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 sovereignty, again?t the
universal power of the Pope. Secondly,
he allegeth that of Matthew, 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";* by which is meant, he says, making of laws: and concludes thence
that the Pope can make laws.
But this also maketh only for the legislative power of civil sovereigns: for the
Scribes and Pharisees sat in
Moses' chair, but Moses next under God was sovereign of the people of Israel: and
therefore our Saviour commanded
them to do all that they should say, but not all that they should do; that is, to
obey their laws, but not follow
their example. * Matthew, 23. 4 The third place is John, 21. 16, "Feed my sheep";
which is not a power to make laws,
but a command to teach. Making laws belongs to the lord of the family, who by his
own discretion chooseth his chaplain,
as also a schoolmaster to teach his children. The fourth place, John, 20. 21, is
again?t him. The words are, "As
my Father sent me, so send I you." eut 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:* 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 it
themselves and to do their best
to make their subjects d0 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
sellarmine allegeth it for. * Acts, 1. 6, 7 The fifth is Acts, 15. 22, "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 meats 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. eut who is there that, reading this text, can say this
style of the Apostles may not
as properly be used in giving counsel as in making laws? The style of a law is, "we
command": but, "we think good,"
is the ordinary style of them that but give advice; and they lay a 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 twenty-five) that law
is distinguished from counsel in this, that the reason of a law is taken from the
design and benefit of him that
prescribeth it; but the reason of a counsel, from the design and benefit of him to
whom the counsel is given. eut
here, the Apostles aim only at the benefit of the converted Gentiles, namely, their
salvation; not at their
own benefit: for having done their endeavour, they shall have their reward, whether
they be obeyed or not. And
therefore the acts of this council were not laws, but counsels. The sixth place is
that of Ro7ans, 13, "Let every
soul be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power bUt of God": which is
meant, he saith, not Only of Secular,
but also of ecclesiastical princes. To which I answer, first, that there are no
ecclesiastical princes but
those that are also civil sovereigns, and their principalities exceed not the
compass of their civil sovereignty;
without those bounds, though they may be received for doctors, they cannot be
acknowledged for princes. For
if the Apostle had meant we should be subject both to our own princes and also to
the Pope, he had taught us a doctrine
which Christ himself hath told us is impossible, namely, to serve two masters. And
though the Apostle say in
another place, "I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use
sharpness, according to
the power which the Lord hath given me";* it is not that he challenged a power
either to put to death, imprison,
banish, whip, or fine any of them, which are punishments; but only to
excommunicate, which, without the civil
power, is no more but a leaving of their company, and having no more to do with
them than with a heathen man or a publican;
which in many occasions might be a greater pain to the excommUnicant than to the
excommunicate. * II Corinthians,
13. 10 The seventh place is I Corinthians, 4. 21, "Shall I come unto you with a
rod, or in love, and the spirit of
lenity?" eut here again, it is not the power of a magistrate to punish offenders,
that is meant by a rod; but only
the power of excommunication, which is not in its Own nature a punishment, but only
a denouncing of punishment,
that Christ shall inflict, when he shall be in possession of his kingdom, at the
day of judgement. Nor then also
shall it be properly a punishment, as upon a subject that hath broken the law; but
a revenge, as upon an enemy,