Romes challenge to that Power universally, hath been maintained chiefly, and I think as
strongly as is possible, by Cardinall Bellarmine, in his Controversie De Summo Pontifice; I have thought it necessary, as briefly as I can, to examine the grounds, and strength of his
Discourse.
The first book.
Of five Books he hath written of this subject, the first containeth three Questions: One, Which
is simply the best government, Monarchy, Aristocracy, or Democracy; and concludeth for neither, but for a government mixt of all three: Another, which of these is the best
Government of the Church; and concludeth for the mixt, but which should most participate of
Monarchy: The third, whether in this mixt Monarchy, St. Peter had the place of Monarch.
Concerning his first Conclusion, I have already sufficiently proved (chapt. 18.) that all
Governments, which men are bound to obey, are Simple, and Absolute. In Monarchy there is
but One Man Supreme; and all other men that have any kind of Power in the State, have it by
his Commission, during his pleasure; and execute it in his name: And in Aristocracy, and
Democracy, but One Supreme Assembly, with the same Power that in Monarchy belongeth to
the Monarch, which is not a Mixt, but an Absolute Soveraignty. And of the three sorts, which is
the best, is not to be disputed, where any one of them is already established; but the present
ought alwaies to be preferred, maintained, and accounted best; because it is against both the
Law of Nature, and the Divine positive Law, to doe any thing tending to the subversion thereof.
Besides, it maketh nothing to the Power of any Pastor, (unlesse he have the Civill
Soveraignty,) what kind of Government is the best; because their Calling is not to govern men
by Commandement, but to teach them, and perswade them by Arguments, and leave it to
them to consider, whether they shall embrace, or reject the Doctrine taught. For Monarchy,
Aristocracy, and Democracy, do mark out unto us three sorts of Soveraigns, not of Pastors; or,
as we may say, three sorts of Masters of Families, not three sorts of Schoolmasters for their
children.
And therefore the second Conclusion, concerning the best form of Government of the Church,
is nothing to the question of the Popes Power without his own Dominions: For in all other
Common-wealths his Power (if hee have any at all) is that of the Schoolmaster onely, and not
of the Master of the Family.
For the third Conclusion, which is, that St. Peter was Monarch of the Church, he bringeth for
his chiefe argument the place of S. Matth. (chap. 16. 18, 19.) Thou art Peter, And upon this rock I will build my Church, &c. And I will give thee the keyes of Heaven; whatsoever thou
shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth, shall
be loosed in Heaven. Which place well considered, proveth no more, but that the Church of
Christ hath for foundation one onely Article; namely, that which Peter in the name of all the
Apostles professing, gave occasion to our Saviour to speak the words here cited; which that
wee may cleerly understand, we are to consider, that our Saviour preached by himself, by John
Baptist, and by his Apostles, nothing but this Article of Faith, that he was the Christ; all other Articles requiring faith no otherwise, than as founded on that. John began first, ( Mat. 3. 2.) preaching only this, The Kingdome of God is at hand. Then our Saviour himself ( Mat. 4. 17.) preached the same: And to his Twelve Apostles, when he gave them their Commission ( Mat.
10. 7.) there is no mention of preaching any other Article but that. This was the fundamentall
Article, that is the Foundation of the Churches Faith. Afterwards the Apostles being returned to
him, he asketh them all, ( Mat. 16. 13.) not Peter onely, Who men said he was; and they answered, that some said he was John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of
the Prophets: Then (ver. 15.) he asked them all again, (not Peter onely) Whom say yee that I am? Therefore S. 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 S. Peter, had said, thou art a Stone, and upon
this Stone I will build my Church, when it was so obvious without ambiguity to have said, I will build my Church on thee; and yet there had been still the same allusion to his name.
And for the following words, I will give thee the Keyes of Heaven, & c. it is no more than what our Saviour gave also to all the rest of his Disciples [ Matth. 18. 18.] Whatsoever yee shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven. And whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. But howsoever this be interpreted, there is no doubt but the Power here granted
belongs to all Supreme Pastors; such as are all Christian Civill Soveraignes in their own
Dominions. In so much, as if St. Peter, or our Saviour himself had converted any of them to
beleeve him, and to acknowledge his Kingdome; yet because his Kingdome is not of this world,
he had left the supreme care of converting his subjects to none but him; or else hee must have
deprived him of the Soveraignty, to which the Right of Teaching is inseparably annexed. And
thus much in refutation of his first Book, wherein hee would prove St. Peter to have been the
Monarch Universall of the Church, that is to say, of all the Christians in the world.
The second Book.
The second Book hath two Conclusions: One, that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and there
dyed: The other, that the Popes of Rome are his Successors. Both which have been disputed by
others. But supposing them 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 adhærent to their Soveraignty. Which shall serve for answer to his
second Book.
The third Book.
In the third Book, he handleth the question whether the Pope be Antichrist. For my part, I see
no argument that proves he is so, in that sense 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 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 Jesus the true Christ, which is another usuall signification of the word Antichrist. But of these many Antichrists, there is one
speciall one,
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 bee 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,6 shall stand in the Holy place, and such tribulation
as was not since the beginning of the world, nor ever shall be again, insomuch as if it were to
last long, (ver. 22.) no flesh could be saved; but for the elects sake those days shall be
shortened (made fewer). But that tribulation is not yet come; for it is to be followed
immediately (ver. 29.) by a darkening of the Sun and Moon, a falling of the Stars, a concussion
of the Heavens, and the glorious coming again of our Saviour in the cloudes. And therefore The
Antichrist is not yet come; whereas, many Popes are both come and gone. It is true, the Pope in taking upon him to give Laws to all Christian Kings, and Nations, usurpeth a Kingdome in
this world, which Christ took not on him: but he doth it not as Christ, but as for Christ, wherein there is nothing of The Antichrist.
The fourth Book.
In the fourth Book, to prove the Pope to be the supreme Judg in all questions of Faith and
Manners, ( which is as much as to be the absolute Monarch of all Christians in the world,) 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 Ecclesiasticall on the Pope of Rome.
Texts for the Infallibility of the Popes Judgement in points of Faith.
For the Infallibility of his Judgments, he alledgeth the Scriptures: and first, that of Luke 22.
31. Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired you that hee may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed
for thee, that thy faith faile not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy Brethren. This, according to Bellarmines exposition, is, that Christ gave here to Simon Peter two priviledges:
one, that neither his Faith should fail, 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 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 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
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 this Text to all his Successors; for wee see they claime it in the World that now is.
The second place is that of Matth. 16. Thou art Peter, and upon this rocke I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. By which (as I have already shewn in this chapter) is proved no more, than that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the
confession of Peter, which gave occasion to that speech; namely this, that Jesus is Christ the
Sonne of God.
The third Text is John 21. ver. 16, 17. Feed my sheep; which contains no more but a
Commission of Teaching: And if we grant the rest of the Apostles to be contained in that name
of Sheep; then it is the supreme Power of Teaching: but it was onely for the time that there were no Christian Soveraigns already possessed of that Supremacy. But I have already proved,
that Christian Soveraignes are in their owne Dominions the supreme Pastors, and instituted
thereto, by vertue of their being Baptized, though without other Imposition of Hands. For such
Imposition being a Ceremony of designing the person, is needlesse, when hee is already
designed to the Power of Teaching what Doctrine he will, by his institution to an Absolute
Power over his Subjects For as I have proved before, Soveraigns are supreme Teachers (in
generall) by their Office; and therefore oblige themselves (by their Baptisme) to teach the
Doctrine of Christ: And when they suffer others to teach their people, they doe it at the perill of
their own souls; for it is at the hands of the Heads of Families that God will require the account
of the instruction of his Children and Servants. It is of Abraham himself, not of a hireling, that
God saith ( Gen. 18. 19.) I know him that he will command his Children, and his houshold after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, and do justice and judgement.
The fourth place is that of Exod. 28. 30. Thou shalt put in the Breastplate of Judgment, the Urim and the Thummin: which hee saith is interpreted by the Septuagint
, 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 such next under God was the High Priest in the Common-
wealth of Israel; and is an argument for Evidence and Truth, that is, for the Ecclesiasticall
Supremacy of Civill Soveraigns over their own Subjects, against the pretended Power of the
Pope. These are all the Texts hee bringeth for the Infallibility of the Judgement of the Pope, in
point of Faith.
Texts for the same in point of Manners.
For the Infallibility of his Judgment concerning Manners, hee bringeth one Text, which is that
of John 16. 13. When the Spirit of truth is come, hee will lead you into all truth: where (saith he) by all truth, is meant, at least, all truth necessary to salvation. But with this mitigation, he attributeth no more Infallibility to the Pope, than to any man that professeth Christianity, and
is not to be damned: For if any man erre in any point, wherein not to erre is necessary to
Salvation, it is impossible he should be saved; for that onely is necessary to Salvation, without
which to be saved is impossible. What points these are, I shall declare out of the Scripture in
the Chapter following. In this place I say no more, but that though it were granted, the Pope
could not possibly teach any error at all, yet doth not this entitle him to any Jurisdiction in the
Dominions of another Prince, unlesse we shall also say, a man is obliged in conscience to set
on work upon all occasions the best workman, even then also when he hath formerly promised
his work to another.
Besides the Text, he argueth from Reason, thus. If the Pope could erre in necessaries, then
Christ hath not sufficiently provided for the Churches Salvation; because he hath commanded
her to follow the Popes directions. But this Reason is invalid, unlesse he shew when, and where
Christ commanded that, or took at all any notice of a Pope: Nay granting whatsoever was
given to S. Peter, was given to the Pope; yet seeing there is in the Scripture no command to
any man to obey St. Peter, no man can bee just, that obeyeth him, when his commands are
contrary to those of his lawfull Soveraign.
Lastly, it hath not been declared by the Church, nor by the Pope himselfe, that he is the Civill
Soveraign of all the Christians in the world; and therefore all Christians are not bound to
acknowledge his Jurisdiction in point of Manners. For the Civill Soveraignty, and supreme
Judicature in controversies of Manners, are the same thing: And the Makers of Civill Laws, are
not onely Declarers, but also Makers of the justice, and injustice of actions; there being
nothing in mens Manners that makes them righteous, or unrighteous, but their conformity with
the Law of the Soveraign. And therefore when the Pope challengeth Supremacy in
controversies of Manners, hee teacheth men to disobey the Civill Soveraign; which is an
erroneous Doctrine, contrary to the many precepts of our Saviour and his Apostles, delivered
to us in the Scripture.
To prove the Pope has Power to make Laws, he alledgeth many places; as first, Deut. 17. 12.
The man that will doe presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest, (that standeth to
Minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the Judge,) even that man shall die, and thou
shalt put away the evill from Israel. For answer whereunto, we are to remember that the High Priest (next and immediately under God) was the Civill Soveraign; and all Judges were to be
constituted by him. The words alledged sound therefore thus. The man that will presume to
disobey the Civill Soveraign for the time being, or any of his Officers in the execution of their places, that man shall die, &c. which is cleerly for the Civill Soveraignty, against the Universall power of the Pope.
Secondly, he alledgeth that of Matth. 16. Whatsoever yee shall bind, &c. and interpreteth it for such binding as is attributed ( Matth. 23. 4.) to the Scribes and Pharisees, They bind heavy burthens, and grievous to be born, and lay them on mens shoulders; by which is meant (he
sayes) Making of Laws; and concludes thence, that the Pope can make Laws. But this also
maketh onely for the Legislative power of Civill Soveraigns: For the Scribes, and Pharisees sat
in Moses Chaire, but Moses next under God was Soveraign of the People of Israel: and
therefore our Saviour commanded them to doe all that they should say, but not all that they
should do. That is, to obey their Laws, but not follow their Example.
The third place, is John 21. 16. Feed my sheep; which is not a Power to make Laws, but a command to Teach. Making Laws belongs to the Lord of the Family; who by his owne discretion
chooseth his Chaplain, as also a Schoolmaster to Teach his children.
The fourth place John 20. 21. is against him. The words are, As my Father sent me, so send I you. But our Saviour was sent to Redeem (by his Death) such as should Beleeve; and by his
own, and his Apostles preaching to prepare them for their entrance into his Kingdome; which
he himself saith, is not of this world, and hath taught us to pray for the coming of it hereafter,
though hee refused ( Acts 1. 6, 7.) to tell his Apostles when it should come; and in which, when it comes, the twelve Apostles shall sit on twelve Thrones (every one perhaps as high as that of
St. Peter) to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Seeing then God the Father sent not our Saviour
to make Laws in this present world, wee may conclude from the Text, that neither did our
Saviour send S. Peter to make Laws here, but to perswade men to expect his second comming
with a stedfast faith; and in the mean time, if Subjects, to obey their Princes; and if Princes,
both to beleeve it themselves, and to do their best to make their Subjects doe the same; which
is the Office of a Bishop. Therefore this place maketh most strongly for the joining of the
Ecclesiasticall Supremacy to the Civill Soveraignty, contrary to that which Cardinall Bellarmine
alledgeth it for.
The fift place is Acts 15. 28. It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden, than these necessary things, that yee abstaine from meats offered to Idols,
and from bloud, and from things strangled, and from fornication. Here hee notes the word
Laying of burdens for the Legislative Power. But who is there, that reading this Text, can say, this stile of the Apostles may not as properly be used in giving Counsell, as in making Laws?
The stile of a Law is, We command: But, We think good, is the ordinary stile of them, that but give Advice; and they lay a Burthen that give Advice, though it bee conditionall, that is, if they
to whom they give it, will attain their ends: And such is the Burthen, of abstaining from things
strangled, and from bloud; not absolute, but in case they will not erre. I have shewn before
(chap. 25.) that Law, is distinguished from Counsell, in this, that the reason of a Law, is taken
from the designe, and benefit of him that prescribeth it; but the reason of a Counsell, from the
designe, and benefit of him, to whom the Counsell is given. But here, the Apostles aime onely
at the benefit of the converted Gentiles, namely their Salvation; not at their own benefit; for
having done their endeavour, they shall have their reward, whether they be obeyed, or not.
And therefore the Acts of this Councell, were not Laws, but Counsells.
The sixt place is that of Rom. 13. Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers, for there is
no Power but of God; which is meant,