The sixth place is that of Romans,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.
The seventh place is I Corinthians,4.21,"Shall I come unto you with a rod,or in love,and the spirit of lenity?"But here again,it is not the power of a magistrate to punish offenders,that is meant by a rod;but 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,or revolter,that denyeth the right of our saviour to the kingdom:and therefore this proveth not the legislative power of any bishop that has not also the civil power.
The eighth place is Timothy,3.2,"A bishop must be the husband but of one wife,vigilant,sober,"etc.,which he saith was a law.Ithought that none could make a law in the Church but the monarch of the Church,St.Peter.But suppose this precept made by the authority of St.Peter;yet I see no reason why to call it a law,rather than an advice,seeing Timothy was not a subject,but a disciple of St.Paul;nor the flock under the charge of Timothy,his subjects in the 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,I Timothy,5.19,"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,10.16,"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,authorizeth despiseth the doctrine of Christ,which is not that which Bellarmine intendeth here to prove,but the contrary.But all this is nothing to a law.Nay more,a Christian king,a pastor and teacher of his subjects makes not thereby his doctrines 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 hath commanded to obey them.
The eleventh is every place where the Apostle,for counsel,putteth 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 I Corinthians,11.2,"I commend you for keeping my precepts as I delivered them to you."The Greek is,"Icommend you for keeping those things I delivered to you,as Idelivered them":which is far from signifying that they were laws,or anything else,but good counsel.And that of I Thessalonians,4.2,"You know what commandments we gave you":where the Greek word is paraggelias edokamen,equivalent to paredokamen,"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 is said in the eighth verse,"he that despiseth them,despiseth not man,but God":for our Saviour himself came not to judge,that is,to be king in this world;but to sacrifice himself for sinners,and leave doctors in his Church,to lead,not to drive men to Christ,who never accepteth forced actions (which is all the law produceth),but the inward conversion of the heart,which is not the work of laws,but of counsel and doctrine.