizeth, despiseth the doctrine

of Christ: which is not that which Bellarmine intendeth here to prove,

but the contrary. But all this is nothing to a law. Nay more, a

Christian king, as a pastor and teacher of his subjects, makes not

thereby his doctrines laws. He cannot oblige men to believe; though as a

civil sovereign he may make laws suitable to his doctrine, which may

oblige men to certain actions, and sometimes to such as they would not

otherwise do, and which he ought not to command; and yet when they are

commanded, they are laws; and the external actions done in obedience to

them, without the inward approbation, are the actions of the sovereign,

and not of the subject, which is in that case but as an instrument,

without any motion of his own at all; because God hath commanded to obey

them.

The eleventh is every place where the apostle for counsel putteth some

word, by which men use to signify command; or calleth the following of

his counsel by the name of obedience. And therefore they are alleged out

of _1 Cor._ xi. 2, _I commend you for keeping my precepts as I delivered

them to you_. The Greek is, _I commend you for keeping those things I

delivered to you, as I delivered them_. Which is far from signifying

that they were laws, or anything else, but good counsel. And that of _1

Thess._ iv. 2, _You know what commandments we gave you_: where the Greek

word is παραγγελίας ἐδώκαμεν, equivalent to παρεδώκαμεν, _what we

delivered to you_, as in the place next before alleged, which does not

prove the traditions of the apostles to be any more than counsels;

though as is said in the 8th verse, _he that despiseth them, despiseth

not man, but God_. For our Saviour himself came not to judge, that is,

to be king in this world; but to sacrifice himself for sinners, and

leave doctors in his Church to lead, not to drive men to Christ, who

never accepteth forced actions, (which is all the law produceth,) but

the inward conversion of the heart; which is not the work of laws, but

of counsel and doctrine.

And that of _2 Thess._ iii. 14, _If any man obey not our word by this

Epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be

ashamed_: where from the word _obey_, he would infer, that this epistle

was a law to the Thessalonians. The epistles of the emperors were indeed

laws. If therefore the epistle of St. Paul were also a law, they were to

obey two masters. But the word _obey_, as it is in the Greek ὑπακούει,

signifieth _hearkening to_ or _putting in practice_, not only that which

is commanded by him that has right to punish, but also that which is

delivered in a way of counsel for our good; and therefore St. Paul does

not bid kill him that disobeys; nor beat, nor imprison, nor amerce him,

which legislators may all do; but avoid his company, that he may be

ashamed: whereby it is evident, it was not the empire of an apostle, but

his reputation amongst the faithful, which the Christians stood in awe

of.

The last place is that of _Heb._ xiii. 17, _Obey your leaders, and

submit yourselves to them; for they watch for your souls, as they that

must give account_: and here also is intended by obedience, a following

of their counsel. For the reason of our obedience is not drawn from the

will and command of our pastors, but from our own benefit, as being the

salvation of our souls they watch for, and not for the exaltation of

their own power and authority. If it were meant here, that all they

teach were laws, then not only the Pope, but every pastor in his parish

should have legislative power. Again, they that are bound to obey their

pastors, have no power to examine their commands. What then shall we say

to St. John, who bids us (_1 Epistle_ iv. 1) _Not to believe every

spirit, but to try the spirits whether they are of God; because many

false prophets are gone out into the world_? It is therefore manifest,

that we may dispute the doctrine of our pastors; but no man can dispute

a law. The commands of civil sovereigns are on all sides granted to be

laws: if any else can make a law besides himself, all commonwealth, and

consequently all peace and justice must cease; which is contrary to all

laws both divine and human. Nothing therefore can be drawn from these,

or any other places of Scripture, to prove the decrees of the Pope,

where he has not also the civil sovereignty, to be laws.

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

bishops.]

The last point he would prove, is this, _That our Saviour Christ has

committed ecclesiastical jurisdiction immediately to none but the Pope_.

Wherein he handleth not the question of supremacy between the Pope and

Christian kings, but between the Pope and other bishops. And first, he

says, it is agreed that the jurisdiction of bishops is at least in the

general _de jure divino_, that is, in the right of God; for which he

alleges St. Paul, _Eph._ iv. 11, where he says, that Christ after his

ascension into heaven, _gave gifts to men, some apostles, some prophets,

and some evangelists, and some pastors, and some teachers_; and thence

infers, they have indeed their jurisdiction in God’s right; but will not

grant they have it immediately from God, but derived through the Pope.

But if a man may be said to have his jurisdiction _de jure divino_, and

yet not immediately; what lawful jurisdiction, though but civil, is

there in a Christian commonwealth, that is not also _de juro divino_?

For Christian kings have their civil power from God immediately; and the

magistrates under him exercise their several charges in virtue of his

commission; wherein that which they do, is no less _de jure divino

mediato_, than that which the bishops do in virtue of the Pope’s

ordination. All lawful power is of God, immediately in the Supreme

Governor, and mediately in those that have authority under him: so that

either he must grant every constable in the state, to hold his office in

the right of God; or he must not hold that any bishop holds his so,

besides the Pope himself.

But this whole dispute, whether Christ left the jurisdiction to the Pope

only, or to other bishops also, if considered out of those places where

the Pope has the civil sovereignty, is a contention _de lana caprina_:

for none of them, where they are not sovereigns, has any jurisdiction at

all. For jurisdiction is the power of hearing and determining causes

between man and man; and can belong to none but him that hath the power

to prescribe the rules of right and wrong; that is, to make laws; and

with the sword of justice to compel men to obey his decisions,

pronounced either by himself, or by the judges he ordaineth thereunto;

which none can lawfully do but the civil sovereign.

Therefore when he allegeth out of chapter vi. of _Luke_, that our

Saviour called his disciples together, and chose twelve of them, which

he named apostles, he proveth that he elected them (all, except

Matthias, Paul and Barnabas,) and gave them power and command to preach,

but not to judge of causes between man and man: for that is a power

which he refused to take upon himself, saying, _Who made me a judge, or

a divider, amongst you?_ and in another place, _My kingdom is not of

this world_. But he that hath not the power to hear and determine causes

between man and man, cannot be said to have any jurisdiction at all. And

yet this hinders not, but that our Saviour gave them power to preach and

baptize in all parts of the world, supposing they were not by their own

lawful sovereign forbidden: for to our own sovereigns Christ himself,

and his apostles, have in sundry places expressly commanded us in all

things to be obedient.

The arguments by which he would prove, that bishops receive their

jurisdiction from the Pope (seeing the Pope in the dominions of other

princes hath no jurisdiction himself,) are all in vain. Yet because they

prove, on the contrary, that all bishops receive jurisdiction, when they

have it, from their civil sovereigns, I will not omit the recital of

them.

The first is from chapter xi. of _Numbers_, where Moses not being able

alone to undergo the whole burthen of administering the affairs of the

people of Israel, God commanded him to choose seventy elders, and took

part of the spirit of Moses, to put it upon those seventy elders: by

which is understood, not that God weakened the spirit of Moses; for that

had not eased him at all; but that they had all of them their authority

from him; wherein he doth truly and ingenuously interpret that place.

But seeing Moses had the entire sovereignty in the commonwealth of the

Jews, it is manifest, that it is thereby signified, that they had their

authority from the civil sovereign: and therefore that place proveth

that bishops in every Christian commonwealth have their authority from

the civil sovereign; and from the Pope in his own territories only, and

not in the territories of any other state.

The second argument, is from the nature of monarchy; wherein all

authority is in one man, and in others by derivation from him. But the

government of the Church, he says, is monarchical. This also makes for

Christian monarchs. For they are really monarchs of their own people;

that is, of their own Church; for the Church is the same thing with a

Christian people; whereas the power of the Pope, though he were St.

Peter, is neither monarchy, nor hath anything of _archical_, nor

_cratical_, but only of _didactical_; for God accepteth not a forced,

but a willing obedience.

The third, is from that the _see_ of St. Peter is called by St. Cyprian,

the _head_, the _source_, the _root_, the _sun_, from whence the

authority of bishops is derived. But by the law of nature, which is a

better principle of right and wrong than the word of any doctor that is

but a man, the civil sovereign in every commonwealth, is the _head_, the

_source_, the _root_, and the _sun_, from which all jurisdiction is

derived. And therefore the jurisdiction of bishops, is derived from the

civil sovereign.

The fourth, is taken from the inequality of their jurisdictions. For if

God, saith he, had given it them immediately, he had given as well

equality of jurisdiction, as of order: but we see, some are bishops but

of one town, some of a hundred towns, and some of many whole provinces;

which differences were not determined by the command of God; their

jurisdiction therefore is not of God, but of man; and one has a greater,

another a less, as it pleaseth the Prince of the Church. Which argument,

if he had proved before, that the Pope had an universal jurisdiction

over all Christians, had been for his purpose. But seeing that hath not

been proved, and that it is notoriously known, the large jurisdiction of

the Pope was given him by those that had it, that is, by the emperors of

Rome, (for the patriarch of Constantinople, upon the same title, namely

of being bishop of the capital city of the empire, and seat of the

emperor, claimed to be equal to him), it followeth, that all other

bishops have their jurisdiction from the sovereigns of the place wherein

they exercise the same. And as for that cause they have not their

authority _de jure divino_; so neither hath the Pope his _de jure

divino_, except only where he is also the civil sovereign.

His fifth argument is this: _if bishops have their jurisdiction

immediately from God, the Pope could not take it from them, for he can

do nothing contrary to God’s ordination_; and this consequence is good,

and well proved. _But_, saith he, _the Pope can do this, and has done

it_. This also is granted, so he do it in his own dominions, or in the

dominions of any other prince that hath given him that power; but not

universally, in right of the popedom: for that power belongeth to every

Christian sovereign, within the bounds of his own empire, and is

inseparable from the sovereignty. Before the people of Israel had, by

the commandment of God to Samuel, set over themselves a king, after the

manner of other nations, the high-priest had the civil government; and

none but he could make or depose an inferior priest. But that power was

afterwards in the king, as may be proved by this same argument of

Bellarmine; for if the priest, be he the high-priest or any other, had

his jurisdiction immediately from God, then the king could not take it

from him; _for he could do nothing contrary to God’s ordinance_. But it

is certain that king Solomon (_1 Kings_ ii. 26, 27) deprived Abiathar

the high-priest of his office, and placed Zadok (verse 35) in his room.

Kings therefore may in like manner ordain and deprive bishops, as they

shall think fit for the well-governing of their subjects.

His sixth argument is this, if bishops have their jurisdiction _de jure

divino_, that is, _immediately from God_, they that maintain it, should

bring some word of God to prove it: but they can bring none. The

argument is good; I have therefore nothing to say against it. But it is

an argument no less good, to prove the Pope himself to have no

jurisdiction in the dominion of any other prince.

Lastly, he bringeth for argument the testimony of two popes, Innocent

and Leo; and I doubt not he might have alleged, with as good reason, the

testimonies of all the popes almost since St. Peter. For considering the

love of power naturally implanted in mankind, whosoever were made Pope,

he would be tempted to uphold the same opinion. Nevertheless, they

should therein but do, as Innocent and Leo did, bear witness of

themselves, and therefore their witness should not be good.

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

In the fifth book he hath four conclusions. The first is, _that the Pope

is not lord of all the world_: the second, _that the Pope is not the

lord of all the Christian world_: the third, _that the Pope, without his

own territory, has not any temporal jurisdiction_ DIRECTLY. These three

conclusions are easily granted. The fourth is, _that the Pope has, in

the dominions of other princes, the supreme temporal power_ INDIRECTLY:

which is denied; unless he mean by _indirectly_, that he has gotten it

by indirect means, then is that also granted. But I understand, that

when he saith he hath it _indirectly_, he means, that such temporal

jurisdiction belongeth to him of right, but that this right is but a

consequence of his pastoral authority, the which he could not exercise

unless he have the other with it: and therefore to the pastoral power,

which he calls spiritual, the supreme power civil is necessarily

annexed; and that thereby he hath a right to change kingdoms, giving

them to one and taking them from another, when he shall think it

conduces to the salvation of souls.

Before I come to consider the arguments by which he would prove this

doctrine, it will not be amiss to lay open the consequences of it; that

princes and states, that have the civil sovereignty in their several

commonwealths, may bethink themselves, whether it be convenient for

them, and conducing to the good of their subjects, of whom they are to

give an account at the day of judgment, to admit the same.

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.

-------

CHAPTER XLIII.

OF WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR A MAN’S RECEPTION

INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

[Sidenote: The difficulty of obeying God and man both at once;]

The most frequent pretext of sedition, and civil war, in Christian

commonwealths, hath a long time proceeded from a difficulty, not yet

sufficiently resolved, of obeying at once both God and man, then when

their commandments are one contrary to the other. It is manifest enough,

that when a man receiveth two contrary commands, and knows that one of

them is God’s, he ought to obey that, and not the other, though it be

the command even of his lawful sovereign (whether a monarch, or a

sovereign assembly), or the command of his father. The difficulty

therefore consisteth in this, that men, when they are commanded in the

name of God, know not in divers cases, whether the command be from God,

or whether he that commandeth do but abuse God’s name for some private

ends of his own. For as there were in the Church of the Jews, many false

prophets, that sought reputation with the people, by feigned dreams and

visions; so there have been in all times in the Church of Christ, false

teachers, that seek reputation with the people, by fantastical and false

doctrines; and by such reputation, (as is the nature of ambition), to

govern them for their private benefit.

[Sidenote: Is none to them that distinguish between what is, and what is

not necessary to salvation.]

But this difficulty of obeying both God and the civil sovereign on

earth, to those that can distinguish between what is _necessary_, and

what is not _necessary for their reception into the kingdom of God_, is

of no moment. For if the command of the civil sovereign be such, as that

it may be obeyed without the forfeiture of life eternal; not to obey it

is unjust; and the precept of the apostle takes place: _Servants obey

your masters in all things_; and _Children obey your parents in all

things_; and the precept of our Saviour, _The Scribes and Pharisees sit

in Moses’ chair; all therefore they shall say, that observe and do_. But

if the command be such as cannot be obeyed, without being damned to

eternal death; then it were madness to obey it, and the council of our

Saviour takes place, (_Matth._ x. 28), _Fear not those that kill the

body, but cannot kill the soul_. All men therefore that would avoid,

both the punishments that are to be in this world inflicted, for

disobedience to their earthly sovereign, and those that shall be

inflicted in the world to come, for disobedience to God, have need be

taught to distinguish well between what is, and what is not necessary to

eternal salvation.

[Sidenote: All that is necessary to salvation is contained in faith and

obedience.]

All that is NECESSARY _to salvation_, is contained in two virtues,

_faith in Christ_, and _obedience to laws_. The latter of these, if it

were perfect, were enough to us. But because we are all guilty of

disobedience to God’s law, not only originally in Adam, but also

actually by our own transgressions, there is required at our hands now,

not only _obedience_ for the rest of our time, but also a _remission of

sins_ for the time past; which remission is the reward of our faith in

Christ. That nothing else is necessarily required to salvation, is

manifest from this, that the kingdom of heaven is shut to none but to

sinners; that is to say, to the disobedient, or transgressors of the

law; nor to them, in case they repent, and believe all the articles of

Christian faith necessary to salvation.

[Sidenote: What obedience is necessary;]

The obedience required at our hands by God, that accepteth in all our

actions the will for the deed, is a serious endeavour to obey him; and

is called also by all such names as signify that endeavour. And

therefore obedience is sometimes called by the names of _charity_ and

_love_, because they imply a will to obey; and our Saviour himself

maketh our love to God, and to one another, a fulfilling of the whole

law: and sometimes by the name of _righteousness_; for righteousness is

but the will to give to every one his own; that is to say, the will to

obey the laws: and sometimes by the name of _repentance_; because to

repent, implieth a turning away from sin, which is the same with the

return of the will to obedience. Whosoever therefore unfeignedly

desireth to fulfil the commandments of God, or repenteth him truly of

his transgressions, or that loveth God with all his heart, and his

neighbour as himself, hath all the obedience necessary to his reception

into the kingdom of God. For if God should require perfect innocence,

there could no flesh be saved.

[Sidenote: And to what laws.]

But what commandments are those that God hath given us? Are all those

laws which were given to the Jews by the hand of Moses, the commandments

of God? If they be, why are not Christians taught to obey them? If they

be not, what others are so, besides the law of nature? For our Saviour

Christ hath not given us new laws, but counsel to observe those we are

subject to; that is to say, the laws of nature, and the laws of our

several sovereigns: nor did he make any new law to the Jews in his

sermon on the Mount, but only expounded the law of Moses, to which they

were subject before. The laws of God therefore are none but the laws of

nature, whereof the principal is, that we should not violate our faith,

that is, a commandment to obey our civil sovereigns, which we

constituted over us by mutual pact one with another. And this law of

God, that commandeth obedience to the law civil, commandeth by

consequence obedience to all the precepts of the Bible; which, as I have

proved in the precedent chapter, is there only law, where the civil

sovereign hath made it so; and in other places, but counsel; which a man

at his own peril may without injustice refuse to obey.

[Sidenote: In the faith of a Christian, who is the person believed.]

Knowing now what is the obedience necessary to salvation, and to whom it

is due; we are to consider next concerning faith, whom, and why we

believe; and what are the articles, or points necessary to be believed

by them that shall be saved. And first, for the person whom we believe,

because it is impossible to believe any person, before we know what he

saith, it is necessary he be one that we have heard speak. The person,

therefore, whom Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the prophets,

believed, was God himself, that spake unto them supernaturally: and the

person, whom the apostles and disciples that conversed with Christ

believed, was our Saviour himself. But of them, to whom neither God the

father, nor our Saviour, ever spake, it cannot be said that the person

whom they believed, was God. They believed the apostles, and after them

the pastors and doctors of the Church, that recommended to their faith

the history of the Old and New Testament: so that the faith of

Christians ever since our Saviour’s time, hath had for foundation,

first, the reputation of their pastors, and afterward, the authority of

those that made the Old and New Testament to be received for the rule of

faith; which none could do but Christian sovereigns; who are therefore

the supreme pastors, and the only persons whom Christians now hear speak

from God; except such as God speaketh to in these days supernaturally.

But because there be many false prophets _gone out into the world_,

other men are to examine such spirits, as St. John adviseth us, (1st

Epistle iv. 1) _whether they be of God, or not_. And therefore, seeing

the examination of doctrines belongeth to the supreme pastor, the

person, which all they that have no special revelation are to believe,

is, in every commonwealth, the supreme pastor, that is to say, the civil

sovereign.

[Sidenote: The causes of Christian faith.]

The causes why men believe any Christian doctrine, are various. For

faith is the gift of God; and he worketh it in each several man, by such

ways as it seemeth good unto himself. The most ordinary immediate cause

of our belief, concerning any point of Christian faith, is, that we

believe the Bible to be the word of God. But why we believe the Bible to

be the word of God, is much disputed, as all questions must needs be,

that are not well stated. For they make not the question to be, _why we

believe it_, but, _how we know it_; as if _believing_ and _knowing_ were

all one. And thence while one side ground their knowledge upon the

infallibility of the Church, and the other side, on the testimony of the

private spirit, neither side concludeth what it pretends. For how shall

a man know the infallibility of the Church, but by knowing first the

infallibility of the Scripture? Or how shall a man know his own private

spirit to be other than a belief, grounded upon the authority and

arguments of his teachers, or upon a presumption of his own gifts?

Besides, there is nothing in the Scripture, from which can be inferred

the infallibility of the Church; much less, of any particular Church;

and least of all, the infallibility of any particular man.

[Sidenote: Faith comes by hearing.]

It is manifest therefore, that Christian men do not know, but only

believe the Scripture to be the word of God; and that the means of

making them believe, which God is pleased to afford men ordinarily, is

according to the way of nature, that is to say, from their teachers. It

is the doctrine of St. Paul concerning Christian faith in general

(_Rom._ x. 17), _Faith cometh by hearing_, that is, by hearing our

lawful pastors. He saith also, (verses 14, 15, of the same chapter),

_How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how

shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach, except

they be sent?_ Whereby it is evident, that the ordinary cause of

believing that the Scriptures are the word of God, is the same with the

cause of the believing of all other articles of our faith, namely, the

hearing of those that are by the law allowed and appointed to teach us,

as our parents in their houses, and our pastors in the churches. Which

also is made more manifest by experience. For what other cause can there

be assigned, why in Christian commonwealths all men either believe, or

at least profess the Scripture to be the word of God, and in other

commonwealths scarce any; but that in Christian commonwealths they are

taught it from their infancy; and in other places they are taught

otherwise?

But if teaching be the cause of faith, why do not all believe? It is

certain therefore that faith is the gift of God, and he giveth it to

whom he will. Nevertheless, because to them to whom he giveth it, he

giveth it by the means of teachers, the immediate cause of faith is

hearing. In a school, where many are taught, and some profit, others

profit not, the cause of learning in them that profit, is the master;

yet it cannot be thence inferred, that learning is not the gift of God.

All good things proceed from God; yet cannot all that have them, say

they are inspired; for that implies a gift supernatural, and the

immediate hand of God; which he that pretends to, pretends to be a

prophet, and is subject to the examination of the Church.

But whether men _know_, or _believe_, or _grant_ the Scriptures to be

the word of God; if out of such places of them, as are without

obscurity, I shall show what articles of faith are necessary, and only

necessary for salvation, those men must needs _know_, _believe_, or

_grant_ the same.

[Sidenote: The only necessary article of Christian faith;]

The _unum necessarium_, only article of faith, which the Scripture

maketh simply necessary to salvation, is this, that JESUS IS THE CHRIST.

By the name of _Christ_ is understood the king, which God had before

promised by the prophets of the Old Testament, to send into the world,

to reign (over the Jews, and over such of other nations as should

believe in him), under himself eternally; and to give them that eternal

life, which was lost by the sin of Adam. Which when I have proved out of

Scripture, I will further show when, and in what sense, some other

articles may be also called _necessary_.

[Sidenote: Proved from the scope of the Evangelists:]

For proof that the belief of this article, _Jesus is the Christ_, is all

the faith required to salvation, my first argument shall be from the

scope of the Evangelists; which was by the description of the life of

our Saviour, to establish that one article, _Jesus is the Christ_. The

sum of St. Matthew’s Gospel is this, that Jesus was of the stock of

David, born of a Virgin; which are the marks of the true Christ: that

the Magi came to worship him as King of the Jews: that Herod for the

same cause sought to kill him: that John the Baptist proclaimed him:

that he preached by himself and his apostles that he was that king: that

he taught the law, not as a scribe, but as a man of authority: that he

cured diseases by his word only, and did many other miracles, which were

foretold the Christ should do: that he was saluted king when he entered

into Jerusalem: that he forewarned them to beware of all others that

should pretend to be Christ: that he was taken, accused, and put to

death, for saying he was king: that the cause of his condemnation

written on the cross was, JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. All

which tend to no other end than this, that men should believe that

_Jesus is the Christ_. Such therefore was the scope of St. Matthew’s

Gospel. But the scope of all the evangelists, as may appear by reading

them, was the same. Therefore the scope of the whole Gospel was the

establishing of that only article. And St. John expressly makes it his

conclusion, (_John_ xx. 31), _These things are written, that you may

know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God_.

[Sidenote: From the sermons of the apostles:]

My second argument is taken from the subjects of the sermons of the

apostles, both whilst our Saviour lived on earth, and after his

ascension. The apostles, in our Saviour’s time, were sent, (_Luke_ ix.

2) _to preach the kingdom of God_. For neither there, nor, _Matth._ x.

7, giveth he any commission to them other than this, _As ye go, preach,

saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand_; that is, that Jesus is the

_Messiah_, the _Christ_, the _King_ which was to come. That their

preaching also after his ascension was the same, is manifest out of

_Acts_ xvii. 6, 7, _They drew_, saith St. Luke, _Jason and certain

brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, these that have turned the

world upside down are come hither also, whom Jason hath received: and

these all do contrary to the decrees of Cæsar, saying, that there is

another king, one Jesus_. And out of the 2nd and 3rd verses of the same

chapter, where it is said, that St. Paul, _as his manner was, went in

unto them; and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the

Scriptures; opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered,

and risen again from the dead, and that this Jesus, whom he preached, is

Christ_.

[Sidenote: From the easiness of the doctrine:]

The third argument is from those places of Scripture, by which all the

faith required to salvation is declared to be easy. For if an inward

assent of the mind to all the doctrines concerning Christian faith now

taught, whereof the greatest part are disputed, were necessary to

salvation, there would be nothing in the world so hard as to be a

Christian. The thief upon the cross, though repenting, could not have

been saved for saying, _Lord remember me when thou comest into thy

kingdom_; by which he testified no belief of any other article, but

this, that _Jesus was the king_. Nor could it be said (as it is,

_Matth._ xi. 30), that _Christ’s yoke is easy, and his burthen light_:

nor that _little children believe in him_, as it is _Matth._ xviii. 6.

Nor could St. Paul have said, (_1 Cor._ i. 21), _It pleased God by the

foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe_. Nor could St. Paul

himself have been saved, much less have been so great a doctor of the

Church so suddenly, that never perhaps thought of transubstantiation nor

purgatory, nor many other articles now obtruded.

[Sidenote: From formal and clear texts.]

The fourth argument is taken from places express, and such as receive no

controversy of interpretation; as first, _John_ v. 39; _Search the

Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they

that testify of me_. Our Saviour here speaketh of the Scriptures only of

the Old Testament; for the Jews at that time could not search the

Scriptures of the New Testament, which were not written. But the Old

Testament hath nothing of Christ, but the marks by which men might know

him when he came; as that he should descend from David; be born at

Bethlehem, and of a Virgin; do great miracles, and the like. Therefore

to believe that this Jesus was He, was sufficient to eternal life: but

more than sufficient is not necessary; and consequently no other article

is required. Again, (_John_ xi. 26) _Whosoever liveth and believeth in

me, shall not die eternally_. Therefore to believe in Christ, is faith

sufficient to eternal life; and consequently no more faith than that is

necessary. But to believe in Jesus, and to believe that Jesus is the

Christ, is all one, as appeareth in the verses immediately following.

For when our Saviour (verse 26) had said to Martha, _Believest thou

this?_ she answereth (verse 27), _Yea, Lord, I believe that thou art the

Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world_. Therefore

this article alone is faith sufficient to life eternal; and more than

sufficient is not necessary. Thirdly, _John_ xx. 31: _These things are

written that ye might believe, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,

and that believing ye might have life through his name_. There, to

believe that _Jesus is the Christ_, is faith sufficient to the obtaining

of life; and therefore no other article is necessary. Fourthly, _1 John_

iv. 2: _Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the

flesh, is of God_. And _1 John_ v. 1: _Whosoever believeth that Jesus is

the Christ, is born of God_. And verse 5, _Who is he that overcometh the

world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?_ Fifthly,

_Acts_ viii. 36, 37: _See_, saith the Eunuch, _here is water, what doth

hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, if thou believest with all

thy heart, thou mayst. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus

Christ is the Son of God._ Therefore this article believed, _Jesus is

the Christ_, is sufficient to baptism, that is to say, to our reception

into the kingdom of God, and by consequence, only necessary. And

generally in all places where our Saviour saith to any man, _Thy faith

hath saved thee_, the cause he saith it, is some confession, which

directly, or by consequence, implieth a belief, that _Jesus is the

Christ_.

[Sidenote: From that it is the foundation of all other articles.]

The last argument is from the places, where this article is made the

foundation of faith: for he that holdeth the foundation, shall be saved.

Which places are first, _Matth._ xxiv. 23, 24: _If any man shall say

unto you, Lo here is Christ, or there, believe it not; for there shall

arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and

wonders, &c._ Here we see this article, _Jesus is the Christ_, must be

held, though he that shall teach the contrary should do great miracles.

The second place is, _Gal._ i. 8: _Though we, or an angel from heaven,

preach any other gospel unto you, than that we have preached unto you,

let him be accursed_. But the gospel which Paul, and the other apostles,

preached, was only this article, that _Jesus is the Christ_: therefore

for the belief of this article, we are to reject the authority of an

angel from heaven; much more of any mortal man, if he teach the

contrary. This is therefore the fundamental article of Christian faith.

A third place is, _1 John_, iv. 1, 2: _Beloved, believe not every

spirit: hereby ye shall know the Spirit of God; every spirit that

confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God_. By which

it is evident, that this article, is the measure and rule, by which to

estimate and examine all other articles; and is therefore only

fundamental. A fourth is _Matth._ xvi. 16, 18, where after St. Peter had

professed this article, saying to our Saviour, _Thou art Christ the Son

of the living God_, our Saviour answered, _Thou art Peter, and upon this

rock I will build my Church_; from whence I infer, that this article is

that, on which all other doctrines of the Church are built, as on their

foundation. A fifth is _1 Cor._ iii. 11, 12, &c. _Other foundation can

no man lay, than that which is laid, Jesus is the Christ. Now if any man

build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay,

stubble; every man’s work shall be made manifest; for the day shall

declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try

every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide, which he

hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall

be burnt, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as

by fire._ Which words, being partly plain and easy to understand, and

partly allegorical and difficult; out of that which is plain, maybe

inferred, that pastors that teach this foundation, that _Jesus is the

Christ_, though they draw from it false consequences, which all men are

sometimes subject to, they may nevertheless be saved; much more that

they may be saved, who being no pastors, but hearers, believe that which

is by their lawful pastors taught them. Therefore the belief of this

article is sufficient; and by consequence, there is no other article of

faith necessarily required to salvation.