And that of II Thessalonians,3.14,"If any man obey not our word 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 St.Paul were also a law,they were to obey two masters.But the word obey,as it is in the Greek upakouei,signifieth hearkening 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 St.Paul does not bid kill him that disobeys;nor beat,nor imprison,nor amerce 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 amongst the faithful,which the Christians stood in awe of.
The last place is that of Hebrews,13.17,"Obey your leaders,and submit yourselves to them,for they watch for your souls,as they that must give account":and 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 St.John,who bids us "not to believe every spirit,but to try the spirits whether they are of God,because many false prophets are gone out into the world?"It is therefore manifest that we may dispute the doctrine of our pastors,but no man can dispute a law.The commands of civil sovereigns 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 Saviour Christ has committed ecclesiastical jurisdiction immediately to none but the Pope.Wherein he handleth 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 St.Paul,Ephesians,4.11,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 derived 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 mediately 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.
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 de lana caprina: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 thereunto,which none can lawfully do but the civil sovereign.
Therefore when he allegeth,out of the sixth chapter of Luke,that our Saviour called his disciples together,and chose twelve of them,which he named Apostles,he proveth 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 Saviour 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.