The first is from Numbers,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 seventy elders,and took part of the spirit of Moses,to put it upon those seventy 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 St.Peter,is neither monarchy,nor hath anything of archical nor cratical,but only of didactical;for God accepteth not a forced,but a willing obedience.
The third is from that the See of St.Peter is called by St.
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 pleaseth 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 Constantinople,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 followeth that all other bishops have their jurisdiction from the sovereigns of the place wherein they exercise 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,"saith he,"the Pope can do this,and has done it."This also is granted,so he do it in his own dominions,or in the dominions of any other prince that hath given him that power;but not universally,in right 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 this 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 Solomon deprived Abiathar the high priest of his office,and placed Zadok in his room.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 St.
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 hath 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:
