CHAPTER 42 PART 3 OF LAVAYATHON Seeing then the acts of counsel of the apostles were then no laws, but counsels, much less are laws the acts of any other doctors or counsels since, if assembled without the authority of the civil sovereign, and consequently the books of the New Testament, though most perfect rules of Christian doctrine, could not be made laws by any other authority than that of kings or sovereign assemblies. The first counsel that made the scripture, we now have canon, is not extant. For that collection of the canons of the apostles, attributed to Clemens, the first bishop of Rome after Saint Peter, is subject to question. For though the canonical books be there reckoned up, yet these words, Sint-Vobis, Omnibus clericus, Laesus, Libri, Venorandi, etc., contain a distinction of clergy and laity that was not in use so near Saint Peter's time. The first counsel for settling the canonical scripture that is extant is that of Laodicea, Canon 59, which forbids the reading of other books than those in the churches, which is a mandate that is not addressed to every Christian, but to those only that had authority to read anything publicly in the church, that is to ecclesiastics only. Of ecclesiastical officers in the time of the apostles, some were magisterial, some ministerial. Magisterial were the offices of preaching of the gospel of the kingdom of God to infidels, of administering the sacraments and divine service, and of teaching the rules of faith and manners to those that were converted. Magisterial was the office of deacons, that is, of them that were appointed to the administration of the secular necessities of the church, at such time as they lived upon a common stock of money, raised out of the voluntary contributions of the faithful. Amongst the officers, amongst the officer magisterial, the first and principal were the apostles, whereof there were at first but twelve, and these were chosen and constituted by our Savior Himself, and their office was not only to preach, teach, and baptize, but also to be martyrs, witnesses of our Savior's resurrection. This testimony was the specific and essential mark whereby the apostleship was distinguished from other magistercy ecclesiastical, as being necessary for an apostle either to have seen our Savior after His resurrection or to have conversed with Him before, and seen His works, and other arguments of His divinity, whereby they might be taken for sufficient witnesses, and therefore at the election of a new apostle in the place of Judas Iscariot, St. Peter Of these men that have accompanied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, until that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection, Acts 1 v.21-22, whereby this word must is implied a necessary property of an apostle, to have accompanied with the first and prime apostles in the time that our Savior manifested Himself in the flesh. The first apostles of those which were not constituted by Christ in the time He was upon the earth was Matthias, chosen in this manner. There were assembled together in Jerusalem about 120 Christians, Acts 1 v. 15. These appointed two, Joseph the Just and Matthias, Ibid 1 v. 23, and caused lots to be drawn. And the lot fell on Matthias, and He was numbered with the apostles, Ibid 1 v. 26, so that here we see the ordination of this apostle was the act of the congregation, and not of St. Peter, nor of the eleven, otherwise than as members of the assembly. After him there was never any other apostle ordained but Paul and Barnabas, which was done as we read in this manner. There were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers, as Barnabas and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene and Manean, which had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch and Saul. As they ministered unto the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me, Barnabas, and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away, Acts 13 v. 1, 2, and 3. By which it is manifest that though they were called by the Holy Ghost, their calling was declared unto them, and their mission authorized by the particular church of Antioch, and that this their calling was to the apostleship is apparent by that, that they are both called apostles, Acts 14 v. 14, and that it was by virtue of this act of the church of Antioch that they were apostles. St. Paul declares plainly in that he uses the word, which the Holy Ghost used, 6 v. 10, at his calling, for he styled himself, an apostle separated unto the gospel of God, Romans 1 v. 1, alluding to the words of the Holy Ghost, Separate me, Barnabas, and Saul, etc. But seeing the work of an apostle was to be a witness of the resurrection of Christ, a man may here ask how St. Paul, that conversed not with our Savior before his passion, could know he was risen, to which is easily answered that our Savior himself appeared to him in the way to Damascus, from heaven after his ascension, and chose him for a vessel to bear his name before the Gentiles and kings and children of Israel, and consequently, having seen the Lord after his passion, was a competent witness of his resurrection, and as for Barnabas, he was a disciple before the passion. It is therefore evident that Paul and Barnabas were apostles, and yet chosen and authorized, not by the first apostles alone, but by the Church of Antioch, as Matthias was chosen and authorized by the Church of Jerusalem. Bishop, a word formed in our language out of the Greek Episcopus signifies an overseer, or superintendent of any business, and particularly a pastor or shepherd, and since a metaphor was taken, not only amongst the Jews that were originally shepherds, but also amongst the heathen, to signify the office of a king, or any other ruler, or guide of people, whether he ruled by laws or doctrine, and so the apostles were the first Christian bishops, instituted by Christ himself, in which sense the apostleship of Judas is called his bishopric, Acts chapter 1 verse 20, and afterwards, when there were constituted elders in the Christian churches, with charge to guide Christ's flock by their doctrine and advice, these elders were also called bishops. Timothy was an elder, which word elder in the New Testament is a name of office as well as of age, yet he was also a bishop, and bishops were then content with the title of elders. Me, seeing John himself, the apostle-beloved of our Lord, begin with his second epistle with these words, the elder to the elect lady, by which it is evident that bishop, pastor, elder, doctor, that is to say teacher, were but so many diverse names of the same office in the time of the apostles, for there was then no government by coercion, but only by doctrine and persuading. The kingdom of God was yet to come, in a new world, so that there could be no authority to compel in any church till the commonwealth had embraced the Christian faith, and consequently no diversity of authority, though there were diversity of employments. Besides these magisterial employments in the church, namely apostles, bishops, elders, pastors, and doctors whose calling was to proclaim Christ to the Jews and infidels, and to direct and teach those that believed, we read in the New Testament of no other, for by the names of evangelists and prophets is not signified any office, but several gifts by which several men were profitable to the church, as evangelists by writing the life and acts of our Savior, such as were St. Matthew and St. John apostles and St. Mark and St. Luke disciples, and whoever else wrote of that subject, as St. Thomas and St. Barnabas are said to have done, though the church have not received the books that have gone under their names, and as prophets by the gift of interpreting the Old Testament, and sometimes by declaring their special revelations to the church. For neither these gifts, nor the gifts of languages, nor the gift of casting out devils, nor of curing other diseases, nor anything else did make an officer in the save only the due calling and election to the charge of teaching. As the apostles Matthias, Paul, and Barnabas were not made by our Savior Himself, but were elected by the church, that is by the assembly of Christians, namely Matthias by the church of Jerusalem, and Paul and Barnabas by the church of Antioch. So were also the presbyters and pastors in other cities elected by the churches of those cities. For proof whereof, let us consider first how St. Paul proceeded in the ordination of presbyters in the cities where he had converted men to the Christian faith, immediately after he and Barnabas had received their apostleship. We read that they ordained elders in every church, Acts 14 verse 23, which at first sight may be taken for an argument that they themselves chose and gave them their authority. But if we consider the original text, it will be manifest that they were authorized and chosen by the assembly of the Christians of each city. For the words are karyoton esantes autois presbuteros kat ecclesion, that is when they had ordained them elders by the holding up of hands in every congregation. Now it is well enough known that in all those cities the manner of choosing magistrates and officers was by plurality of suffrages. And because the ordinary way of distinguishing the affirmative votes from the negatives was by holding up of hands to ordain an officer in any of the cities was no more but to bring the people together to elect them by plurality of votes, whether it were by plurality of elevated hands or by plurality of voices or plurality of balls or beans or small stones of which every man cast in one into a vessel marked for the affirmative or negative. For diverse cities had diverse customs in that point. It was therefore the assembly that elected their own elders. The apostles were only presidents of the assembly to call them together for such election and to pronounce them elected and to give them the benediction, which now is called consecration. And for this cause they that were presidents of the assemblies, as in the absence of the apostles, the elders were, were called proestots and in Latin, antistates, which words signify the principal person of the assembly, whose office was to number the votes and to declare thereby who was chosen and where the votes were equal. To decide the matter in questions by adding his own, which is the office of a president in council, and because all the churches had their presbyters ordained in the same manner where the word is constituted, as Inna cata stesis cata polin pres buteros. For this cause left I thee in creed, that thou shouldst constitute elders in every city. Titus chapter one verse five. We are to understand the same thing, namely that he should call the faithful together and ordain them presbyters by plurality of suffragists. It had been a strange thing if in a town where men perhaps had never seen any magistrates otherwise chosen than by an assembly, those in the town becoming Christians should so much as have thought of on any other way of election of their teachers and guides, that is to say, of their presbyters, otherwise called bishops, than this of plurality of suffragists intimated by Saint Paul and the word caroton esantes. Acts chapter 14 verse 23. Nor was there ever any choosing of bishops before the emperors found it necessary to regulate them in order to the keeping of the peace amongst them, but by assemblies of the Christians in every several town. The same is also confirmed by the continual practice even to this day in the election of the bishops of Rome. For if the bishop of any place had the right of choosing another to the succession of the pastoral office in any city, at such time as he went from thence to plant the same in another place, much more had he had the right to appoint his successor in that place in which he last resided and died. And we find not that ever any bishop of Rome appointed his successor. For there were a long time chosen by the people, as we may see by this edition raised about the election between Damasus and Ursinus, which Amianus, Marcellinus, Seath was so great that Juventius, the Prefect, unable to keep the peace between them, was forced to go out of the city, and that there were above a hundred men found dead upon that occasion in the church itself. And though they afterwards were chosen, first by the whole clergy of Rome, and afterwards by the cardinals, yet never any was appointed to the succession by his predecessor. If, therefore, they pretended no right to appoint their own successors, I think I may reasonably conclude they had no right to appoint the successors of other bishops without receiving some new power, which none of them could take from the church to bestow on them, but such as had a lawful authority not only to teach but to command the church, which none could do but the civil sovereign. The word minister, in the original, Diaconos signifies one that voluntary doth the business of another man, and differeth from a servant only in this, that servants are obliged by their condition to what is commanded them, whereas ministers are obliged only by their undertaking, and bound therefore to no more than that they have undertaken, so that both they that teach the word of God, and they that administer the secular prayer of the church, are both ministers, but they are ministers of different persons. For the pastors of the church, called the ministers of the word Acts chapter 6 verse 4 are ministers of Christ, whose word it is, but the ministry of a Deacon, which is called serving of tables, Ibn chapter 6 verse 2, is a service done to the church or congregation, so that neither any one man, nor the whole church, could ever of their pastor say he was their minister, but of a Deacon, whether the charge he undertook were to serve tables, or distribute maintenance to the Christians, when they lived in each city on a common stock, or upon collections, as in the first times, or to take care of the house of prayer, or of the revenue, or otherworldly business of the church, the whole congregation might properly call him their minister. 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, everyone according to his gifts, as St. Stephen did, and both to preach and baptize, as Philip did. For that Philip, which preached the gospel at Samaria, Acts chapter 8 verse 5, and baptized the eunuch, Ibn chapter 8 verse 38, was Philip the Deacon, not Philip the Apostle, for it is manifest that when Philip preached in Samaria, the apostles were at Jerusalem, Ibn chapter 8 verse 1, and when they heard that Samaria had received the word of God, sent Peter and John to them, Ibn chapter 8 verse 14, by imposition of whose hands they that were baptized received, which before by the baptism of Philip they had not received, the Holy Ghost, Ibn chapter 8 verse 15, 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 was 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 Saint Mark saith, 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. Mark chapter 16 verse 17, this to do was it that Philip could not give, but the apostles could and 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 ministers in this age cannot confer, or else there are very few true believers, or Christ hath very few ministers. That the first Deacons were chosen not by the apostles, but by a congregation of the disciples, that is of Christian men of all sorts, is manifest out of Acts 6, where we read that the twelve, after the number of disciples was 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, 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. Chapter 6 verse 3, here it is manifest that though the apostles declared them elected, yet the congregation shows them, which also is more expressly said, where it is written that, the same pleased the whole multitude, and they seven, etc. Ibed chapter 6 verse 5, 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 accepted, which by the subdivision of the tribe of Joseph into Ephraim and Manasseh were still twelve.  Again, the priests for their maintenance had the tenth of that tenth, together with the ablations and sacrifices. For God had said to Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part amongst them. I am thy part, and thine inheritance among the children of Israel. Numbers, chapter 18 verse 20, 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 Claros, which signifies 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 the rejection of God in the demanding of a king, they enjoyed still the same revenue, but the right thereof was deprived from them. 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 slivings were determined by the civil sovereign. Of the maintenance of our Savior 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 Savior sent the twelve apostles to preach, He forbade them to carry gold and silver and brass in their purse. For that the workman is worthy of his hire. Matthew chapter 10, verses 9, 10, by which it is probable their ordinary maintenance was not unsuitable to their employment, for their employment was freely to give because they had freely received. David chapter 10, verse 8, and their maintenance was the free gift of those that believed the good tithing they carried about of the coming of the Messiah their Savior. To which we may add that which was contributed out of gratitude by such as our Savior had healed of diseases of which are mentioned certain women which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and Joanna, the wife of Chusa, Herod Steward, and Susanna, and many others which ministered unto him of their substance. Luke chapter 8, verses 2, 3. After our Savior's ascension the Christians of every city lived in common, 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. Acts chapter 4, verses 34, 35. For whilst the land remained, said St. Peter to Ananias, Was it not thine? And after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Ibn chapter 5, verses 4. Which so with, he needed not to have saved his land, nor his money by lying, as not being bound to contribute anything 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 is yet no mention of tithes, but such was in the time of Constantine and his sons the affection of Christians to their pastors, as Amianas, Marcellinus, Seath, describing this edition of Damasus and Ursinus about the bishopric, that it was worth their contention, and 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 fair and apparel. But here may some ask whether the pastor were then bound to live upon voluntary contribution, as upon alms, for who, Seath St. Paul, goeth to war at his own charges, or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 1 Corinthians chapter 9 verse 7, and again, 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? Ibn chapter 9 verse 13, that is to say, have part of that which is offered at the altar for their maintenance, and then he concluded, 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 among 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 rite of tithes in Moses' law could not be applied to the 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. End of chapter 42 part 3, recording by Jeffrey Edwards. Chapter 42 part 4 of Leviathan. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Jeffrey Edwards. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. Chapter 42 part 4 of Power Ecclesiastical. Hitherto has been shown what the pastors of the church are, what are the points of their commission, as that they are to preach, to teach, to baptize, to be presidents in their several congregations, what is ecclesiastical censure, vis 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 of the church, that it 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 labor 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. 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 18, 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 defense 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 them, 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, there 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 follows 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 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 diverse Christian kings allow the 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 has authority to appoint teachers, it is given him by the sovereign in whose dominions he teaches. Christian doctors are our school masters to Christianity, but kings are fathers of families, and may receive school masters for their subjects from the recommendation of a stranger, but not from the command, especially when the ill teaching them shall be down to the great and manifest prophet 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 with all as they retain any other essential right of the sovereignty. If a man therefore should ask a pastor in the execution of his office, as the chief priests and elders of the people asked our Savior, by what authority dost thou these things, and who gave thee this authority? Matthew chapter 21 verse 23, 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 civilly, but the king and every other sovereign executeeth 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. Dea gratia rex, etc. Bishops ought to say, in the beginning of their mandates, by the favor of the king's majesty, bishop of such a diocese, or as civil ministers, in his majesty's name, for in saying divinia providencia, which is the same with dea gratia, though disguised, they deny to have received their authority from the civil state, and slyly slip off the collar of their civil subjection, contrary to the unity and defense of the commonwealth. 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 surface, 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, require us 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 skillful in the sciences, might, by the same rate of his office, read lectures of them himself, by which he authorizes 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 himself, but sent his apostles and disciples to baptize. John chapter 4 verse 2. So also Saint Paul, by the necessity of preaching in diverse and far distant places, baptized few. Amongst all the Corinthians, he baptized only Chrysippus, Gaius, and Stephanus. First Corinthians chapter 1, verses 14, 16. And the reason was because his principal charge was to preach. Ibbid. Chapter 1 verse 17. Whereby it is manifest that the greater charge, such as is the government of the church, is a dispensation for the less. The reason thereof why Christian kings used 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 authorizing of a king to baptize and consecrate, we may consider thus. Imposition of hands was a most ancient public ceremony among 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, laid his right hand on Ephraim, the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh, the firstborn. Genesis, chapter 48 verse 14. 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 whom he intended the greater blessing. So also, in the sacrificing of the burnt offering, Aaron is commanded to lay his hands on the head of the bullock. Exodus, chapter 29 verse 10. And to lay his hand on the head of the ram. Ibed, chapter 29 verse 15. The same is also said again in Leviticus, chapter 1 verse 4, and chapter 8 verse 14. Likewise, Moses, when he ordained Joshua to be captain of the Israelites, that is, consecrated him to God's service, laid his hands upon him, and gave him his charge. Numbers, chapter 27 verse 23. Designing and rendering certain who it was they were to obey and war. And in the consecration of the Levites, God commanded that the children of Israel should put their hands on the Levites. Ibed, chapter 8 verse 10. And in the condemnation of him that had blasphemed the Lord, God commanded that all that heard him should lay their hands on his head, and that all the congregation should stone him. Leviticus, chapter 24 verse 14. And why should they only that heard him lay their hands upon him, and not rather a priest, Levite, or other minister of justice? But that none else were able to design and demonstrate to the eyes of the congregation who it was that had blasphemed and ought to die. And to design a man, or any other thing, by the hand to the eye is 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 did lift up his hand toward the people when he blessed them. Leviticus, chapter 9 verse 22. 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 was to design any individual thing rather by the hand to assure the eyes than by words to inform the ear in matter of God's public service. This ceremony was not therefore new in our Saviour's time. For Jairus, whose daughter was sick, besought our Saviour not to heal her, but to lay his hands upon her that she might be healed. Mark chapter 5 verse 23.  Matthew chapter 19 verse 13. According to this ancient rite, the apostles and presbyters and the presbytery itself laid hands on them who they ordained pastors, and with all 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 the apostles prayed and laid their hands. Acts chapter 6 verse 6. 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 appeared immediately before. Ibbid chapter 6 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, and laid their hands on them. And they received the Holy Ghost. Ibbid chapter 8 verse 17. And not only an apostle, but a presbyter had this power. For Saint Paul advised Timothy. Lay hands suddenly on no man. 1 Timothy chapter 5 verse 22. That is, design no man rashly to the office of a pastor. The whole presbytery laid their hands on Timothy, as we read. 1 Timothy chapter 4 verse 14. But this is to be understood, as that some did it by the appointment of the presbytery, and most likely their proestos, or prolocutor. Which it may be, was Saint Paul himself. For in his second epistle to Timothy, verse 6 he saith to him, stir up the gift of God, which is in thee, by the laying on of my hands. Acts chapter 9 verse 17, 18. 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 Saint Paul had imposition of hands twice, once from Ananias at Damascus, at the time of his baptism, and again at Antioch, when he was first sent out to preach. Ibed chapter 13 verse 3. 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 truths. 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 that Solomon blessed the people, consecrated the temple, and pronounced that public prayer. First Kings chapter 8, 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. From this consolidation of the right politic and ecclesiastic and Christian sovereigns, it is evident they have all manner of power over their subjects that can be given to a man for the government of men's external actions, both in policy and religion, and we 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 exercises that charge in another's dominion duree civili, in the right of the civil sovereign, not duree 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 over one another they think most convenient. And what titles of honor, as of bishops, archbishops, priests, or presbyters, they will, and make such laws for their maintenance either by tithes or otherwise, as they please, so they 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 contempt. In sum, he hath the supreme power in all causes, as well ecclesiastical, as civil, as far as concern as 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. End of chapter 42 part 4 Recording by Jeffrey Edwards Chapter 42 part 5 of Leviathan This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org Recording by Jeffrey Edwards Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes Chapter 42 part 5 of Power Ecclesiastical 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 Desumo Pontifis, I have thought it necessary as briefly as I can to examine the grounds and strength of his discourse. Of five books he hath written of this subject, the first containeth three questions. One, which is simply the best government, monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, and concludeth for neither, but for a government mixed of all three. Another, which of these is the best government of the church, and concludeth for the mixed, but which should most participate of monarchy? The third, whether in this mixed monarchy St. Peter had the place of monarch. Concerning his first conclusion, I have already sufficiently proved, Chapter 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 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 taught 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 ye 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 school masters 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 commonwealths his power, if ye have any at all, is that of the school master 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 forth his chief argument, the place of St. Matthew. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, etc. 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. Matthew, Chapter 16, Verses 18, 19, which place, well considered, proveeth no more but that the church of Christ hath forefoundation only one article, namely, that which Peter, in the name of all the apostles professing, gave occasion to our Savior to speak the words he recited. Which stat we may clearly understand, we are to consider, that our Savior 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, preaching only this, the kingdom of God is at hand, Ibbid, Chapter 3, Verse 2, then our Savior himself preached the same, Matthew, Chapter 4, Verse 17, and to his twelve apostles, when he gave them their commission, there is no mention of preaching any other article but that. Ibbid, Chapter 10, Verse 7, This was the fundamental article, that is the foundation of the church's faith. Afterwards, the apostles being returned to him, he asked 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's, or one of the prophets. Ibbid, Chapter 16, Verse 13, then he asked them all again, not Peter only, Whom say ye that I am? Ibbid, Chapter 16, Verse 15, Therefore, St. Peter answered for them all, Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God, which I said is the foundation of faith, of the whole church, from which our Savior 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 Savior interpose these words? Thou art Peter. If the original of this text had been rigidly, 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 Petrus. Our Savior, 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 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 and unusual thing in common speech, but it had been a strange and obscure speech if our Savior, intending to build his church on the person of Saint 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, etc. It is no more than what our Savior gave also to all the rest of his disciples. Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. And whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matthew chapter 18 verse 18. 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 Saint Peter, or our Savior 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 Saint Peter to have been the monarch universal of the Church, that is to say, of all the Christians in the world. The second book has two conclusions. One, that Saint 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 Sylvester, but Constantine, who was the first Christian emperor, was that Bishop. And as Constantine, so all other Christian emperors were of right supreme bishops of the Roman Empire. I say of the Roman Empire, not of all Christendom, for other Christian sovereigns had the same right in their several territories, as to an office essentially adherent to their sovereignty, which shall serve for answer to his second book. In the third book, he hand lists the question whether the Pope be Antichrist. For my part, I see no argument that proves he is so. In that sense, the scripture uses the name. Nor will I take any argument from the quality of Antichrist to contradict the authority he exercises, or hath here too far exercised in the dominion 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 reestablish amongst them the kingdom of God, which hadn't 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 Savior, 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 the one calleth the other Antipapa, or the false Pope. And therefore Antichrist, in the proper signification, hath two essential marks, one that he denyeth Jesus to be Christ, and another that he professeth himself to be Christ. The first mark is set down by Saint John, in his first epistle, 4 verse 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 Savior. Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ. Matthew chapter 24 verse 5. And again, 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, o Antichristos, the Antichrist, or Antichrist definitely, as one certain 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 general, but to be he. There is also some mark of the time of this special Antichrist, and when that abominable destroyer spoken of by Daniel, Daniel chapter 9 verse 27, shall stand in the holy place, Matthew chapter 24 verse 15, in such tribulation as was not since the beginning of the world, nor ever shall be again, in so much as if it were to last long, no flesh could be saved, but for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened. Ibed chapter 24 verse 22, made fewer. But that tribulation is not yet come, for it is to be followed immediately 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 Savior in the clouds. Ibed chapter 24 verse 29, and therefore the Antichrist is not yet come, whereas many popes are both come and gone. It is true, the Pope, in taking upon him to give laws to all Christian kings and nations, usurpeth a kingdom in this world, which Christ took not on him, but he doth it not as Christ, but as for Christ, wherein there is nothing of the Antichrist. In the fourth book, to prove the Pope to be the supreme judge in all questions of faith and manners, which is as much as to be the absolute monarch of all Christians in the world, he bringeth three propositions, the first, that his judgments are infallible, the second, that he can make very laws and punish those that observe them not, the third, that our Savior conferred all jurisdiction and ecclesiastical on the Pope of Rome. For the infallibility of his judgments, he alleged the scriptures, the first, that of Luke, chapter 22 verse 31, 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 matters 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 makeeth more against the Pope's authority than this very place.  Hereupon they questioned, which of them it should be, and with all seeing the next Passover, their master should celebrate, should be when he was king, entered into a contention, who should then be the greatest man? Our Savior 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 endeavor 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 Saint Peter, he saith. Simon, Simon, Satan seeks, by suggesting a present domination, to weaken your face of the future. But I have prayed for thee, that thy face 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 Saint 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, Saint 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 Saint 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 Matthew, chapter 16 verse 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, it 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, chapter 21, verses 16 and 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 there too 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 sayeth, I know him that he will command his children, and his house hold after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, and do justice and judgment. Genesis chapter 18 verse 19. The fourth place is that of Exodus, chapter 28 verse 30. Thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim insumim, which he sayeth is interpreted by the Septuagint, Delosin chai ala'thain, that is, evidence and truth. And thence concludeeth, 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 endeavor to inform himself clearly and give judgment uprightly, yet in that it was given to the high priest, it was given to the civil sovereign. For such next under God was the high priest in the commonwealth of Israel, and is an argument for evidence and truth, that is, for the ecclesiastical supremacy of civil sovereigns over their own subjects, against the pretended power of the pope. These are all the texts he bringeth for the infallibility of the judgment of the pope, in point of faith. For the infallibility of his judgment, concerning manners, he bringeth one text, which is that of John, chapter 16 verse 13. When the spirit of truth is come, he will lead you into all truth, where sayeth he, by all truth is meant, at least, all truth necessary to salvation. But with this mitigation, he attributeeth no more infallibility to the pope than to any man that professeth Christianity, and is not to be damned. For if any man air in any point, wherein not to air 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 work man, even then also when he hath formally promised his work to another. Besides the text, he argueeth from reason, thus. If the pope could air 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 show when and where Christ commanded that, or took at all any notice of a pope. Nay, granting whatsoever was given to Saint Peter, was given to the pope, yet seeing there is in the scripture no command to any man to 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 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 the supreme judicature, in controversies of manners, are the same thing, and the makers of civil laws are not only declares, 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 challenges supremacy in controversies of manners, he teaches men to disobey the civil sovereign, which is an erroneous doctrine, contrary to the many precepts of our Savior and his apostles delivered to us in the scripture. To prove the pope has power to make laws, he alleges many places, as first Deuteronomy, chapter 17 verse 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 where unto, 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, etc., which is clearly for the civil sovereign, against the universal power of the pope. Secondly, he alleges that of Matthew, chapter 16. Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc., and interpreteth it for such binding as is attributed to the scribes and Pharisees. They bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders. Matthew, chapter 23 verse 4, by which is meant, he says, making of laws, and concludes thence that the pope can make laws. But this also make us 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, chapter 21 verse 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, whom by his own discretion, chooseth his chaplain, as also a schoolmaster to teach his children. The fourth place, John, chapter 20 verse 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 to tell his apostles when it should come. Acts, chapter 1, verses 6 and 7, 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 meantime, if subjects to obey their princes, and if princes, both to believe in 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 alleged it for. The fifth is Acts, chapter 15, verse 28. It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things that ye abstain from meets offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. Here he notes the word laying of burdens 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 the law is we command, but we think good is the ordinary style of them that but give advice, and they lay a burden that give advice, though it be conditional. That is, if they to whom they give it will attain their ends, and such is the burden of abstaining from things strangled, and from blood not absolute, but in case they will not err. I have shown before, chapter 25, that law is distinguished from counsel in this, that the reason of a law is taken from the design and benefit of him that prescribes 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 endeavor, they shall have their reward, whether they be obeyed or not, and therefore the acts of this counsel are not laws, but counsels. The sixth place is that of Romans, chapter 13. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, which is meant, he sayeth, not only of secular, but also of ecclesiastical princes, to which I answer, first, 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 has told us is impossible, namely to serve two masters. And though the apostles say in another place, I write these things, being absent, thus being present I should use sharpness according to the power which the Lord has given me. Second Corinthians chapter 13 verse 10. It is not that he challenged the 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 publicoon, which in many occasions might be a greater pain to the excommunicant than to the excommunicate. Seventh place is 1 Corinthians chapter 4 verse 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. It is meant by a rod but only the power of excommunication which is not in its own nature of 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 has broken the law but a revenge as upon an enemy or a revolter that denies the right of our Savior to the kingdom. And therefore this proveeth not the legislative power of any bishop that has not also the civil power. In the eighth place is Timothy chapter 3 verse 2. A bishop must be the husband but of one wife vigilant sober etc. Which he saith was a law. I thought that none could make a law in the church but the monarch of the church, Saint Peter. But suppose this precept made by the authority of Saint Peter. Yet I see no reason why to call it a law rather than an advice. Saint Timothy was not a subject but a disciple of Saint 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? Drink no longer water but use a little wine for 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 Timothy chapter 5 verse 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 chapter 10 verse 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 authorizes despiseth the doctrine of Christ which is not that which Bellarmine intended here to prove but the contrary. But all this is nothing to a law. Namor a Christian king a pastor and a teacher of his subjects makes not there by his doctrine's 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 has commanded to obey them. The 11th is every place where the apostle for counsel put a 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 1st Corinthians chapter 11 verse 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 1st Thessalonians 4 verse 2 you know what commandments we gave you where the Greek word is peraglius edocamen equivalent to peridocamen 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 it said in the 8th verse he that despiseth them despiseth not man but God for our savior himself came not to judge that is to be king of this world but to sacrifice himself for sinners and to leave doctors in his church to lead not to drive men to Christ who never accepteth forced actions which is all the law produces but the inward conversion of the heart which is not the work of laws but of counsel and doctrine and that of 2nd Thessalonians 3 verse 14 if any man obey not our words 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 saint paul were also a law they were to obey two masters but the word obey as it is in the greek upakuei signifies harkening 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 saint paul does not bid kill him that disobeys nor beat nor imprison nor immerse 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 among the faithful which the christian student of the last place is that of hebus chapter 13 verse 17 obey your leaders and submit yourselves to them for they watch for your souls as they that must give account 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 saint john who bids us not to believe every spirit but to try spirits whether they are of god because many false prophets are gone out into the world verse john chapter 4 verse 1 it is therefore manifest that we may dispute the doctrine of our pastors but no men can dispute a law the commands of a civil sovereign are on all sides granted to be laws if any else can make a law besides himself all commonwealth and consequently all peace and justice must cease which is contrary to all laws both divine and human nothing therefore can be drawn from these or any other places of scripture to prove the decrees of the pope where he has not also the civil sovereignty to be laws the last point he would prove is this that our savior christ has committed ecclesiastical jurisdiction immediately to none but the pope wherein he handleeth 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 saint paul aphesians chapter 4 verses 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 drives 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 jure 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 immediately 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 end of chapter 42 part 5 recording by jeffrey edwards chapter 42 part 6 of leviathan this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org recording by jeffrey edwards leviathan by thomas hobbs chapter 42 part 6 of power ecclesiastical 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 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 there unto which none can lawfully do but the civil sovereign therefore when he alleges out of the sixth chapter of luke that our savior called his disciples together and chose 12 of them which he named apostles he proved 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 savior 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 numbers chapter 11 where moses not being able alone to undergo the whole burden of administering the affairs of the people of israel God commanded him to choose 70 elders and took part of the spirit of moses to put it upon those 70 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 saint peter is neither monarchy nor have anything of archical nor practical but only of didactical for god accepteth not a forest but a willing obedience the third is from that the sea of saint peter is called by saint 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 pleases the prince of the church which argument if he had proved before that the pope had had a 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 constantanople 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 followed with that all other bishops have their jurisdiction from the sovereigns of the place wherein they exercised 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 sayeth he the pope can do this and has done it this also is granted so he do it in his own dominions or in dominions of any other prince that hath given him that power but not universally in rate 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 nor depose an inferior priest but that power was afterwards in the king as may be proved by the 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 solemn deprived ebiathar the high priest of his office first kings chapter 2 verses 26 27 and play saddock in his room ebid chapter 2 verse 35 kings therefore may in the 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 but he might have alleged with as good reason the testimonies of all the popes almost since saint peter for considering the love of power naturally implanted in mankind whosoever were made pope he would be tempted to uphold the same opinion nevertheless they should therein but do as innocent and leo did bear witness of themselves and therefore their witness should not be good in the fifth book he has four conclusions the first is that the pope is not lord of all the world the second that the pope is not 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 says 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 be think 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 does not challenge it as other civil sovereigns do from the original submission there too of those that are to be governed for it is evident and has already been sufficiently in this treaty 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 it for their common defense 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 denies 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 so ever 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 often as he will for he claimeth also the soul 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 ladron held under pope innocent the third in the third chapter de herectis hath this canon if a king at the pope's admonition do not purge his kingdom of heretics and being excommunicated for the same make not satisfaction within a year his subjects are absolved of their obedience and the practice hereof hath been seen on diverse occasions as in the deposing of childeric king of france in the translation of the roman empire to charlemagne in the oppression of john king of england and 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 holy in their own hands or by holy 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 the 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 has right to command temporal princes and dispose of their temperals 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 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 hath 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 alleged 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 etc 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 that pope to make himself this representant want of three things that our savior hath not given him to command and to judge and to punish otherwise then by excommunication to run from those that will not learn of him for though the pope were christ's only vicar if he cannot exercise his government till our savior second coming and then also it is not the pope but saint peter himself was 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 cohereing to another for want of a common dependence 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 for one's to infer a dependence 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 labored fallacy of the first argument to deceive such men as distinguished 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 forbids 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 need to pose 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 where parents secure himself by war which is in some 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 sayeth 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 savior 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 commissioned 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 has the pope right to determine whether the prince be to be deposed or not deposed to this I answer that both these assertions 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 dunoronomy where god forbideth the jews when they shall set a king over themselves to choose a stranger dunoronomy chapter 17 and from thence in fureth 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 savior when he shall come for his king shall tempt god too much in choosing for king in this world one that he knoweth will endeavor both by terror and persuasion to make him violate his faith but it is sayeth 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 a 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 and arian for this cause only that they wanted temporal forces perhaps so but did our savior who for calling for might have had 12 legions of immortal invulnerable angels to assist him want forces to depose cesar or at least pilot 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 where of 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 anyone whose doctrine is the public doctrine a heretic that authorizes the teaching of an heir and whereas for the temporal power of the pope he alleged further that st paul appointed judges under the heathen princes of those times such as were not ordained by those princes 1 Corinthians chapter 6 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 practiced 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 formally proved is no less supreme pastor of his own subjects than the pope of his the force 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 subjects but they may for all that be the pope's fellows for their 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 word spoken by our savior feed my sheep by which was given all power necessary for a pastor as the power to chase away wolves such as our heretics the power to shut up rams if they be mad or push at the other sheep with their horns such as our evil though christian kings and power to give the flock convenient food from whence he inferred 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 quotas is beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves matthew chapter 7 verse 15 but neither are heretics false prophets or at all prophets nor admitting heretics for the wolves they're 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 council 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 furious rams by which he meaneth christian kings that refuse to submit themselves to the roman pastor our savior 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 bitten to esteem those christians that disobey the church that is that disobey the christian sovereign as heathen men and as publicans seeing then men challenged 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 in furith also a coercive power in the pope over kings the pastor says he must give his flock convenient food therefore 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 everyone 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 jehoida in killing athalia second kings chapter 11 was either by the authority of king joash or it was a horrible crime in the high priest whichever after the election of king saul was a mere subject the fact of saint ambrose in excommunicating theodosius the emperor if it were true he did so was a capital crime and for the popes gregaria the first gregaria the second zachary and leo the third their judgments are void as given in their own cause and acts done by them conformably to this doctrine are the greatest crimes especially that of zachary their incident to human nature and thus much of power ecclesiastical wherein i had been more brief for bearing to examine these arguments of bellarmine if they had been his as a private man and not as a champion of the papacy against all other christian princes and states end of chapter 42 part 6 recording by jeffrey edwards