<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0604" id="link2H_4_0604"></SPAN> Cardinal Bellarmines Books De Summo Pontifice Considered </h3>
<p>Though this that I have here said, and in other places of this Book, seem
cleer enough for the asserting of the Supreme Ecclesiasticall Power to
Christian Soveraigns; yet because the Pope of Romes challenge to that
Power universally, hath been maintained chiefly, and I think as strongly
as is possible, by Cardinall Bellarmine, in his Controversie De Summo
Pontifice; I have thought it necessary, as briefly as I can, to examine
the grounds, and strength of his Discourse.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0605" id="link2H_4_0605"></SPAN> The First Book </h3>
<p>Of five Books he hath written of this subject, the first containeth three
Questions: One, Which is simply the best government, Monarchy,
Aristocracy, or Democracy; and concludeth for neither, but for a
government mixt of all there: Another, which of these is the best
Government of the Church; and concludeth for the mixt, but which should
most participate of Monarchy: the third, whether in this mixt Monarchy,
St. Peter had the place of Monarch. Concerning his first Conclusion, I
have already sufficiently proved (chapt. 18.) that all Governments which
men are bound to obey, are Simple, and Absolute. In Monarchy there is but
One Man Supreme; and all other men that have any kind of Power in the
State, have it by his Commission, during his pleasure; and execute it in
his name: And in Aristocracy, and Democracy, but One Supreme Assembly,
with the same Power that in Monarchy belongeth to the Monarch, which is
not a Mixt, but an Absolute Soveraignty. And of the three sorts, which is
the best, is not to be disputed, where any one of them is already
established; but the present ought alwaies to be preferred, maintained,
and accounted best; because it is against both the Law of Nature, and the
Divine positive Law, to doe any thing tending to the subversion thereof.
Besides, it maketh nothing to the Power of any Pastor, (unlesse he have
the Civill Soveraignty,) what kind of Government is the best; because
their Calling is not to govern men by Commandement, but to teach them, and
perswade them by Arguments, and leave it to them to consider, whether they
shall embrace, or reject the Doctrine taught. For Monarchy, Aristocracy,
and Democracy, do mark out unto us three sorts of Soveraigns, not of
Pastors; or, as we may say, three sorts of Masters of Families, not three
sorts of Schoolmasters for their children.</p>
<p>And therefore the second Conclusion, concerning the best form of
Government of the Church, is nothing to the question of the Popes Power
without his own Dominions: For in all other Common-wealths his Power (if
hee have any at all) is that of the Schoolmaster onely, and not of the
Master of the Family.</p>
<p>For the third Conclusion, which is, that St. Peter was Monarch of the
Church, he bringeth for his chiefe argument the place of S. Matth. (chap.
16.18, 19.) “Thou art Peter, And upon this rock I will build my Church,
&c. And I will give thee the keyes of Heaven; whatsoever thou shalt
bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose
on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.” Which place well considered, proveth
no more, but that the Church of Christ hath for foundation one onely
Article; namely, that which Peter in the name of all the Apostles
professing, gave occasion to our Saviour to speak the words here cited;
which that wee may cleerly understand, we are to consider, that our
Saviour preached by himself, by John Baptist, and by his Apostles, nothing
but this Article of Faith, “that he was the Christ;” all other Articles
requiring faith no otherwise, than as founded on that. John began first,
(Mat. 3.2.) preaching only this, “The Kingdome of God is at hand.” Then
our Saviour himself (Mat. 4.17.) preached the same: And to his Twelve
Apostles, when he gave them their Commission (Mat. 10.7.) there is no
mention of preaching any other Article but that. This was the fundamentall
Article, that is the Foundation of the Churches Faith. Afterwards the
Apostles being returned to him, he asketh them all, (Mat. 16.13) not Peter
onely, “Who men said he was;” and they answered, that “some said he was
John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the
Prophets:” Then (ver. 15.) he asked them all again, (not Peter onely)
“Whom say yee that I am?” Therefore Peter answered (for them all) “Thou
art Christ, the Son of the Living God;” which I said is the Foundation of
the Faith of the whole Church; from which our Saviour takes the occasion
of saying, “Upon this stone I will build my Church;” By which it is
manifest, that by the Foundation-Stone of the Church, was meant the
Fundamentall Article of the Churches Faith. But why then (will some
object) doth our Saviour interpose these words, “Thou art Peter”? If the
originall of this text had been rigidly translated, the reason would
easily have appeared: We are therefore to consider, that the Apostle
Simon, was surnamed Stone, (which is the signification of the Syriacke
word Cephas, and of the Greek word Petrus). Our Saviour therefore after
the confession of that Fundamentall Article, alluding to his name, said
(as if it were in English) thus, Thou art “Stone,” and upon this Stone I
will build my Church: which is as much as to say, this Article, that “I am
the Christ,” is the Foundation of all the Faith I require in those that
are to bee members of my Church: Neither is this allusion to a name, an
unusuall thing in common speech: But it had been a strange, and obscure
speech, if our Saviour intending to build his Church on the Person of St.
Peter, had said, “thou art a Stone, and upon this Stone I will build my
Church,” when it was so obvious without ambiguity to have said, “I will
build my Church on thee; and yet there had been still the same allusion to
his name.</p>
<p>And for the following words, “I will give thee the Keyes of Heaven, &c.”
it is no more than what our Saviour gave also to all the rest of his
Disciples (Matth. 18.18.) “Whatsoever yee shall bind on Earth, shall be
bound in Heaven. And whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth, shall be loosed
in Heaven.” But howsoever this be interpreted, there is no doubt but the
Power here granted belongs to all Supreme Pastors; such as are all
Christian Civill Soveraignes in their own Dominions. In so much, as if St.
Peter, or our Saviour himself had converted any of them to beleeve him,
and to acknowledge his Kingdome; yet because his Kingdome is not of this
world, he had left the supreme care of converting his subjects to none but
him; or else hee must have deprived him of the Soveraignty, to which the
Right of Teaching is inseparably annexed. And thus much in refutation of
his first Book, wherein hee would prove St. Peter to have been the Monarch
Universall of the Church, that is to say, of all the Christians in the
world.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0606" id="link2H_4_0606"></SPAN> The Second Book </h3>
<p>The second Book hath two Conclusions: One, that S. Peter was Bishop of
Rome, and there dyed: The other, that the Popes of Rome are his
Successors. Both which have been disputed by others. But supposing them to
be true; yet if by Bishop of Rome bee understood either the Monarch of the
Church, or the Supreme Pastor of it; not Silvester, but Constantine (who
was the first Christian Emperour) was that Bishop; and as Constantine, so
all other Christian Emperors were of Right supreme Bishops of the Roman
Empire; I say of the Roman Empire, not of all Christendome: For other
Christian Soveraigns had the same Right in their severall Territories, as
to an Office essentially adhaerent to their Soveraignty. Which shall serve
for answer to his second Book.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0607" id="link2H_4_0607"></SPAN> The Third Book </h3>
<p>In the third Book, he handleth the question whether the Pope be
Antichrist. For my part, I see no argument that proves he is so, in that
sense that Scripture useth the name: nor will I take any argument from the
quality of Antichrist, to contradict the Authority he exerciseth, or hath
heretofore exercised in the Dominions of any other Prince, or State.</p>
<p>It is evident that the Prophets of the Old Testament foretold, and the
Jews expected a Messiah, that is, a Christ, that should re-establish
amongst them the kingdom of God, which had been rejected by them in the
time of Samuel, when they required a King after the manner of other
Nations. This expectation of theirs, made them obnoxious to the Imposture
of all such, as had both the ambition to attempt the attaining of the
Kingdome, and the art to deceive the People by counterfeit miracles, by
hypocriticall life, or by orations and doctrine plausible. Our Saviour
therefore, and his Apostles forewarned men of False Prophets, and of False
Christs. False Christs, are such as pretend to be the Christ, but are not,
and are called properly Antichrists, in such sense, as when there
happeneth a Schisme in the Church by the election of two Popes, the one
calleth the other Antipapa, or the false Pope. And therefore Antichrist in
the proper signification hath two essentiall marks; One, that he denyeth
Jesus to be Christ; and another that he professeth himselfe to bee Christ.
The first Mark is set down by S. John in his 1 Epist. 4. ch. 3. ver.
“Every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh,
is not of God; And this is the Spirit of Antichrist.” The other Mark is
expressed in the words of our Saviour, (Mat. 24.5.) “Many shall come in my
name, saying, I am Christ;” and again, “If any man shall say unto you,
Loe, here is Christ, there is Christ beleeve it not.” And therefore
Antichrist must be a False Christ, that is, some one of them that shall
pretend themselves to be Christ. And out of these two Marks, “to deny
Jesus to be the Christ,” and to “affirm himselfe to be the Christ,” it
followeth, that he must also be an “Adversary of the true Christ,” which
is another usuall signification of the word Antichrist. But of these many
Antichrists, there is one speciall one, O Antichristos, The Antichrist, or
Antichrist definitely, as one certaine person; not indefinitely An
Antichrist. Now seeing the Pope of Rome, neither pretendeth himself, nor
denyeth Jesus to be the Christ, I perceive not how he can be called
Antichrist; by which word is not meant, one that falsely pretendeth to be
His Lieutenant, or Vicar Generall, but to be Hee. There is also some Mark
of the time of this speciall Antichrist, as (Mat. 24.15.) when that
abominable Destroyer, spoken of by Daniel, (Dan. 9. 27.) shall stand in
the Holy place, and such tribulation as was not since the beginning of the
world, nor ever shall be again, insomuch as if it were to last long, (ver.
22.) “no flesh could be saved; but for the elects sake those days shall be
shortened” (made fewer). But that tribulation is not yet come; for it is
to be followed immediately (ver. 29.) by a darkening of the Sun and Moon,
a falling of the Stars, a concussion of the Heavens, and the glorious
coming again of our Saviour, in the cloudes. And therefore The Antichrist
is not yet come; whereas, many Popes are both come and gone. It is true,
the Pope in taking upon him to give Laws to all Christian Kings, and
Nations, usurpeth a Kingdome in this world, which Christ took not on him:
but he doth it not As Christ, but as For Christ, wherein there is nothing
of the Antichrist.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0608" id="link2H_4_0608"></SPAN> The Fourth Book </h3>
<p>In the fourth Book, to prove the Pope to be the supreme Judg in all
questions of Faith and Manners, (which is as much as to be the absolute
Monarch of all Christians in the world,) be bringeth three Propositions:
The first, that his Judgments are Infallible: The second, that he can make
very Laws, and punish those that observe them not: The third, that our
Saviour conferred all Jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall on the Pope of Rome.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0609" id="link2H_4_0609"></SPAN> Texts For The Infallibility Of The Popes Judgement In Points Of Faith </h3>
<p>For the Infallibility of his Judgments, he alledgeth the Scriptures: and
first, that of Luke 22.31. “Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired you that hee
may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith faile
not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy Brethren.” This,
according to Bellarmines exposition, is, that Christ gave here to Simon
Peter two priviledges: one, that neither his Faith should fail, neither
he, nor any of his successors should ever define any point concerning
Faith, or Manners erroneously, or contrary to the definition of a former
Pope: Which is a strange, and very much strained interpretation. But he
that with attention readeth that chapter, shall find there is no place in
the whole Scripture, that maketh more against the Popes Authority, than
this very place. The Priests and Scribes seeking to kill our Saviour at
the Passeover, and Judas possessed with a resolution to betray him, and
the day of killing the Passeover being come, our Saviour celebrated the
same with his Apostles, which he said, till the Kingdome of God was come
hee would doe no more; and withall told them, that one of them was to
betray him: Hereupon they questioned, which of them it should be; and
withall (seeing the next Passeover their Master would celebrate should be
when he was King) entred into a contention, who should then be the greater
man. Our Saviour therefore told them, that the Kings of the Nations had
Dominion over their Subjects, and are called by a name (in Hebrew) that
signifies Bountifull; but I cannot be so to you, you must endeavour to
serve one another; I ordain you a Kingdome, but it is such as my Father
hath ordained mee; a Kingdome that I am now to purchase with my blood, and
not to possesse till my second coming; then yee shall eat and drink at my
Table, and sit on Thrones, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel: And then
addressing himself to St. Peter, he saith, Simon, Simon, Satan seeks by
suggesting a present domination, to weaken your faith of the future; but I
have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail; Thou therefore (Note
this,) being converted, and understanding my Kingdome as of another world,
confirm the same faith in thy Brethren: To which S. Peter answered (as one
that no more expected any authority in this world) “Lord I am ready to goe
with thee, not onely to Prison, but to Death.” Whereby it is manifest, S.
Peter had not onely no jurisdiction given him in this world, but a charge
to teach all the other Apostles, that they also should have none. And for
the Infallibility of St. Peters sentence definitive in matter of Faith,
there is no more to be attributed to it out of this Text, than that Peter
should continue in the beleef of this point, namely, that Christ should
come again, and possesse the Kingdome at the day of Judgement; which was
not given by the Text to all his Successors; for wee see they claim it in
the World that now is.</p>
<p>The second place is that of Matth. 16. “Thou art Peter, and upon this
rocke I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail
against it.” By which (as I have already shewn in this chapter) is proved
no more, than that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the
confession of Peter, which gave occasion to that speech; namely this, That
Jesus Is Christ The Sonne Of God.</p>
<p>The third text is John 21. ver. 16,17. “Feed my sheep;” which contains no
more but a Commission of Teaching: And if we grant the rest of the
Apostles to be contained in that name of Sheep; then it is the supreme
Power of Teaching: but it was onely for the time that there were no
Christian Soveraigns already possessed of that Supremacy. But I have
already proved, that Christian Soveraignes are in their owne Dominions the
supreme Pastors, and instituted thereto, by vertue of their being
Baptized, though without other Imposition of Hands. For such imposition
being a Ceremony of designing the person, is needlesse, when hee is
already designed to the Power of Teaching what Doctrine he will, by his
institution to an Absolute Power over his Subjects. For as I have proved
before, Soveraigns are supreme Teachers (in generall) by their Office and
therefore oblige themselves (by their Baptisme) to teach the Doctrine of
Christ: And when they suffer others to teach their people, they doe it at
the perill of their own souls; for it is at the hands of the Heads of
Families that God will require the account of the instruction of his
Children and Servants. It is of Abraham himself, not of a hireling, that
God saith (Gen. 18.19) “I know him that he will command his Children, and
his houshold after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, and do justice
and judgement.</p>
<p>The fourth place is that of Exod. 28.30. “Thou shalt put in the
Breastplate of Judgment, the Urim and the Thummin:” which hee saith is
interpreted by the Septuagint, delosin kai aletheian, that is, Evidence
and Truth: And thence concludeth, God had given Evidence, and Truth,
(which is almost infallibility,) to the High Priest. But be it Evidence
and Truth it selfe that was given; or be it but Admonition to the Priest
to endeavour to inform himself cleerly, and give judgment uprightly; yet
in that it was given to the High Priest, it was given to the Civill
Soveraign: For next under God was the High Priest in the Common-wealth of
Israel; and is an argument for Evidence and Truth, that is, for the
Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of Civill Soveraigns over their own Subjects,
against the pretended Power of the Pope. These are all the Texts hee
bringeth for the Infallibility of the Judgement of the Pope, in point of
Faith.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0610" id="link2H_4_0610"></SPAN> Texts For The Same In Point Of Manners </h3>
<p>For the Infallibility of his Judgment concerning Manners, hee bringeth one
Text, which is that of John 16.13. “When the Spirit of truth is come, hee
will lead you into all truth” where (saith he) by All Truth, is meant, at
least, All Truth Necessary To Salvation. But with this mitigation, he
attributeth no more Infallibility to the Pope, than to any man that
professeth Christianity, and is not to be damned: For if any man erre in
any point, wherein not to erre is necessary to Salvation, it is impossible
he should be saved; for that onely is necessary to Salvation, without
which to be saved is impossible. What points these are, I shall declare
out of the Scripture in the Chapter following. In this place I say no
more, but that though it were granted, the Pope could not possibly teach
any error at all, yet doth not this entitle him to any Jurisdiction in the
Dominions of another Prince, unlesse we shall also say, a man is obliged
in conscience to set on work upon all occasions the best workman, even
then also when he hath formerly promised his work to another.</p>
<p>Besides the Text, he argueth from Reason, thus, If the Pope could erre in
necessaries, then Christ hath not sufficiently provided for the Churches
Salvation; because he hath commanded her to follow the Popes directions.
But this Reason is invalid, unlesse he shew when, and where Christ
commanded that, or took at all any notice of a Pope: Nay granting
whatsoever was given to S. Peter was given to the Pope; yet seeing there
is in the Scripture no command to any man to obey St. Peter, no man can
bee just, that obeyeth him, when his commands are contrary to those of his
lawfull Soveraign.</p>
<p>Lastly, it hath not been declared by the Church, nor by the Pope himselfe,
that he is the Civill Soveraign of all the Christians in the world; and
therefore all Christians are not bound to acknowledge his Jurisdiction in
point of Manners. For the Civill Soveraignty, and supreme Judicature in
controversies of Manners, are the same thing: And the Makers of Civill
Laws, are not onely Declarers, but also Makers of the justice, and
injustice of actions; there being nothing in mens Manners that makes them
righteous, or unrighteous, but their conformity with the Law of the
Soveraign. And therefore when the Pope challengeth Supremacy in
controversies of Manners, hee teacheth men to disobey the Civill
Soveraign; which is an erroneous Doctrine, contrary to the many precepts
of our Saviour and his Apostles, delivered to us in the Scripture.</p>
<p>To prove the Pope has Power to make Laws, he alledgeth many places; as
first, Deut. 17.12. “The man that will doe presumptuously, and will not
hearken unto the Priest, (that standeth to Minister there before the Lord
thy God, or unto the Judge,) even that man shall die, and thou shalt put
away the evill from Israel.” For answer whereunto, we are to remember that
the High Priest (next and immediately under God) was the Civill Soveraign;
and all Judges were to be constituted by him. The words alledged sound
therefore thus. “The man that will presume to disobey the Civill Soveraign
for the time being, or any of his Officers in the execution of their
places, that man shall die, &c.” which is cleerly for the Civill
Soveraignty, against the Universall power of the Pope.</p>
<p>Secondly, he alledgeth that of Matth. 16. “Whatsoever yee shall bind,
&c.” and interpreteth it for such Binding as is attributed (Matth.
23.4.) to the Scribes and Pharisees, “They bind heavy burthens, and
grievous to be born, and lay them on mens shoulders;” by which is meant
(he sayes) Making of Laws; and concludes thence, the Pope can make Laws.
But this also maketh onely for the Legislative power of Civill Soveraigns:
For the Scribes, and Pharisees sat in Moses Chaire, but Moses next under
God was Soveraign of the People of Israel: and therefore our Saviour
commanded them to doe all that they should say, but not all that they
should do. That is, to obey their Laws, but not follow their Example.</p>
<p>The third place, is John 21.16. “Feed my sheep;” which is not a Power to
make Laws, but a command to Teach. Making Laws belongs to the Lord of the
Family; who by his owne discretion chooseth his Chaplain, as also a
Schoolmaster to Teach his children.</p>
<p>The fourth place John 20.21. is against him. The words are, “As my Father
sent me, so send I you.” But our Saviour was sent to Redeem (by his Death)
such as should Beleeve; and by his own, and his Apostles preaching to
prepare them for their entrance into his Kingdome; which he himself saith,
is not of this world, and hath taught us to pray for the coming of it
hereafter, though hee refused (Acts 1.6,7.) to tell his Apostles when it
should come; and in which, when it comes, the twelve Apostles shall sit on
twelve Thrones (every one perhaps as high as that of St. Peter) to judge
the twelve tribes of Israel. Seeing then God the Father sent not our
Saviour to make Laws in this present world, wee may conclude from the
Text, that neither did our Saviour send S. Peter to make Laws here, but to
perswade men to expect his second comming with a stedfast faith; and in
the mean time, if Subjects, to obey their Princes; and if Princes, both to
beleeve it themselves, and to do their best to make their Subjects doe the
same; which is the Office of a Bishop. Therefore this place maketh most
strongly for the joining of the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy to the Civill
Soveraignty, contrary to that which Cardinall Bellarmine alledgeth it for.</p>
<p>The fift place is Acts 15.28. “It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and
to us, to lay upon you no greater burden, than these necessary things,
that yee abstaine from meats offered to Idols, and from bloud, and from
things strangled, and from fornication.” Here hee notes the word Laying Of
Burdens for the Legislative Power. But who is there, that reading this
Text, can say, this stile of the Apostles may not as properly be used in
giving Counsell, as in making Laws? The stile of a Law is, We Command:
But, We Think Good, is the ordinary stile of them, that but give Advice;
and they lay a Burthen that give Advice, though it bee conditionall, that
is, if they to whom they give it, will attain their ends: And such is the
Burthen, of abstaining from things strangled, and from bloud; not
absolute, but in case they will not erre. I have shewn before (chap. 25.)
that Law, is distinguished from Counsell, in this, that the reason of a
Law, is taken from the designe, and benefit of him that prescribeth it;
but the reason of a Counsell, from the designe, and benefit of him, to
whom the Counsell is given. But here, the Apostles aime onely at the
benefit of the converted Gentiles, namely their Salvation; not at their
own benefit; for having done their endeavour, they shall have their
reward, whether they be obeyed, or not. And therefore the Acts of this
Councell, were not Laws, but Counsells.</p>
<p>The sixt place is that of Rom. 13. “Let every Soul be subject to the
Higher Powers, for there is no Power but of God;” which is meant, he saith
not onely of Secular, but also of Ecclesiasticall Princes. To which I
answer, first, that there are no Ecclesiasticall Princes but those that
are also Civill Soveraignes; and their Principalities exceed not the
compasse of their Civill Soveraignty; without those bounds though they may
be received for Doctors, they cannot be acknowledged for Princes. For if
the Apostle had meant, we should be subject both to our own Princes, and
also to the Pope, he had taught us a doctrine, which Christ himself hath
told us is impossible, namely, “to serve two Masters.” And though the
Apostle say in another place, “I write these things being absent, lest
being present I should use sharpnesse, according to the Power which the
Lord hath given me;” it is not, that he challenged a Power either to put
to death, imprison, banish, whip, or fine any of them, which are
Punishments; but onely to Excommunicate, which (without the Civill Power)
is no more but a leaving of their company, and having no more to doe with
them, than with a Heathen man, or a Publican; which in many occasions
might be a greater pain to the Excommunicant, than to the Excommunicate.</p>
<p>The seventh place is 1 Cor. 4.21. “Shall I come unto you with a Rod, or in
love, and the spirit of lenity?” But here again, it is not the Power of a
Magistrate to punish offenders, that is meant by a Rod; but onely the
Power of Excommunication, which is not in its owne nature a Punishment,
but onely a Denouncing of punishment, that Christ shall inflict, when he
shall be in possession of his Kingdome, at the day of Judgment. Nor then
also shall it bee properly a Punishment, as upon a Subject that hath
broken the Law; but a Revenge, as upon an Enemy, or Revolter, that denyeth
the Right of our Saviour to the Kingdome: And therefore this proveth not
the Legislative Power of any Bishop, that has not also the Civill Power.</p>
<p>The eighth place is, Timothy 3.2. “A Bishop must be the husband but of one
wife, vigilant, sober, &c.” which he saith was a Law. I thought that
none could make a Law in the Church, but the Monarch of the Church, St.
Peter. But suppose this Precept made by the authority of St. Peter; yet I
see no reason why to call it a Law, rather than an Advice, seeing Timothy
was not a Subject, but a Disciple of St. Paul; nor the flock under the
charge of Timothy, his Subjects in the Kingdome, but his Scholars in the
Schoole of Christ: If all the Precepts he giveth Timothy, be Laws, why is
not this also a Law, “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy
healths sake”? And why are not also the Precepts of good Physitians, so
many Laws? but that it is not the Imperative manner of speaking, but an
absolute Subjection to a Person, that maketh his Precept Laws.</p>
<p>In like manner, the ninth place, 1 Tim. 5. 19. “Against an Elder receive
not an accusation, but before two or three Witnesses,” is a wise Precept,
but not a Law.</p>
<p>The tenth place is, Luke 10.16. “He that heareth you, heareth mee; and he
that despiseth you, despiseth me.” And there is no doubt, but he that
despiseth the Counsell of those that are sent by Christ, despiseth the
Counsell of Christ himself. But who are those now that are sent by Christ,
but such as are ordained Pastors by lawfull Authority? and who are
lawfully ordained, that are not ordained by the Soveraign Pastor? and who
is ordained by the Soveraign Pastor in a Christian Common-wealth, that is
not ordained by the authority of the Soveraign thereof? Out of this place
therefore it followeth, that he which heareth his Soveraign being a
Christian, heareth Christ; and hee that despiseth the Doctrine which his
King being a Christian, authorizeth, despiseth the Doctrine of Christ
(which is not that which Bellarmine intendeth here to prove, but the
contrary). But all this is nothing to a Law. Nay more, a Christian King,
as a Pastor, and Teacher of his Subjects, makes not thereby his Doctrines
Laws. He cannot oblige men to beleeve; though as a Civill Soveraign he may
make Laws suitable to his Doctrine, which may oblige men to certain
actions, and sometimes to such as they would not otherwise do, and which
he ought not to command; and yet when they are commanded, they are Laws;
and the externall actions done in obedience to them, without the inward
approbation, are the actions of the Soveraign, and not of the Subject,
which is in that case but as an instrument, without any motion of his owne
at all; because God hath commanded to obey them.</p>
<p>The eleventh, is every place, where the Apostle for Counsell, putteth some
word, by which men use to signifie Command; or calleth the following of
his Counsell, by the name of Obedience. And therefore they are alledged
out of 1 Cor. 11.2. “I commend you for keeping my Precepts as I delivered
them to you.” The Greek is, “I commend you for keeping those things I
delivered to you, as I delivered them.” Which is far from signifying that
they were Laws, or any thing else, but good Counsell. And that of 1 Thess.
4.2. “You know what commandements we gave you:” where the Greek word is
paraggelias edokamen, equivalent to paredokamen, what wee delivered to
you, as in the place next before alledged, which does not prove the
Traditions of the Apostles, to be any more than Counsells; though as is
said in the 8th verse, “he that despiseth them, despiseth not man, but
God”: For our Saviour himself came not to Judge, that is, to be King in
this world; but to Sacrifice himself for Sinners, and leave Doctors in his
Church, to lead, not to drive men to Christ, who never accepteth forced
actions, (which is all the Law produceth,) but the inward conversion of
the heart; which is not the work of Laws, but of Counsell, and Doctrine.</p>
<p>And that of 2 Thess. 3.14. “If any man Obey not our word by this Epistle,
note that man, and have no company with him, that he may bee ashamed”:
where from the word Obey, he would inferre, that this Epistle was a Law to
the Thessalonians. The Epistles of the Emperours were indeed Laws. If
therefore the Epistle of S. Paul were also a Law, they were to obey two
Masters. But the word Obey, as it is in the Greek upakouei, signifieth
Hearkening To, or Putting In Practice, not onely that which is Commanded
by him that has right to punish, but also that which is delivered in a way
of Counsell for our good; and therefore St. Paul does not bid kill him
that disobeys, nor beat, nor imprison, nor amerce him, which Legislators
may all do; but avoid his company, that he may bee ashamed: whereby it is
evident, it was not the Empire of an Apostle, but his Reputation amongst
the Faithfull, which the Christians stood in awe of.</p>
<p>The last place is that of Heb. 13.17. “Obey your Leaders, and submit your
selves to them, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give
account:” And here also is intended by Obedience, a following of their
Counsell: For the reason of our Obedience, is not drawn from the will and
command of our Pastors, but from our own benefit, as being the Salvation
of our Souls they watch for, and not for the Exaltation of their own
Power, and Authority. If it were meant here, that all they teach were
Laws, then not onely the Pope, but every Pastor in his Parish should have
Legislative Power. Again, they that are bound to obey, their Pastors, have
no power to examine their commands. What then shall wee say to St. John
who bids us (1 Epist. chap. 4. ver. 1.) “Not to beleeve every Spirit, but
to try the Spirits whether they are of God, because many false Prophets
are gone out into the world”? It is therefore manifest, that wee may
dispute the Doctrine of our Pastors; but no man can dispute a Law. The
Commands of Civill Soveraigns are on all sides granted to be Laws: if any
else can make a Law besides himselfe, all Common-wealth, and consequently
all Peace, and Justice must cease; which is contrary to all Laws, both
Divine and Humane. Nothing therefore can be drawn from these, or any other
places of Scripture, to prove the Decrees of the Pope, where he has not
also the Civill Soveraignty, to be Laws.</p>
<p>The Question Of Superiority Between The Pope And Other Bishops The last
point hee would prove, is this, “That our Saviour Christ has committed
Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction immediately to none but the Pope.” Wherein he
handleth not the Question of Supremacy between the Pope and Christian
Kings, but between the Pope and other Bishops. And first, he sayes it is
agreed, that the Jurisdiction of Bishops, is at least in the generall De
Jure Divino, that is, in the Right of God; for which he alledges S. Paul,
Ephes. 4.11. where hee sayes, that Christ after his Ascension into heaven,
“gave gifts to men, some Apostles, some Prophets, and some Evangelists,
and some Pastors, and some Teachers:” And thence inferres, they have
indeed their Jurisdiction in Gods Right; but will not grant they have it
immediately from God, but derived through the Pope. But if a man may be
said to have his Jurisdiction De Jure Divino, and yet not immediately;
what lawfull Jurisdiction, though but Civill, is there in a Christian
Common-wealth, that is not also De Jure Divino? For Christian Kings have
their Civill Power from God immediately; and the Magistrates under him
exercise their severall charges in vertue of his Commission; wherein that
which they doe, is no lesse De Jure Divino Mediato, than that which the
Bishops doe, in vertue of the Popes Ordination. All lawfull Power is of
God, immediately in the Supreme Governour, and mediately in those that
have Authority under him: So that either hee must grant every Constable in
the State, to hold his Office in the Right of God; or he must not hold
that any Bishop holds his so, besides the Pope himselfe.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />
1 of 2
2 of 2
Previous
Next
Update Required
To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.