presbyters, (otherwise called bishops) than this of plurality of suffrages, intimated by St. Paul (_Acts_ xiv. 23) in the word χειροτονήσαντες. 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 the 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 times as he went from thence to plant the same in another place; much more had he had the right to appoint his successors in that place, in which he last resided and died: and we find not that ever any bishop of Rome appointed his successor. For they were a long time chosen by the people, as we may see by the sedition raised about the election between _Damasus_ and _Ursicinus_; which Ammianus Marcellinus saith was so great, that _Juventius_ the præfect, unable to keep the peace between them, was forced to go out of the city; and that there were above an 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 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.
[Sidenote: Ministers of the Church, what.]
The word _minister_, in the original Διάκονος, signifieth one that voluntarily doth the business of another man; and differeth from a servant only in this, that servants are obliged by their condition, to do 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 affairs of the Church, are both ministers, but they are ministers of different persons. For the pastors of the Church, called (_Acts_ vi. 4) _the ministers of the word_, are ministers of Christ, whose word it is: but the ministry of a deacon, which is called (verse 2 of the same chapter) _serving of tables_, 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 a care of the house of prayer, or of the revenue, or other worldly 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, every one according to his gifts, as St. Stephen did; and both to preach and baptize, as Philip did. For that Philip, which (_Acts_ viii. 5) preached the gospel at Samaria, and (verse 38) baptized the Eunuch, was Philip the deacon, not Philip the apostle. For it is manifest (verse 1) that when Philip preached in Samaria, the apostles were at Jerusalem, and (verse 14) _when they heard that Samaria had received the word of God, sent Peter and John to them_; by imposition of whose hands, they that were baptized (verse 15), received, which before by the baptism of Philip they had not received, the Holy Ghost. For it was necessary for the conferring of the Holy Ghost, that their baptism should be administered or confirmed by a minister of the word, not by a minister of the Church. And therefore to confirm the baptism of those that Philip the deacon had baptized, the apostles sent out of their own number from Jerusalem to Samaria, Peter and John; who conferred on them that before were but baptized, those graces that were signs of the Holy Spirit, which at that time did accompany all true believers; which what they were may be understood by that which St. Mark saith (chap. xvi. 17), _these signs follow them that believe in my name; they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover_.
This to do, was it that Philip could not give; but the apostles could, and, as appears by this place, effectually did to every man that truly believed and was by a minister of Christ himself baptized: which power either Christ’s ministers in this age cannot confer, or else there are very few true believers, or Christ hath very few ministers.
[Sidenote: And how chosen.]
That the first deacons were chosen, not by the apostles, but by a congregation of the disciples, that is, of Christian men of all sorts, is manifest out of _Acts_ vi, where we read that the _Twelve_, after the number of disciples was multiplied, called them together, and having told them, that it was not fit that the apostles should leave the word of God and serve tables, said unto them, (verse 3) _Brethren, look you out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business_. Here it is manifest, that though the apostles declared them elected; yet the congregation chose them; which also (verse 5) is more expressly said, where it is written, that _the saying pleased the whole multitude, and they chose seven, &c._ [Sidenote: Of ecclesiastical revenue, under the law of Moses.]
Under the Old Testament, the tribe of Levi were only capable of the priesthood, and other inferior offices of the Church. The land was divided amongst the other tribes, Levi excepted, which, by the subdivision of the tribe of Joseph into Ephraim and Manasseh, were still twelve. To the tribe of Levi were assigned certain cities for their habitation, with the suburbs for their cattle: but for their portion, they were to have the tenth of the fruits of the land of their brethren.
Again, the priests for their maintenance had the tenth of that tenth, together with part of the oblations and sacrifices. For God had said to Aaron (_Numb._ xviii. 20) _Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land; neither shalt thou have any part amongst them; I am thy part and thine inheritance amongst the children of Israel_. For God being then king, and having constituted the tribe of Levi to be his public ministers, he allowed them for their maintenance the public revenue, that is to say, the part that God had reserved to himself; which were tithes and offerings: and that is it which is meant, where God saith, _I am thine inheritance_. And therefore to the Levites might not unfitly be attributed the name of _clergy_, from κλῆρος, which signifieth lot or inheritance; not that they were heirs of the kingdom of God, more than other; but that God’s inheritance was their maintenance. Now, seeing in this time God himself was their king, and Moses, Aaron, and the succeeding high-priests, were his lieutenants; it is manifest, that the right of tithes and offerings was constituted by the civil power.
After their rejection of God in the demanding of a king, they enjoyed still the same revenue; but the right thereof was derived from that, that the kings did never take it from them: for the public revenue was at the disposing of him that was the public person; and that, till the Captivity, was the king. And again, after the return from the Captivity, they paid their tithes as before to the priest. Hitherto therefore Church livings were determined by the civil sovereign.
[Sidenote: In our Saviour’s time, and after.]
Of the maintenance of our Saviour and his apostles, we read only they had a purse, which was carried by Judas Iscariot; and that of the apostles, such as were fishermen did sometimes use their trade; and that when our Saviour sent the twelve apostles to preach, he forbad them (_Matth._ x. 9, 10): _to carry gold, and silver, and brass in their purses, for that the workman is worthy of his hire_. By which it is probable, their ordinary maintenance was not unsuitable to their employment; for their employment was (verse 8) _freely to give, because they had freely received_; and their maintenance was the _free gift_ of those that believed the good tiding they carried about of the coming of the Messiah their Saviour. To which we may add, that which was contributed out of gratitude by such as our Saviour had healed of diseases; of which are mentioned (_Luke_ viii. 2, 3) _Certain women which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities; Mary Magdalen, out of whom went seven devils; and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance_.
After our Saviour’s ascension, the Christians of every city lived in common (_Acts_ iv. 34,35) upon the money which was made of the sale of their lands and possessions, and laid down at the feet of the apostles, of good will, not of duty; for, _whilst the land remained_, saith St.
Peter to Ananias (_Acts_ v. 4), _was it not thine? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power?_ which sheweth he needed not have saved his land nor his money by lying, as not being bound to contribute any thing at all, unless he had pleased. And as in the time of the apostles, so also all the time downward, till after Constantine the Great, we shall find that the maintenance of the bishops and pastors of the Christian Church was nothing but the voluntary contribution of them that had embraced their doctrine. There was yet no mention of tithes: but such was in the time of Constantine and his sons the affection of Christians to their pastors, as Ammianus Marcellinus saith, describing the sedition of Damasus and Ursicinus about the bishopric, that it was worth their contention, in that the bishops of those times, by the liberality of their flock, and especially of matrons, lived splendidly, were carried in coaches, and were sumptuous in their fare and apparel.
[Sidenote: The ministers of the Gospel lived on the benevolence of their flocks.]
But here may some ask, whether the pastors were then bound to live upon voluntary contribution, as upon alms; _For who_, saith St. Paul (_1 Cor._ ix. 7) _goeth to war at his own charges? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?_ And again, (verse 13) _Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things, live of the things of the temple; and they which wait at the altar, partake with the altar_; that is to say, have part of that which is offered at the altar for their maintenance? And then he concludeth, (verse 14) _Even so hath the Lord appointed, that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel_. From which place may be inferred indeed, that the pastors of the Church ought to be maintained by their flocks; but not that the pastors were to determine, either the quantity, or the kind of their own allowance, and be, as it were, their own carvers. Their allowance must needs therefore be determined, either by the gratitude and liberality of every particular man of their flock, or by the whole congregation. By the whole congregation it could not be, because their acts were then no laws; therefore the maintenance of pastors before emperors and civil sovereigns had made laws to settle it, was nothing but benevolence. They that served at the altar lived on what was offered. So may the pastors also take what is offered them by their flock; but not exact what is not offered. In what court should they sue for it, who had no tribunals? Or, if they had arbitrators amongst themselves, who should execute their judgments, when they had no power to arm their officers? It remaineth, therefore, that there could be no certain maintenance assigned to any pastors of the Church, but by the whole congregation; and then only, when their decrees should have the force, not only of _canons_, but also of _laws_; which laws could not be made, but by emperors, kings, or other civil sovereigns. The right of tithes in Moses’ law, could not be applied to the then ministers of the gospel; because Moses and the high-priests were the civil sovereigns of the people under God, whose kingdom amongst the Jews was present; whereas the kingdom of God by Christ is yet to come.
Hitherto hath been shewn what the pastors of the Church are; what are the points of their commission, as that they were to preach, to teach, to baptize, to be presidents in their several congregations; what is ecclesiastical censure, viz. excommunication, that is to say, in those places where Christianity was forbidden by the civil laws, a putting of themselves out of the company of the excommunicate, and where Christianity was by the civil law commanded, a putting the excommunicate out of the congregations of Christians; who elected the pastors and ministers of the Church, that it was the congregation; who consecrated and blessed them, that it was the pastor; what was their due revenue, that it was none but their own possessions, and their own labour, and the voluntary contributions of devout and grateful Christians. We are to consider now, what office in the Church those persons have, who being civil sovereigns, have embraced also the Christian faith.
[Sidenote: That the civil sovereign, being a Christian, hath the right of appointing pastors.]
And first, we are to remember, that the right of judging what doctrines are fit for peace, and to be taught the subjects, is in all commonwealths inseparably annexed, as hath been already proved (chapter XVIII.), to the sovereign power civil, whether it be in one man, or in one assembly of men. For it is evident to the meanest capacity, that men’s actions are derived from the opinions they have of the good or evil, which from those actions redound unto themselves; and consequently, men that are once possessed of an opinion, that their obedience to the sovereign power will be more hurtful to them than their disobedience, will disobey the laws, and thereby overthrow the commonwealth, and introduce confusion and civil war; for the avoiding whereof, all civil government was ordained. And therefore in all commonwealths of the heathen, the sovereigns have had the name of pastors of the people, because there was no subject that could lawfully teach the people, but by their permission and authority.
This right of the heathen kings cannot be thought taken from them by their conversion to the faith of Christ; who never ordained that kings, for believing in him, should be deposed, that is, subjected to any but himself, or, which is all one, be deprived of the power necessary for the conservation of peace amongst their subjects, and for their defence against foreign enemies. And therefore Christian kings are still the supreme pastors of their people, and have power to ordain what pastors they please, to teach the Church, that is, to teach the people committed to their charge.
Again, let the right of choosing them be, as before the conversion of kings, in the Church; for so it was in the time of the apostles themselves, as hath been shown already in this chapter; even so also the right will be in the civil sovereign, Christian. For in that he is a Christian, he allows the teaching; and in that he is the sovereign, which is as much as to say, the Church by representation, the teachers he elects are elected by the Church. And when an assembly of Christians choose their pastor in a Christian commonwealth, it is the sovereign that electeth him, because it is done by his authority; in the same manner, as when a town choose their mayor, it is the act of him that hath the sovereign power: for every act done, is the act of him, without whose consent it is invalid. And therefore whatsoever examples may be drawn out of history, concerning the election of pastors by the people, or by the clergy, they are no arguments against the right of any civil sovereign, because they that elected them did it by his authority.
Seeing then in every Christian commonwealth, the civil sovereign is the supreme pastor, to whose charge the whole flock of his subjects is committed, and consequently that it is by his authority that all other pastors are made, and have power to teach, and perform all other pastoral offices; it followeth also, that it is from the civil sovereign that all other pastors derive their right of teaching, preaching, and other functions pertaining to that office, and that they are but his ministers; in the same manner as the magistrates of towns, judges in courts of justice, and commanders of armies, are all but ministers of him that is the magistrate of the whole commonwealth, judge of all causes, and commander of the whole militia, which is always the civil sovereign. And the reason hereof, is not because they that teach, but because they that are to learn, are his subjects. For let it be supposed, that a Christian king commit the authority of ordaining pastors in his dominions to another king, as divers Christian kings allow that power to the Pope; he doth not thereby constitute a pastor over himself, nor a sovereign pastor over his people; for that were to deprive himself of the civil power; which, depending on the opinion men have of their duty to him and the fear they have of punishment in another world, would depend also on the skill and loyalty of doctors, who are no less subject, not only to ambition, but also to ignorance, than any other sort of men. So that where a stranger hath authority to appoint teachers, it is given him by the sovereign in whose dominions he teacheth. Christian doctors are our schoolmasters to Christianity; but kings are fathers of families, and may receive schoolmasters for their subjects from the recommendation of a stranger, but not from the command; especially when the ill teaching them shall redound to the great and manifest profit of him that recommends them: nor can they be obliged to retain them, longer than it is for the public good; the care of which they stand so long charged withal, as they retain any other essential right of the sovereignty.
[Sidenote: The pastoral authority of sovereigns only is _jure divino_; that of other pastors is _jure civili_.]
If a man therefore should ask a pastor, in the execution of his office, as the chief-priests and elders of the people (_Matth._ xxi. 23) asked our Saviour, _By what authority doest thou these things, and who gave thee this authority?_ he can make no other just answer, but that he doth it by the authority of the commonwealth, given him by the king, or assembly that representeth it. All pastors, except the supreme, execute their charges in the right, that is by the authority of the civil sovereign, that is, _jure civili_. But the king, and every other sovereign, executeth his office of supreme pastor by immediate authority from God, that is to say, in _God’s right_ or _jure divino_. And therefore none but kings can put into their titles a mark of their submission to God only, _Dei gratiâ rex_, &c. Bishops ought to say in the beginning of their mandates, _By the favour of the King’s Majesty, bishop of such a diocese_; or as civil ministers, _in His Majesty’s name_. For in saying, _Divinâ providentiâ_, which is the same with _Dei gratiâ_, though disguised, they deny to have received their authority from the civil state; and slily slip off the collar of their civil subjection, contrary to the unity and defence of the commonwealth.
[Sidenote: Christian kings have power to execute all manner of pastoral function.]
But if every Christian sovereign be the supreme pastor of his own subjects, it seemeth that he hath also the authority, not only to preach, which perhaps no man will deny, but also to baptize and to administer the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper: and to consecrate both temples and pastors to God’s service; which most men deny; partly because they use not to do it, and partly because the administration of sacraments, and consecration of persons and places to holy uses, requireth the imposition of such men’s hands, as by the like imposition successively from the time of the apostles have been ordained to the like ministry. For proof therefore that Christian kings have power to baptize, and to consecrate, I am to render a reason, both why they use not to do it, and how, without the ordinary ceremony of imposition of hands, they are made capable of doing it when they will.
There is no doubt but any king, in case he were skilful in the sciences, might by the same right of his office read lectures of them himself, by which he authorizeth others to read them in the universities.
Nevertheless, because the care of the sum of the business of the commonwealth taketh up his whole time, it were not convenient for him to apply himself in person to that particular. A king may also, if he please, sit in judgment to hear and determine all manner of causes, as well as give others authority to do it in his name; but that the charge, that lieth upon him of command and government, constrain him to be continually at the helm, and to commit the ministerial offices to others under him. In the like manner our Saviour, who surely had power to baptize, baptized none (_John_ iv. 2) himself, but sent his apostles and disciples to baptize. So also St. Paul, by the necessity of preaching in divers and far distant places, baptized few: amongst all the Corinthians he baptized only (_1 Cor._ i. 14, 16,) Crispus, Gaius, and Stephanas; and the reason was, (_1 Cor._ i. 17) because his principal charge was to preach. Whereby it is manifest, that the greater charge, such as is the government of the Church, is a dispensation for the less. The reason therefore why Christian kings use not to baptize, is evident, and the same for which at this day there are few baptized by bishops, and by the Pope fewer.
And as concerning imposition of hands, whether it be needful for the authorising of a king to baptize and consecrate, we may consider thus: Imposition of hands, was a most ancient public ceremony amongst the Jews, by which was designed, and made certain, the person, or other thing intended in a man’s prayer, blessing, sacrifice, consecration, condemnation, or other speech. So Jacob, in blessing the children of Joseph (_Gen._ xlviii. 14), _Laid his right hand on Ephraim the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh the first born_; and this he did _wittingly_ (though they were so presented to him by Joseph, as he was forced in doing it to stretch out his arms across) to design to whom he intended the greater blessing. So also in the sacrificing of the burnt offering, Aaron is commanded (_Exod._ xxix. 10) _to lay his hands on the head of the bullock_: and (verse 15) _to lay his hand on the head of the ram_. The same is also said again _Levit._ i. 4, and viii. 14. Likewise Moses, when he ordained Joshua to be captain of the Israelites, that is, consecrated him to God’s service, (_Numb._ xxvii. 23) _Laid his hands upon him, and gave him his charge_, designing and rendering certain, who it was they were to obey in war. And in the consecration of the Levites (_Numb._ viii. 10), God commanded that _the children of Israel should put their hands upon the Levites_. And in the condemnation of him that had blasphemed the Lord (_Levit._ xxiv. 14), God commanded that _all that heard him should lay their hands on his head, and that all the congregation should stone him_. And why should they only that heard him, lay their hands upon him, and not rather a priest, Levite, or other minister of justice, but that none else were able to design and to demonstrate to the eyes of the congregation, who it was that had blasphemed and ought to die? And to design a man or any other thing, by the hand to the eye, is less subject to mistake, than when it is done to the ear by a name.
And so much was this ceremony observed, that in blessing the whole congregation at once, which cannot be done by laying on of hands, yet Aaron (_Levit._ ix. 22) _did lift up his hands toward the people when he blessed them_. And we read also of the like ceremony of consecration of temples amongst the heathen, as that the priest laid his hands on some post of the temple, all the while he was uttering the words of consecration. So natural it is to design any individual thing, rather by the hand, to assure the eyes, than by words to inform the ear, in matters of God’s public service.
This ceremony was not therefore new in our Saviour’s time. For Jairus (_Mark_ v. 23), whose daughter was sick, besought our Saviour, not to heal her, but _to lay his hands upon her that she might be healed_. And (_Matthew_ xix. 13) _they brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray_.
According to this ancient rite, the apostles, and presbyters, and the presbytery itself, laid hands on them whom they ordained pastors, and withal prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost; and that not only once, but sometimes oftener, when a new occasion was presented: but the end was still the same, namely a punctual and religious designation of the person, ordained either to the pastoral charge in general, or to a particular mission. So (_Acts_ vi. 6) _The apostles prayed, and laid their hands_ on the seven deacons; which was done, not to give them the Holy Ghost, (for they were full of the Holy Ghost before they were chosen, as appeareth immediately before, verse 3) but to design them to that office. And after Philip the deacon had converted certain persons in Samaria, Peter and John went down (_Acts_ viii. 17), _and laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost_. And not only an apostle, but a presbyter had this power: for St. Paul adviseth Timothy (_1 Tim._ v. 22) _Lay hands suddenly on no man_; that is, design no man rashly to the office of a pastor. The whole presbytery laid their hands on Timothy, as we read _1 Tim._ iv. 14: but this is to be understood, as that some did it by the appointment of the presbytery, and most likely their προεστὼς, or prolocutor, which it may be was St.
Paul himself. For in his second Epistle to _Timothy_, (chap. i. 6) he saith to him, _Stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the laying on of my hands_: where note by the way, that by the Holy Ghost, is not meant the third person in the Trinity, but the gifts necessary to the pastoral office. We read also, that St. Paul had imposition of hands twice; once from Ananias at Damascus, (_Acts_ ix. 17, 18) at the time of his baptism; and again (_Acts_ xiii. 3) at Antioch, when he was first sent out to preach. The use then of this ceremony, considered in the ordination of pastors, was to design the person to whom they gave such power. But if there had been then any Christian, that had had the power of teaching before; the baptizing of him, that is, the making him a Christian, had given him no new power, but had only caused him to preach true doctrine, that is, to use his power aright; and therefore the imposition of hands had been unnecessary; baptism itself had been sufficient. But every sovereign, before Christianity, had the power of teaching, and ordaining teachers; and therefore Christianity gave them no new right, but only directed them in the way of teaching truth; and consequently they needed no imposition of hands, besides that which is done in baptism, to authorize them to exercise any part of the pastoral function, as namely, to baptize and consecrate. And in the Old Testament, though the priest only had right to consecrate, during the time that the sovereignty was in the high-priest; yet it was not so when the sovereignty was in the king. For we read (_1 Kings_ viii.) that Solomon blessed the people, consecrated the Temple, and pronounced that public prayer which is the pattern now for consecration of all Christian churches and chapels: whereby it appears, he had not only the right of ecclesiastical government, but also of exercising ecclesiastical functions.
[Sidenote: The civil sovereign, if a Christian, is head of the Church in his own dominions.]
From this consolidation of the right politic and ecclesiastic in Christian sovereigns, it is evident, they have all manner of power over their subjects, that can be given to man, for the government of men’s external actions, both in policy and religion; and may make such laws as themselves shall judge fittest, for the government of their own subjects, both as they are the commonwealth, and as they are the Church; for both State and Church are the same men.
If they please, therefore, they may, as many Christian kings now do, commit the government of their subjects in matters of religion to the Pope; but then the Pope is in that point subordinate to them, and exerciseth that charge in another’s dominion _jure civili_, in the right of the civil sovereign; not _jure divino_, in God’s right; and may therefore be discharged of that office, when the sovereign, for the good of his subjects, shall think it necessary. They may also, if they please, commit the care of religion to one supreme pastor, or to an assembly of pastors; and give them what power over the Church, or one over another, they think most convenient; and what titles of honour, as of archbishops, bishops, priests, or presbyters, they will; and make such laws for their maintenance, either by tithes or otherwise, as they please, so they do it out of a sincere conscience, of which God only is the judge. It is the civil sovereign that is to appoint judges and interpreters of the canonical Scriptures; for it is he that maketh them laws. It is he also that giveth strength to excommunications; which but for such laws and punishments, as may humble obstinate libertines, and reduce them to union with the rest of the Church, would be contemned. In sum, he hath the supreme power in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil, as far as concerneth actions and words, for those only are known and may be accused; and of that which cannot be accused, there is no judge at all but God, that knoweth the heart. And these rights are incident to all sovereigns, whether monarchs or assemblies: for they that are the representants of a Christian people, are representants of the Church: for a Church, and a commonwealth of Christian people, are the same thing.
[Sidenote: Cardinal Bellarmine’s books, _De Summo Pontifice_ considered.]
Though this that I have here said, and in other places of this book, seem clear enough for the asserting of the supreme ecclesiastical power to Christian sovereigns; yet because the Pope of Rome’s challenge to that power universally, hath been maintained chiefly, and I think, as strongly as is possible, by Cardinal Bellarmine, in his controversy _De Summo Pontifice_; I have thought it necessary, as briefly as I can, to examine the grounds and strength of his discourse.
[Sidenote: The first book.]
Of five books he hath written of this subject, the first containeth three questions: one, which is simply the best government, _Monarchy_, _Aristocracy_, or _Democracy_; and concludeth for neither, but for a government mixed of all three: another, which of these is the best government of the Church; and concludeth for the mixed, but which should most participate of monarchy: the third, whether in this mixed monarchy, St. Peter had the place of monarch. Concerning his first conclusion, I have already sufficiently proved (chapter XVIII.) that all governments which men are bound to obey, are simple and absolute. In monarchy there is but one man supreme; and all other men that have any kind of power in the state, have it by his commission, during his pleasure, and execute it in his name: and in aristocracy and democracy, but one supreme assembly, with the same power that in monarchy belongeth to the monarch, which is not a mixed, but an absolute sovereignty. And of the three sorts, which is the best, is not to be disputed, where any one of them is already established; but the present ought always to be preferred, maintained, and accounted best; because it is against both the law of nature, and the divine positive law, to do anything tending to the subversion thereof. Besides, it maketh nothing to the power of any pastor, unless he have the civil sovereignty, what kind of government is the best; because their calling is not to govern men by commandment, but to teach them, and persuade them by arguments, and leave it to them to consider whether they shall embrace, or reject the doctrine taught. For monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, do mark out unto us three sorts of sovereigns, not of pastors; or, as we may say, three sorts of masters of families, not three sorts of schoolmasters for their children.
And therefore the second conclusion, concerning the best form of government of the Church, is nothing to the question of the Pope’s power without his own dominions. For in all other commonwealths his power, if he have any at all, is that of the schoolmaster only, and not of the master of the family.
For the third conclusion, which is, that St. Peter was monarch of the Church, he bringeth for his chief argument the place of St. Matthew (chap. xvi. 18, 19) _Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, &c. And I will give thee the keys of heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven._ Which place, well considered, proveth no more, but that the Church of Christ hath for foundation one only article; namely, that which Peter in the name of all the apostles professing, gave occasion to our Saviour to speak the words here cited. Which that we may clearly understand, we are to consider, that our Saviour preached by himself, by John the Baptist, and by his apostles, nothing but this article of faith, _that he was the Christ_; all other articles requiring faith no otherwise, than as founded on that. John began first, (_Matth._ iii. 2) preaching only this, _the kingdom of God is at hand_. Then our Saviour himself (_Matth._ iv. 17) preached the same: and to his twelve apostles, when he gave them their commission, (_Matth._ x. 7), there is no mention of preaching any other article but that. This was the fundamental article, that is the foundation of the Church’s faith. Afterwards the apostles being returned to him, he (_Matth._ xvi. 13) asketh them all, not Peter only, _who men said he was_; and they answered, that _some said he was John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the Prophets_. Then (verse 15) he asked them all again, not Peter only, _whom say ye that I am?_ Therefore St. Peter answered for them all, _Thou art Christ, the