Violent but having to do with a Prince both Resolute and Prudent he found but bad success The Pope perswades the King to an expedition into the Holy Land to promote vvhich business He exacts the Tithes of Church Livings in France and reserves the Collation of all Benefices there to himself The King excuses the one and plainly denies the other The hot Pope sends the Bishop of Apamea to threaten him with Censures and Deposition unless he yielded to him The King calls the States and upon Consultation with them resolves the Legat deserv'd to be imprisoned but for reverence to the See Apostolic banishes him and for his Threats contemns them The Legat not content to scape scot-free falls a new to Threats which the King resenting commits him to custody to the Metropolitan The Pope complains of the breach of Ecclesiastical Immunity and commands his Legat should be immediately return'd These Letters being read in an Assembly of the States the Count of Arras as hot every jot as the Pope throws them into the fire This put the Pope quite out of patience Wherefore he Cites both King and Bishops to Rome where he had appointed a Synod and in the mean time declares the Kingdom of France for Contumacy Felony and Violating the Law of Nations devolved to the Apostolic See writing thus peremptorily to the King We would have you to know that you are subject to us both in Spirituals and Temporals and who thinks otherwise we repute Heretics The King upon the receipt of these Letters calls the States again and by their Advice frames an Answer every jot as smart and something more homely We would have your foolishness know we are subject to none in Temporals and who thinks otherwise we take for mad men And withal appeals to a future General Councel and objects several Crimes to the Pope to be made good when the Councel should sit and in the mean time forbids all intercourse vvith Rome This Answer being brought to Rome by three Bishops deputed for that purpose the Pope began to be startled and at last confesses That to usurp the Kings Jurisdiction belonged not to him nevertheless that in respect of Sin the King could not deny but he was subject to the Pope This put them to examine how far and in what manner he was subject to him and one of the Cardinals in a Consistory in which the French Embassadours were present resolves the case in this manner That Supream Dominion belong'd properly to the Pope but the Administration to Kings and therefore all Christian Kings vvere subject to the judgment of the Pope even in Temporals in regard of his Supream Dominion But this satisfi'd not the Embassadours at Rome and the States in France resuming the Debate declar'd positively the King in Temporals vvas subject to God alone and ow'd his Crown and Power only to him Nevertheless this Subjection on the account of Sin seems to be the ground of the distinction betwixt Direct and Indirect Power though I conceive it borrowed from Innocent the IVth some time before upon occasion of a Contest betwixt John King of England and Philip Augustus of France vvho prosecuting the King of England for default of Homage for some Dukedoms in France c. King John appeals to the Pope Philip maintained that being a Temporal business he had nothing to do vvith it The Pope was vvilling to favour the English and therefore assumes cognisance of the Cause upon pretence that there was an Oath in the case the violation of vvhich being Sin belong'd properly to his Tribunal And this Resolution having been put into a Decree and that Decree into the Canon-Law seems the principal foundation of Indirect Power I must confess I do not well understand how either this Canon which is in the Decretals C. Novit Ille de Judiciis or the other C. per Venerabilem Qui filii sint legitimi which are the two usually cited both of Innocent III. make to the purpose The former was made upon the occasion now mentioned and in it the Pope speaks thus We intend not to Judge of the Fee whereof the cognisance belongs to him the King but to decree of the Sin whereof the Censure without doubt pertains to us which we may and ought to exercise on every one None of sound Judgment is ignorant that it belongs to our Office to correct every Christian for any mortal Sin and if he despise Correction to constrain him by Ecclesiastical punishment c. Where the Pope saies Correct the Gloss adds Indirectly which single word and that not explicated is the main Authority for the distinction of Direct and Indirect Power now in question The other Canon per Venerabilem was made upon this occasion Philip Augustus of France had put away his Wife and taken as I remember the Countess of Anjou and had Children by her These Children at his request the Pope Legitimates while the suit yet depended of the validity of his former Marriage For the King alledged it was invalid But as the Example of Kings is apt to be follow'd Some body leaves his Wife too and has Children by another Woman and then sollicites the Pope to Legitimate them as he had done the King's The Pope refuses to yield his Request but withal owns a Power to have granted it if he had found it reasonable and proves it by several Arguments and amongst other passages has these words We exercise temporal Jurisdiction not only in the Patrimony of the Church where we have full power in Temporals but in other Countries also casually upon inspection of certain Causes These certain Causes the Gloss interprets to be when He is required Now both these Cases seem to me far enough from the inferring the Deposing Power which was not at all in question but Legitimation in the one and Cognisance of a Temporal business in the other And though the Pope assume both yet he is very sollicitous to prove they are within his Sphere as both may be and yet nothing follow in behalf of his Indirect disposing For he may Legitimate Children in order to Spiritual capacities and leave them in the same condition in which they were before as to Inheritance and other Temporal concerns Again He may Judge of Sin and punish it in his own Court with Spiritual punishments and let Temporal punishments alone to whom they belong the Temporal Magistrate And since he expresly limits himself to Ecclesiastical punishments methinks it is to strain Logic a little to far to infer out of them a right to Punish by Deposition However in my opinion this difference in the manner of Explicating this Power sometimes Casualiter sometimes Indirecte sometimes Ratione peccati which differ sufficiently though they Cite the Authorities indifferently as if they were all one is a sign they were at first not very cleer in this business in Explicating which they hit it no better Notwithstanding the Indirect Power has at last got the Vogue and most
Bellarmin or Calvin or if there be any of a more glorious sound is no more to me then his reason and at the hazard of being thought blunt or rash or over-weening I must needs avow to you I am for the what 's said and care little for who said it If every body were of my humor I mainly suspect this Indirect Power which makes so much ado would have long since appeared neither better nor worse then direct non-sense Pray let us consider it a little The Question is Whether there be in the Pope an Indirect Power to depose Kings He that would know whether this be true or no should do well in my opinion to take along with him what it means 'T is a Circumstance I must confess which is oft forgot and that forgetfulness I believe is the cause we find so much blind mans Buff in Books But yet for once it will not be amiss to remember it And because every body knows what Pope and Power means likewise what 't is to Depose and what a King is there is only this Indirect which needs unridling Now we often hear of Indirect dealing and Indirect courses in the world and 't is hard if people do not know what they mean Indeed we are apt when we hear these words to apprehend something shameful or bad because there is generally something shameful joyned with them fair ends being ordinarily fairly pursued But yet shameful is not the notion of Indirect For a good and commendable thing may be brought to pass Indirectly and if it be bad the badness is one thing and Indirectness another The Merchant who met with Pirats in the dusk of the evening when they could not discover his weakness and frighted them off by a counterfeit confidence hanging out his lights all night sav'd his Ship indirectly or by indirect means when direct fighting or flying had lost it And the Owner I suppose did not think this Indirectness blameable A Nuncio of a certain place is reported to have publisht an Excommunication thought unjust by the persons concern'd they had no power to take off this Excommunication themselves or command the Nuncio to do it Wherefore they took an indirect course and set Guards upon the Nuncio's House and suffered no Victuals to be brought in till he thought it better to recal his Excommunication then starve These men too compast their end indirectly yet commendably supposing the Excommunication was indeed unjust When David caused Vriah to be slain the action was both indirect and wicked but yet for several respects 'T was wicked because it was the death of an innocent man but indirect because he did not himself kill him or command him to be kill'd but ordered that out of which his death followed Wherefore when we say a thing is done indirectly we mean as I conceive that something is done which we would or could not do by immediately endeavouring the thing it self but which follows from some other thing we do And Indirect signifies not directed immediately to that thing in respect whereof 't is called Indirect but to some other out of which what happens whether by design or chance we say happens indirectly Now if this be the meaning of Indirect I am something at a loss how it can with propriety be apply'd to Power For Power seems as direct to every effect as to any Neither do I perceive how it can be directed otherwise than by being determined When a man of the many things he can do resolves upon one the power he has becomes by that resolution determined or directed to that one which he chuses what other direction there can be of power occurs not to me at present But if Indirect apply'd to Power signifie undetermin'd there is plainly no room for the distinction of Direct and Indirect For every Power is undetermin'd till it become determined and when it is determined it is direct or directed to that thing to which it is determined neither can there be such a thing as Indirect Power from which any thing can follow for nothing can follow from a power undetermined and Power from which nothing can follow is not Power And the truth is we do not give the name of Power to that which goes indirectly to work Not but that the intended effect may follow but we call it not Power in relation to such an effect We do not nor can with truth say a King has power to take away the lives of innocent Subjects although he may as David did Vriah command them something by which their Death may happen The Merchant ow'd his safety not to power but stratagem and luck And those who starv'd the Nuncio had no power to take off the Excommunication on the contrary 't was their want of power which made them act as they did So that I suspect those who first joyn'd these two words Indirect and Power together did not much amuse themselves with considering the import of them Indirect seeming a kind of Destroying or as they call it Alienating Term and making the Power to be not-Power Wherefore I believe 't is Action or Effect which is with propriety call'd Indirect not Power But yet because it matters not so we understand one another what words we use Power to an Indirect effect may with sence be called Indirect power So a Prince who to recover or preserve his right has direct power to make war may be said to have indirect power over his Subjects lives which must be hazarded in the war In this manner Indirect Power is intelligible and signifies Power to something out of which follows another thing which would not follow immediately from the Power it self This other thing may either be intended as the Death of Vriah or not intended as when one is slain in war whom the Prince is sorry to loose And from this Intention comes Wickedness or Innocence not Indirectness which proceeds only from this that the effect flows not immediately from the power but is joyn'd to something which does But now Indirect Power is become intelligible let him make it intelligible that can how the Deposing Power said to be in the Pope should be Indirect If he can command Deposition and must be obey'd when he commands and the Prince depos'd by force of that command his Power is as direct as Power can be For when the Pope says I Depose I pray what is it which he commands I understand he commands Deposition it self and not another thing out of which he expects Deposition should follow Again when his command as the luck on 't is it seldom does proves effectual and a King is deposed pray in vertue of what is he Deposed I understand 't is in vertue of that command Now because that Power is direct which immediately commands an effect which follows from that Command or Power there neither is nor can be any Indirectness found here but in the very notion of Direct So that I told you 't
there was exactness enough to take notice of single pence the Crown sure could not pass by unregarded If any man fancy want of fidelity in our Historians might possibly suppress so ungrateful a Truth let him produce those more faithful Forreigners who have recorded it But considering the Zeal of those times and mighty opinion they had of Rome when the greatest Kings frequently became Pilgrims and sometimes left their Kingdoms wholly and became Monks there the suspicion lyes on the other side it being more rational to fancy an amplification than suppression of things to their advantage However such an Alms as a Kingdom could not but make a noise loud enough to reach even our ears and had the Romescot charity been extended to the Regalities we must have heard of it as well as of private houses By the way I am not ignorant what Comments have been made on that Alms but I think it not convenient to lose time in confuting them 'T is to give them more credit than they deserve for he enhances the value of Trifles who treats them like things of moment The memory of passages since the Heptarchy is too fresh and too minute to leave place for suspicion that a matter of such moment should scape unobserved And besides there is among the Works of Lanfranc a Letter of William the Conquerour to Pope Gregory VII which puts the matter out of doubt That Pope had the confidence to demand of that King an acknowledgment of subjection Fidelitatem or Fealty as the phrase runs I know not upon what ground For though I have read somewhere that the Conquerour to gain the Pope to his side when he attempted the enterprize promis'd in case of success to hold the Kingdom of the Pope Ep. Lanfranc VII yet it appears by the Kings answer that he was mistaken who said so Fidelitatem facere nolui nec volo says the King quia nec ego promisi nec Antecessores meos Antecessoribus tuis id fecisse comperio So that till the Conquest England was free and that it became subject since sure no body will imagin The first Kings of the Norman race were men of too great spirits and contested with the Pope about matters of less importance too warmly to be suspected of giving away their Kingdoms He that reflects what bustles there were about Investitures in the dayes of Henry I. and Immunities of the Church in the dayes of Henry II. will find it neither likely nor possible the greatest rights of the Crown should be thrown away while Princes were so tenacious of the less It is true that both these Kings yielded at last to the Pope but with a condescendence so far from any sign of subjection that there was more of appearance than substance in the first case and a great deal of caution in the second no subjection nor shew of any in either The Contrast between Henry I. and the Pope was about Investitures the King desirous to continue the custom of ratifying the election of Bishops and Abbots by delivering a Ring and Staff to the Elect and the Pope resolv'd to break it The conclusion was that the Ceremony should no more be used but so that the King should chuse or cause to be chosen the person and receive homage from him that was chosen Investituram Annuli Baculi indulsit in perpetuum retento tamen electionis regalium privilegio says Will. Malmsbury Upon the same terms In Hen. 1. lib. 5. a few years after the same difference was compounded with the Emperour in which if I understand any thing the same expedient was then used which is generally observed since To preserve reputation and Appearance to the Pope and substance to Princes For while They had the chief influence in elections and none could be promoted but by their interposition the rest was a Ceremony which might without any great prejudice be left off Again when the persons Elect were by homage to acknowledg themselves Subjects to their Princes they had as much as they desir'd Indeed till this point was yielded by the Pope for it was a while stifly stood upon no agreement could be made But after Peace soon followed The quarrel of Henry II. was about the Customs of Clarendon in which the chief point was that of Appeals This point the Pope gain'd of the King yet with this caution that the Appellant should give security to attempt nothing to the prejudice of King or Kingdom It was now a time if ever for the Popes supreme Lordship to appear He was in the humour of asserting at least all that belong'd to him The World was incens'd against the King for the foulness of the late murther and ready to take the Popes part The King found it necessary to buy his peace even at the rate of pretensions very dear to him and for which he had long and earnestly contended Had the Pope been supreme Lord he would hardly have scaped so good cheap Murther and Sacriledge might have cost him the whole Kingdom For feudatory Lands are forfeited by great crimes However this supreme Dominion must needs have appeared in the transaction The King was not in case to refuse any thing due to the Pope who yielded up what till then he thought not due and besides the tenor of the agreement must have been quite different and drawn in terms us'd betwixt Vassals and Lords But instead of an acknowledgment of this nature all the disadvantage the King had in treating could not prevail with him to acknowledg the Pope so much as Pope longer than the Pope should acknowledg and treat him as King So that by the favour of the Cardinals Acts this King left the Crown as free as he found it nor can the King be yet found out on whom the suspicion should fall of having made it subject If I am not much mistaken the Popes in those daies were of a judgment very different from that which Baronius has taken up in ours For how can the conceit of a Vassalage in the time of this King consist with what hapned a little after in the reign of K. John Neither could K. John make England tributary if it were so before neither could the Pope desire he should Besides disobedience in a Vassal and what is more stubborn contrasting with a supream Lord especially when that supream Lord is the Pope would sure have been thought as great a crime as refusing an Archbishop made without his privity and against his will Why was not this laid to the Kings charge and called Rebellion When the severity of the proceedings against him perhaps needed all the colour which could be laid on Without all doubt the Pope when he had the King at his mercy would never have been contented with the bare acknowledgment of subjection if he had known subjection was due before He had prosecuted the King to the utmost extremity Interdicted the Kingdom excommunicated his Person and at last deposed and
say that whatever out of the strength of his wit He alledges on the other side yet this Charter is no more valid in his judgment than in other folks And I do not mean that 't is become now invalid by the force of Prescription for this he has sufficiently declared but that it was originally and always invalid Truly I am mistaken if this may not be concluded from what he says elsewhere when dis-engaged from the desire of making good his Argument he frankly discovers his true sentiments Pag. 239. considering an observation made in a former Letter on the particular Fact of the Emperour Frederick he replies That whether supreme Princes may put it into a Forreigners power to compel them to cession by a direct deprivation of their Right of Government is a case which he thinks none will easily grant to be either Just or Secure for the Common-wealth for which they were concern'd I conceive that when K. John resign'd his Kingdom and receiv'd it again to hold of the Pope as principal Lord to whom he became a Vassal He put it into the power of a Forreigner to compel him not only by Ecclesiastical Censures but by a direct deprivation of his Right of Government And this he declares to be Unjust and Unsafe for the Commonwealth King John then even in his own opinion did unjustly and against the good of the Commonwealth that is had not Right to do what he did and his Act was invalid from the beginning I suppose therefore He will acknowledg on second thoughts that there are other ways to bound the actions of supreme Princes besides Compacts and Concessions and that Justice and the Safety of the Commonwealth are two of those ways in which other Princes were obliged to walk as well as K. John and if they did not their Actions are not to be drawn into example I will hope the Question is resolved to satisfaction For I know no fairer nor surer way to end a difference than to put it to Judgment And since 't is judged on my side by an Authority from which there lyes no appeal and by those who one would expect should be most partial on the other Those who contriv'd the Deed and Him who urges it Of the Popes Temporal Monarchy I should think there is no more to be desir'd If any mans curiosity reach further he may find wherewith to satisfie it in those who have already handled this Subject particularly the learned Crakanthrop But to touch briefly what is more largely treated elsewhere the Charter contradicts and destroys it self reserving in one place what it grants in another There is in it an express saving of the Rights given away by this clause Salvis nobis Haeredibus nostris Justitiis Libertatibus Regalibus nostris Nothing can be more manifest than that the Independency of the Crown belongs to the Regalia and again that subjection is opposite to Liberty And yet the Regalia and Liberty are expresly reserv'd at the same time when the Crown is made Dependent and Subject This is just I give you a hundred pound which hundred pound I keep to my self Which is an unvalid and self-destructive Act and passes nothing and is in truth a piece of Non-sence not a Gift Again that the Regalia Imperii are Inalienabilia without consent of the Subjects is a point setled by a consent so unanimous of all Nations that there is no Maxim more known 'T is very troublesome and more idle to fill paper with Quotations for a point better known than the Author to be quoted This too is a receiv'd Maxim that Metus cadens in virum constantem nuls the Act extorted by fear of which besides a hundred examples in all nations some even of Popes themselves who upon that ground have voided their own Acts the Pope to whom this Grant was made has left a very pregnant instance in the case of this very King The Barons a little after obtained the Magna Charta from him confirmed by all the security they could devise The Pope solemnly declares all proceedings void because extorted by fear But it is most evident that K. John had no greater cause of fear when he past the Magna Charta than he had when he signed the Charter to the Pope Pandulph brought him to it by exaggerating his imminent danger the French with a vast Army ready to land backt with the Ecclesiastical power of the Clergy and Arms of the Laity whereof many of the principal were said to have oblig'd themselves by authentick Charters to assist the French The King yielded confusus valde mente nimis perturbatus videns undique sibi periculum imminere in the words of M. Paris Could there be more fear from the Barons alone than from the same Barons and French and Pope too Or could his fear in one case make his Act void and signify nothing in the other So that there is this very good reason to believe that the Pope himself to whom the Kingdom was granted judged the Grant nul because he declared an Act of the same King nul by a less fear than that which extorted his Grant This too was understood by those who drew the Charter and inserted this other clause Non vi inducti nec Timore coacti sed nostra bona spontaneaque voluntate By which it is apparent that there was more than one clause contrary to Truth and that more was requisite to the validity of the Act even in the judgment of the Contrivers than could be had Which is that the Act was invalid as wanting what themselves thought necessary to make it valid By this and much more alledged by divers the Nullity of that Grant of K. John appears I think very undeniably supposing in him all the Right which can be supposed in any King of England But by our Authors favour what he takes for granted that K. John had undoubted Kight to the Crown at the passing of this act is very far from undoubted A Sister of Arthur's was then living and long after in whom the Right of Arthur could not but be When K. John by his success at Mirabel got Arthur into his hands he made use of the opportunity of his victory to seize likewise upon his Sister Elianor whom he brought into England and confin'd to Bristol Castle There was another and I think an elder Sister but what became of her I know not In likelyhood she died before these times But this Lady surviv'd her Uncle The Pope mentions her among those who had right to the Crown to the Embassadors of Lewis M. Paris ad an 1216. who sought to justify their Masters title to England and the French objected against her what if it have any force in their Law has none in ours For it is a plain case that the elder line takes place of the younger in the inheritance of the Crown and no act or forfeiture of K. John could bar the right of
Vicar I understand now the reason St. Peter commands Christians to be obedient to the Authority of Heathen Princes and Governours because he knew very well how they came by it For though all their power before was usurp'd and tyrannical yet after they had deriv'd it from him it became a lawful Authority If our wicked Politicians be not confounded with this I know not what will do it I am sure I am to meet with such stuff in a Church which boasts of purity of her doctrine and which cherishes the Authors not only as good Christians but learned men and Masters of Christianity Lael Zecch Tract Theol. P. 81. Laelius Zecchius tells us that the Pope by the Law of God hath power and temporal dominion over the whole world That the same is prov'd by the words Luk. 22. Behold here are two swords which signifie the power spiritual and temporal and because Christ whose Vicar the Pope is hath both powers according to the words Matt. ult All power is given me in heaven and in earth that thence it may be deduced that the Pope is absolutely Lord of all the Christian world and Kings and Christian Princes are to acknowledge that they hold of him their Empires and Kingdoms and all that are faithful ought to be subject unto him and that as oft as such Princes do any great hurt in the Church the Pope may deprive them of their Kingdoms and transfer their right to others Franciscus Bozius Fran. Boz de temp Eccle. Monarch l. 1. c. 3. p. 52. C. 7. p. 98. That the supreme temporal Jurisdiction throughout all the world doth belong to S. Peter's Successors so as one and the same is the Hierarch and Monarch in all things That Christ left the Church to be govern'd by the best form of government but the best form of government is absolute Monarchy even in all temporal things therefore Christ left his Church to be so govern'd That the Keys of Heaven were given to Peter L. 2. c. 14. L. 3. c. 1. p. 894. therefore of all the earth That the right of dominion and relation of Infidels may justly by the sentence and ordination of the Church be taken away because Infidels by reason of their infidelity deserve to lose their power over the faithful C. 14. p. 530. c. 14. p. 530. That the Church hath receiv'd that power over Nations which Christ according to his humane nature reciev'd of his Father but Christ receiv'd absolutely of his Father all power in temporalibus therefore the Church likewise receiv'd it by participation of his fulness c. 16. p. 537. That the supreme coactive power in all temporal things belongeth to Ecclesiastical persons by divine Law revealed and expressed in the Scriptures That Kings P. 676. annointed with holy Oil are called as Vassals of the Church That by reason of the supreme Monarchy in all things L. 5. p. 823. temporal laws may be made and Kingdoms taken away for just causes Henricus Gandavensis if Carrerius cite him truly Car. p. 28. That by the Law of God and nature the Priesthood doth over-top the Empire and both Jurisdiction over Spiritualties and Temporalties and the immediate execution likewise of them both depend upon the Priesthood both by the Law of God and Nature Carr. p. 130. Antoninus That they who say the Pope hath dominion over all the world in Spirituals but not in Temporals are like the Counsellors of the King of Syria who said the Gods of the Mountains are their Gods and therefore they have overcome 〈◊〉 let us fight with them in the Plains and Valleys where their Gods dwell not and we shall prevail against them Carr. p. 130. 3 Reg. 20. Augustinus Triumphus That the Son of God hath declar'd the altitude of the Ecclesiastical power being as it were founded upon a Rock to be above all principality and power that unto it all knees should bend of things in heaven in earth and under the earth or in hell 'T is come at last this infernal power 't was only long of a bad memory we had it not before P. 131. That Secular Powers were not necessary but that Princes might perform that through terror of discipline which the Priest cannot effect by power of doctrine and that therefore if the Church could punish evil men Imperial and Secular principality were not necessary the same being included potentially in the principality Apostolical And why cannot the Church punish evil men if both Jurisdictions and the immediate execution of both be in her But we understand him well enough when time serves the conclusion shall be that Princes are unnecessary because the Church by her double power can do the business of the world without them And so farewel useless Princes Aug. de Anc. de Potest Ecc. Q. 39. a. 2. Farther he tells us that Imperial or Regal power is borrowed from the Papal or Sacerdotal for as much as concerneth the formality of dignity and recieving the authority Pretty formalities those Q. 45. a. 2. That the Pope hath Jurisdiction over all things as will temporal as spiritual through the world That he may absolve Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance Q. 46. a. 3. That upon just cause he may set up a King in every Kingdom L. Conr. in templ om judic l. 2 c. 1. S 4. for he is the Overseer of all Kingdoms in Gods stead as God is the Supervisor and maker of all Kingdoms Lancecelot Conradus That He may appoint Guardians and Assistants to Kings and Emperors when they are insufficient and unfit for government That he may depose them and transfer their Empires and Dominions from one line to another Celsus Mancinus Cel. Manc l c. 1. That in the highest Bishop both the Powers and Jurisdictions are spiritual and temporal and that as he is the most eminent person of all men in spiritual power Th. Boz de jur stat l. 1. c. 6. p. 37. P. 52. so he is in temporal Thomas Bozius That Kings and principal Seculars are not immediately of God but by the Interposition of Holy Church and her chief Bishops That warlike and military compulsive power is given to the Church over Kings and Princes That if it be found sometimes that certain Emperors have given some temporalities to the highest Bishops as Constantine gave to Silvester this is not to be understood that they gave any thing which was their own but restor'd that which was unjustly and tyrannically taken from the said Bishops Ap. Carrer P. 132. Rodoricus Sancius That there is one Principlity and one supreme-Prince over all the world who is Christ's Vicar according to that of Dan. c 8. He hath given him power and honour and rule and all people and tongues shall serve him and that in him therefore is the fountain and spring of all principality and from him all other powers do flow P. 131. 132 That
should be Catholick enough sure and never boggle at any thing should be offer'd me But to leave Jeasting let me tell you though I know not how you will relish the Complement you write so well that you must needs write again I may possibly hereafter give you more trouble upon this Subject when these fluttering Fancies of mine are setled into a steady Judgement I know not how satisfactory your Answer may prove when I have fully examin'd it If it do not I reserve my self the liberty to tell you so and in the mean time conceive you could not chuse a more useful Argument then this of the Popes power He was a man famous for wisdom who E. Salisbury Treatise of mitigation p. 20. as I find cited in one of your own Authors was long troubled that some clear explication of the Papal Authority had not hitherto been made by some publick or definitive Sentente and this both that those Princes who acknowledge it may be secure from the fear and suspicions of continual Treasons and Attempts of Assasins and those Princes who do not acknowledge it and yet desire to think favourably of their Subjects may certainly know how far they may rely upon their fidelity in temporal matters who differ from them in what concerns their Conscience Consider besides what confusion what Wars and Bloodshed we find in History upon the contests betwixt the Spiritual and Temporal Power People distracted betwixt the fear of making Shipwrack of their Faith or their Fortunes know not how to avoid either Heresy on the one side or Rebellion on the other If the World were once well inform'd of the just bounds of those two Powers and knew wherein they consisted and how far they extended such contests would either not happen or if they did People would readily know which part to take However it be pray satisfie me at least in this particulars The sâ—â—â—stance of your Answer consists in this that the Doctrines I objected belong not to your Faith or Church But does not this belong to your Faith That the Pope is the Vicar of Christ upon Earth I think you would not take him for a Catholick who should deny it Now if Christ gave to the Pope the Power he had himself since He without doubt had all both Spiritual and Temporal Power how can you avoid being oblig'd and that by an Article of your Faith to acknowledge that the Pope likewise has all manner of Power and may justly and lawfully do all those things which your Letter calls the exorbitant fancies of private men This Friend exceeds the bounds of probable opinions and intrenches strongly on your Faith Wherefore you shall not deny either my friendship or importunity an Answer to it But answer so if possibly you can that these doubts or umbrages or what you perhaps may find a better name for then I can give a reason of may trouble me no longer Will you permit me to deal plainly with you I suspect you have said more then you are allow'd to say and more then I should be allow'd to hold if I were of your Communion The Jews ware not more zealous to make Proselytes then you are and what know I but you may have a design upon me and say more what you think may induce me to think favourably of your Religion then what your Religion gives you warrant to say Let me therefore intreat you to say nothing but what a good Catholick may unreprovably say and what I may be secure shall not be he disallow'd by your Church And since I can promise you no other fruit of your labour for I do not think you hope in earnest to make a Proselyte of me accept the assurance I give you that you shall at least firmly bind to your Service Yours c. FRIEND YOU know the power of your friendship over me and you make use of it For ought I see mine is just the case of handsome-handed Tom Fool whom that praise betray'd to so much labour that he complain'd his dexterity had almost cripled him Pray God my easiness or your importunity give me not one day more cause of complaint then he had But since you will not be deny'd 't is best to obey you without more a do For your unquietness I could laugh at it if its deeper root did not give me too much cause of grief As sincere as you are you are prejudic'd Friend and this unquitness of yours is the strugling betwixt reason which you plainly see and a passion so secret that 't is hid even from your self which hinders you from entertaining freely what you see Not but that I know your candour well and am enough perswaded you are not conscious of opposing reason wilfully and would be your Compurgator of sin against the Holy Ghost But thus it happens Ever since the change of Religion and the bad attempts of some Catholicks in the days of Queen Elizabeth heightned by the horrid Powder Treason it has been perhaps the direction of the State however the employment of Pulpits to give bad impressions of Catholicks and their Religion And this has been done so long and so universally and so vehemently that since you find the effect of it I may reasonably judge there is none who has not his share and who has not found an Idea of Catholicks more according to what they have been represented then what they are As the Nature and circumstances of men are different and some are fram'd to a sweet uprightness others to an unwayward crosness Again some converse much with good Catholicks some with bad ones some with none and who have no other knowledge of them but as they hear of strange animals in Afric or the Indies so men are differently affected towards them But I believe there is none who has not more or less of the bad Idea so much endeavour'd to be fixt upon them and that no hearty Protestant can hear things said to the advantage of Catholicks or their Religion without that unquietness at least which you find in your self It were to be wisht and perhaps expected from the Charity of Pulpits that the example of that wise and merciful King against whom that Treason was plotted might have been followed and the Innocent distinguisht from the Guilty But whatever might or should have been we see what is done and you find the effect in your self whereof that you may not think reason the cause consider a little that while we pass generally for ignorant stupid people led blindly into all the follies to which our blinder Guides our Priests conduct us you object craft and subtlety to me Reason Friend is more uniform and more of a piece and objects not so crosly For what you say of our Jewish zeal of gaining Proselytes I must avow to you I am of St. Pauls mind and wish non tantum se sed etiam omnes qui audiunt hodie fieri tales qualis ego sum exceptis vinculis
nor governed as Worldly Kingdomes are by Treasuries and Officers and Armies To omit that a Kingdom of this World though received and governed another way then usually Kingdomes are is still a Kingdome of this World for the World is the World let it be governed how 't wil this seems to me to say that the Kingdom of Christ is no Temporal Kingdom For temporal Kingdoms can not subsist nor go on without such things and he that says his Kingdom had them not says plainly his Kingdom was such a Kingdom which needed none of those things Which in other words I think is to say it was not a Temporal Kingdom Again say they the Kingdom of Christ is therefore said not to be of this world because at that time most worldly Kingdomes were got by injustice and governed by wicked and idolatrous Laws and such the Kingdom of Christ was not But pray the Kingdomes now a days establisht with Justice and governed with equity are they not Kingdomes of this World Or did Constantine forfeit his worldly Empire by abolishing those Idolatrous Laws and making better in their places Strange Interpretors of Scripture Who would make worldly Kingdoms inconsistent with vertue and Kings cease to be Kings when they turn good men and most deserve to be so Besides if the world were divided into Kingdomes however unjustly got and wickedly governed t' was yet divided into Kingdomes and what Room was then left for Christ Would they have him a King and give him no Kingdome or a Kingdom no where Farther what can be said why he did not establish his just Kingdom in the place of those wicked ones and take so much injustice out of the World I think nothing but only this that his Kingdom was of another nature made to take away injustice from all Dominion from none I say nothing of the impertinence of alledging injustice in the beginning of Empires a position which would shake the Foundations of the most setled Governments and leave few Princes secure of their Titles A third answer is that his Kingdom is not of this World because not onely of this World but of Heaven and Earth and all Creatures as if this World and more were not this World Besides it mistakes the question too which is not of the extent of his Power to which every Body knows that every thing is subject but of the manner whether besides the omnipotence of his divine nature and the spiritual Regality of his humane there were in him a Temporal power and he were appointed by his Father as Saul to judge the People and go before them 1 Reg. 21.8 and fight their battles This is what the Scripture tells us People expect from their Kings and who speaks not to this speaks not to the question Farther they say that Christs Kingdom is not of this world because worldly Kingdomes are over Bodies his over Souls worldly Kingdomes require obedience to a Temporal Prince his knowledge of and obedience to the Prince of Heaven worldly Kingdomes are extinguisht by death or War c. his is perpetual and immortal c. And this is to say as plain as can be said that 't is spiritual and not temporal For Temporal Kingdoms are over Bodies and if Christs Kingdom be only over Souls 't is not temporal again 't is not temporal if it can not be extinguisht for no temporal thing is immortal Farther to contra-distinguish the temporal Prince from the Prince of Heaven is directly to yield the question and change sides That prejudice should be so strange a blindness and men think to answer by saying the very same with their Adversaries To that of the division of the Inheritance they answer that what Christ refus'd was to be made Arbitrator betwixt the two Brethren But besides that to understand the place of Arbitration seems a little violent for Arbitration requires the Consent of both Parties and there appears nothing but the complaint of one against the injustice of the other His answer imports that medling with Inheritances was a thing with which he had nothing to do and that whether he thought fit or no to become an Arbitrator temporal Matters belonged not to him Again they say his signify'd he was no Ordinary Judge whose Duty and Obligation it was to determine civil Controversies but that his Jurisdiction was Voluntary and Arbitrary And if this be not to say he was not a temporal King I understand nothing for a temporal King is oblig'd by his Office to do Justice and determine civil Controversies and his power is not Voluntary and Arbitrary but Coactive and Obligatory Thirdly They answer that Christ meant his judicial power was not by humane concession as if he could not have done the business as well by Authority from Heaven as from Earth and had not been that way more empowered and more oblig'd to perform his duty Fourthly That Christ came not into the World to judge temporal things though he had full power so to do which is just what the other side says that he was not sent or empower'd by his Father for that purpose though as God he might do what he pleas'd What a pleasant folly this unresolvedness to maintain a thing is which makes people bring for answer the very position they oppose Lastly He is said to have refus'd dividing the Inheritance because Division is the work of the Devil Division of hearts indeed is so but division of possessions is a work of peace and a necessary means to Union of hearts 't is a command from God and a duty in Kings This is chiefly what is said on both sides you will judge as you see cause I for my part believe none better acquainted with the truth then Christ himself and I mean to take his word and believe his Kingdom is not of this World and I care not who knows it If I mistake his meaning and that the Kingdom which he says is not of this World prove yet to be a worldly Kingdom I shall at least have the comfort to err in very good Company and good Company you know is a thing I love sufficiently St. Cyril of Alexan. speaking of the Hyacinth in the Mytre of Aaron The Hyacinth says he De ador in spir l. 11. signifies Heaven remember therefore Christ saying my Kingdom is not of this World for Christ is not an Earthly but a Heavenly King and has all creatures under his feet St. John Chrysostom Christ says he Hom. 87. in Mat. acknowledges himself a King but a Heavenly King ' which elsewhere answering Pilate he says more clearly my Kingdom is not of this World And in another place Hom. 39. in 1 Cor. 15. Stripture knows two Kingdoms one of Adoption and Familiarity another of Creation by the Law of Making and Creating he is King of all Jews Pagans Devils Adversaries by familiarity and care he is King of the Faithful and those who willingly commit and subject themselves to him
true English man will not easily be induc'd to swerve from a Doctrine delivered him so Authentically by his famous Ancestours I hope by this time your Curiosity is at an end I am sure my patience is for I am quite tired with talking so long of a matter which seems to me to afford little more advantage than to know which of those Authors who treat this Subject is the best Schollar and talks most rationally For as I said before the Church has no waies interpos'd in the business and possibly it is a thing not very proper for her to meddle with She has receiv'd from Christ and delivers to us That Obedience to our Princes is commanded by God and to be performed not only for Fear but for Conscience And this being agreed by all and acknowledged for unquestioned and unquestionable Truth The rest of the speculations may serve for entertainment of those who delight in them and for the rest seem of little concern till people speculate themselves into opposition to that so certain and so certainly known Doctrine and then they turn not only bad Schollars but bad men if they see what they do however dangerous and as such are to be treated For my part I cannot guess what use you would make of this Immediate Power of which you are so curious unless perhaps you think the security of Kings not sufficiently provided for without it and that they may otherwise be oblig'd to render an account of their actions not only to God but to those by whose mediation they have receiv'd their Power and so a principal and necessary Prerogative taken from them But this is so positively and expresly setled by unquestionable Authority that 't is very needless and rather prejudicial to have recourse to a ground which some question when the thing it self is so unanimously agreed that none questions it Witness S. Cyril Alex. in Joan. L. 12. C. 56. None offend the laws of Kings without punishment but Kings themselves in whom this crime of prevarication has no place for it was wisely said that he is an impious man who saies to the King You do wickedly S. Ambrose Apolog. David c. 10. To Thee only have I sinned for he was a King subject himself to no Laws because Kings are free from the bonds of delinquency For no Laws punish them who are safe by the power of their Empire and he sinned not to Man to whom he was not accountable And Cap. 4. They who are subject to Laws dare to deny their sin and scorn to ask pardon which he ask'd who was subject to no humane Laws Again L. 2. Ep. 7. For supported by his regal dignity as Lord of the Laws he was not guilty to the Law he was accountable to God alone because he is Lord of Power Again upon Psal 118. Serm. 16. He who had not man to fear saies I have sinned to Thee alone c. A King though he have Laws in his power and may sin without punishment is nevertheless subject to God S. Hierom Ep. 46. ad Rustic I was a King and feared no other man for he had no other above him V. Bede upon Psal 50. To Thee alone have I sinned For a King if he sin sins only to God for none else shall punish him for his sin Agapet ad Justinian in Paraenet Impose upon your self a necessity to keep the Laws since you have not on earth who may correct you Isidor Hispal Sent. L. 3. C. 50. People that sin fear the Judge and are by the Laws restrained from their own harm Kings unless they be restrain'd by the only fear of God and Hell run headlong on and from the precipice of Licentious liberty fall into all sorts of Vice Arnob. in Psal 50. Whoever lives under the Law when he offends sins against God and also against the Laws of the World But this King being under none but God alone and only fearing him above his own power sinned to God alone Didymus Cat. Aurea in Psal 50. As he was a King he was not subject to humane Laws wherefore he sinned not against them who made the Laws nor committed this evil against any of them but as to his Regal dignity if he would be Vertuous he was subject to the Divine Law and therefore sinned to God alone Lactantius de Justit L. 5. C. 24. Let not bad Princes and unjust Persecutors who scorn and scoff at the Name of God think they shall scape without Punishment for they shall be punisht by the Judgment of God He commands us patiently to expect that day of Divine Judgment in which he will honour or punish every one according to his deserts Gregory of Tours L. 5. Hist c. 17. If any of us O King will stray from the path of Justice he may be punisht by you But if you leave it your self who shall reprehend you We speak to you and if you please you hear us if you will not who shall condemn you but He who has declar'd himself to be Justice Hincmarus apud Bochell Decret Eccles Gallic L. 2. Tit. 16. c. 2. goes farther and I know not whether not too far Wise men say this Prince is subject to the Laws and Judgment of none but God who made him King in that Kingdom which his Father allotted him And if he will for this or any other cause he may at his pleasure go to the Synod and if he will not he may freely dismiss it And as he ought not whatever he do be excommunicated by his own Bishops so by other Bishops he cannot be judged since he ought be subject to the principality of God alone by whom alone he could be placed in his own principality For my part I cannot agree to the denyal of the power of Excommunicating in Bishops and yet St. Austin is cited Gloss in 13. Math. to say That the multitude is not to be Excommunicated nor the Prince of the people Euthimius in Psal 50. Being a King and having you alone for Judge of the sins I commit I seem to have sinn'd to you alone that is I am subject to you alone as my Judge of all the rest I my self am Lord and in respect of my power it seems I may do whatever I list Haymo in Psal 50. I have sinned to Thee alone because being a King none is to punish my sin but you alone St. Thomas 1 2. Q. 96. Art 5. making this Conclusion That all are subject to the Laws and this Objection from the Law That the Prince is free from the Law Answers That the Prince is free from the Law for as much as concerns the Co-active power because none can pronounce sentence of Condemnation against him Wherefore the Gloss upon Psal 50. saies That the King has no man who can judge his actions But is subject to the Law as to the directive power by his own proper will c. And so without doubt good Princes are and will observe what themselves command
the Fire burns de Facto but only warms de Jure That Bellarmin is a great Scholler de Facto but de Jure none at all I know I speak impertinently but I meant to do so and yet think I speak as pertinently as he who saies Duty is only duty de Facto but de Jure not duty He might ee'n as well have made use of his Indirect here too and said the Pope was subject only Indirectly but was not subject Directly or contrariwise for 't is all one Young Sophisters sometimes when they are put to it and know not how to shift off an Argument find something or other which sounds like a distinction no matter what it signifies and whether any thing or nothing so it serve turn for the present And I doubt he remembred the trick a little too long But Subjection to Princes being prov'd by Examples and Commands This is the Reserve for Examples when they are ill-natur'd and will not be turn'd off otherwise For Commands there is another common place which now 't is known is nothing but he was a very subtle man lure that first discovered it It consists in distinguishing the same man into a Prince and a not-Prince and then interpreting all obedience we find commanded belongs to the Prince only the not-Prince has no share in it This distinction because it is indeed a little hard they attribute to the Omnipotent power of the Pope and say that the Prince till he be deposed is a Prince but afterwards no Prince and because it still falls short for the man governs and lives like a Prince still they etch it out with its fellow distinction and say he is no Prince de Jure though he be de Facto And now bring 'em as many and as plain places for obedience as you will 't is the easiest thing in the world to get cleer of them Bring Scripture bring Fathers that a Prince is to be obey'd True say they while he is a Prince but now he is no longer a Prince Princes in my opinion have hard luck to stand in the Popes way and become the first sad examples of his Omnipotence otherwise there is no Law of God or Man which may not be overturn'd as easily by the same engine For he may as soon and as well declare That Wife to be no Wife That Man to be no Man and make Adultery and Murther lawful as that King to be no King and make Rebellion innocent There would not want as likely pretences for the one as the other if people would but look after them For Example A Man is a rational Creature who acts unreasonably disclaims his nature and may be dispatch't without contradicting the Divine Law which forbids men to be kill'd while they are men but he by the Popes declaration is no man As much may be found out for the Wife as much for Estates as much for every thing For there neither is nor can be any stronger title to any thing then the Law of God and that the King has to his Kingdom and if that will not do nothing will This is just Montalto Sin but enough and you trapan the Devil and become vertuous even by being wicked To refuse obedience to a King is with them a crime and a crime which deserves damnation marry to un-Un-king him and deny there is any obedience due to him is an innocent thing As if taking his Power quite away were not a greater disobedience then to resist it A particular disobedience may have a particular and sometimes excusable cause but a general disobedience such as leaves them no longer any Power to command is of all disobedience the greatest most inexcusable in it self and most contrary to the Divine Law And yet he would perswade us we sin if we obey not a particular perhaps trifling Command but if we take away Power and all we are very honest men Whereas in truth when I disobey a Power which I acknowledge perhaps I wrong my self most for I do not my duty but when I no longer acknowledge my Princes Power I do him as well as my self the greatest wrong I can and yet this greatest wrong with Bellarmine is no wrong These are the healing Distinctions which Bellarmine applies to his Doctrine and by which the sound Deposing is to be distinguisht from the unsound Deposing If you find any such soveraign vertue in them I shall be glad to learn it But for our part we think Deposing an uncurable disease a poyson for which there is no Antidote Disguise it how you will while it remains Deposing 't is alike intolerable alike inconsistent wâ—th the safety of Princes and duty of Subjects Call the Power indirect call it in Temporals not temporal as long as 't is Power and can do the feat no honest ear can hear it Tell us of admonition and space of repentance tell us of Synods and Consistories of disposing the prey according to Justice of not feigning necessities tell us what you will while you tell us Deposing is good Doctrine we cannot believe you good Subjects Bring a thousand Schoolmen and ten thousand subtilties against them all we will stand by our honest Parliament Doctrine That the Crown of England is and alwayes has been free and subject immediately to God and none other and who refuses his Fellowship in that Doctrine I know not with what face he can pretend to a Fellowship in any thing else But the truth is I do not see that Bellarmine with all his art does so much as guild the bitter Pill or make it a jot less nauseous For what is the very worst the Canonists say Take their opinion in his own expressions and he says all they say and in terms as positive and as comprehensive Take Carerius or whoever is the highest flyer among those I sent you at first and the worst is but this That the Pope has jurisdiction over all things both spiritual and temporal throughout the world that he may absolve Subjects from the Oath of Allegeance Depose Kings and transfer their Dominions from one line to another And which of this worst does Bellarmine with his proper Distinctions and cautious Buts deny 'T is true they call his Power Direct and Bellarmine Indirect but what matter is it how they are called if one can do as much as the other And I would fain know what they can do with their Direct which be cannot with his Indirect 'T is true they make but one absolute Monarch of the world and all the rest but arbitrary Lieutenants and Bellarmine cals them true Kings but makes them as much subject as if they were but Lieutenants Were Kings perswaded once it were their duty to resign at the Popes command they would themselves make no difficulty to call and think him their supreme Lord. 'T is only in consideration of the scurvy consequence which would follow viz. that being supreme and absolute Lord he might dispose of his own as he
of the Canonists opinion which made you disclaim it but because that wickedness came clad in sence and people could understand it But the same wickedness disguis'd in non-sence is a Darling So that your Pique was not to the wicked but the sence make it but non-sensical enough and let it be never so wicked you are for it I bar Sophistry too and unintelligible Subtleties Let your Schollers keep their riddle me riddle me to themselves I shall understand the Talmud as soon as what you call Terms of Art meaning I suppose the Art of keeping things from being understood The Art of talking so that no body shall know whether you say I or No. But I understand what 't is to Command and Obey And to bring the whole to a short plain Issue I ask If it should happen the Pope should command you to disobey your King and the King command you to disobey the Pope by whom will you stand And I expect an Answer as plain as my Question I declare too because I will not turn our dispute into a controversie of Religion nor meddle with the Popes Spiritual power that I mean only of Temporal commands of such commands wherein you have no reason nor doubt but you ought obey the King but only because the Pope commands the contrary Give me a direct Answer to this for I tell you I bar Indirects and the business is done If you will obey your King you are an honest man and have disclaim'd Bellarmin as well as the Canonists If the Pope you must make out if you can how he is a good Subject who refuses to obey his Prince The business being now in a very narrow compass and perceptible by every body there I leave it with this Advertisement that upon your Answer depend the thoughts I shall have of your Church or if you will men of your Church According as you Answer I or No I shall believe you consistent or not consistent with Government There I began and there I end I hope you will give me no occasion to chang my thoughts of you for truly 't would grieve me if I could not with as much satisfaction to my Judgment as Inclination own the title of Your c. FRIEND ME thinks you deal roughly for a Friend If I were as brisk as you here would be brave doings What a bustle do you keep with me with Bellarmine and the Church and all because I desir'd to keep my thoughts to my self Truly I thought silence no such hainous crime I have known many repent of speaking but few of holding their tongues But for my self you may deal as you please twenty to one but I may at some time or other find occasion to cry quittance with you and then I expect you should allow me the liberty you take But Bellarmine what harm his he done you to incur your indignation so highly Is he the only man who maintains the Indirect Power And if he were can you not disprove him fairly and let your bitterness alone The Church too Pray what is she concern'd whether I do as you would have me or no Can no Member of her Communion displease you but she presently must be brought in She is this and she is that if I do not what I have no mind and for all your earnestness I fear no reason to do But you have got an eye of me and you follow it You know I value the Church above my self and that I will never agree she should be ill thought of if I can help it Indeed I was in hope to have cut the Thread and answered so as might please you and displease no body else But since 't will not be and that there is no way to clear her from those blemishes which your capricious Jealousie has cast upon her but by forcing my own inclinations I think my self oblig'd rather to expose my self to other mens censures then leave her expos'd to yours If any man dislike my resolution I entreat him for one moment to make my case his own and consider what he would do so loudly and so smartly challenged and what duty requires he should do when on the one side the Churches reputation is at stake on the other the quiet it may be credit of particulars If he doubt which side to take I must needs think he has less respect for his mother then becomes a good child For my part I am perswaded otherwise Well! But you will not be satisfi'd unless I speak plainly Would I knew whether you will be satisfi'd if I do For I tell you truly I begin to be as jealous of your earnestness as you of my reservedness If reason would have satisfi'd you I think you might have been satisfi'd before this time However I will venture to make one experiment more and try what I can do with you by and by If you be in earnest and that plain dealing will do it I shall prevail at last For I will tell you and that very plainly more then you ask You shall know not only what I think but why I have been thus backward to tell you what I think I will frankly discover all my policy which makes you so merry peradventure to be as much laught at for my simplicity but however you shall have no cause of jealousie of what I harbour in my breast when you know all I harbour there But do not think I mean to be so merry as you are I am in no such pleasant humour and think the matter a little too serious If you had spared some of your mirth I believe 't would have been ne'r a whit the worse The meat might have been altogether as good if the sauce had been less tart But to our business You are still harping upon the Church A worm of Jealousie is crept in and will not out You are still suspicious she forbids people from dealing freely in these matters I told you there was no such thing and I tell you so again at least that I know and I tell you besides That had there been such a thing and I known it I would have dealt as sincerely with you as Fisher with King James told you so at first and never medled so much as I have done But if you will know the true cause of my reservedness know that you your self have a great share in it You are all on fire because I say not presently what pleases you I suppose you do not imagine but there are men of tempers as hot as you whom that will displease which pleases you Besides the Question is of a particular nature It has been can vast heretofore with much animosity The fire is not yet dead It flames not indeed at present because the fuel of occasion is taken away but the heat lyes rak't up in mens hearts and would easily break out again I would not for all the world be he who should blow this heat into a new flame But for
accounts But I mind not the Position but the Answer Since the Prince breeds and nourishes feeds and secures Priests as well as others in the Politick life it is plain he has in that respect the Notion of Father and Shepherd even to them and Bellarmin has no manner of Reason to deny they may be called Children and Sheep and obliged to do what nature teaches Children and Sheep ought to do The fourth Argument is this The Clergy are the Ministers of God consecrated to his service alone and offered by the whole people for that purpose whence they have their name as belonging to the Lot of God But the Princes of the World certainly can have no right over those things which are offered and consecrated to God and made as it were his proper goods If I had a mind to Dispute of Etymologys or thought it worth while to maintain against him that the Clergy have their name rather because God is their Lot than They Gods there would be enough to take my part But I love not to lose time for which reason too I forbear to except against all that is exceptionable in the Argument It will be sufficient to say that it differs little in substance from its fellows only it is set forth in another manner The Service and Lot of God are but what he called Spirit and Pastors before And the same Key will serve to the Lock In as much as they are the Lot of God and in respect of his Service to which they are consecrated the Clergy are unaccountable to the Secular Power but when they devest themselves of the Clergy-man and wear only the man that man if he deserve to feel the Secular Sword may for any thing I see in the Argument Wickedness is sure no part of God's Lot nor can I imagine how the priviledge of his service should be pretended where there is no service of his nay where the pretender acts directly contrary to it Were it true that Princes had nothing to do with things belonging to God or men consecrated to his Service all Christians and all things seem in a fair way towards Exemptions as well as Clergy-men For God has a very true property in all Things and Christians are all and that very solemnly consecrated to his service They serve him indeed in another way than the Clergy but they truly serve him and are by solemn consecration obliged to that service Since we see that service is so far from exempting them from subjection to Princes that obedience to them is part of it it is plain there is no repugnance betwixt the service of God and subjection to Princes unless they command things contrary to that service And from such commands all men are exempt as well as the Clergy with this difference that the Clergy are exempt from all that is contrary to the service of Clergy-men the rest only from what is contrary to the service of Christians Yet Bellarmin would bear us in hand that what he says is certain and tells us that the Light of Reason shews it and God has not obscurely delivered it in the last of Leviticus Whatsoever is once consecrated to God shall be Holy of Holys to the Lord. The Light of Reason may indeed do much when he makes it appear but He who is so much for Exemptions should methinks allow us to be exempt from the Ceremonial Law The Chapter he cites takes order about the offerings made to God and appoints some to be redeemed others not But those commands are given to the Jews we see nothing like them in the Christian Law And no body knows better than himself that we are to be guided by our own not their Law and that it lays no obligation on us purely as their Law though the matter of it do sometimes bind us on the score of Reason He says indeed that 't is so in this case but barely to say so is not to prove His word if that were the business would go far with me but when he is making Arguments I expect an Argument I say no more at present because this I conceive is as much as needs for an Answer and I intend to discourse of the merits of this cause more at large hereafter The fifth and last Argument is from signs and Prodigys shewn as he says by God on those who have presumed to violate Ecclesiastical Immunities For proof of this he sends us to one Bredembachius an Author I have never seen and therefore not knowing nor having means to know particulars can only answer in general If the signs and Prodigys he talks of be true Miracles and those express to the point clearly wrought in confirmation of Immunities extended as far as Bellarmin stretches them though I am slow of belief yet if it be truly so I will wash my hands of the business God forbid I should doubt of any thing let it seem never so strange and never so cross to my reason which carries his seal to it uncounterfeited But I am strongly perswaded there is no such matter If there were Bellarmin is a strange man to amuse us with his probabilities and unnecessary consequences when he had proof in store infinitely more convictive than even demonstration it self A Miracle may perhaps have been done to shew God's care of the Church or Ministry He is not less powerful now than heretofore in his Judgments upon Nadah and Abiu Oza and Ozias But Miracles are not lightly to be believed and when they are manifest Bellarmin's Doctrine may be ne're the truer unless they come home to it In likelihood who had Bredembachius to see what he says would find no more than observations of signal perhaps unusual and unhoped prosperities happening to some who favoured the Clergy and crosses to those who did otherwise which his whether piety or bigottery enhances into Miracles If this be all the Fire to the smoke the Topick ill becomes Bellarmin's learning Who had the Malice to collect all that History affords of adversity to the good and prosperity to the bad might perhaps make as big a Book as that of Bredembachius For 't is an old complaint and that of a Wise man too that all things happen alike to the Good and the Bad as if God had no care of the World while in truth he has the greater by letting things happen so and by that Providence teaching us not to value the Goods of this World but raise our hearts to better I am the apter to think there is no more in it because Bellarmin himself makes a famous business of what I should not have thought worth alledging As for Prodigys and Signs as many as there be in Bredembachius he had no mind it seems to become Voucher so much as for one for he cited not any But he tells us the Emperour Basilius Porphyrogenitus laies all the Calamities of that time to the charge of a certain Law made by Nicephorus Phocas against Ecclesiastical