good or no is a dispute in which I am not concern'd it not importing much to our times to know what was just in those For whether his Title were just that of his present Successors is not a jot the better nor a jot the worse if it were stark naught Wherefore I positively deny the Inference imply'd in our Author's discourse the Conqueror did arbitrarily dispose of the Kingdom therefore K. John justly might because that Arbitrariness of his does not conclude he had Right so much as to the Crown and much less to dispose as he pleas'd of it 'T is farther urged That the very granting of Magna Charta from the Prince to the People is a plain Argument that at least the power of our Norman Princes was originally arbitrary and unconfin'd till themselves were pleas'd to restrain it by voluntary compacts and concessions And this as the former is true of Power but I cannot grant it of Right The Fact is interpretable both ways and may as well argue Right in the People to the things granted as in Princes to grant them And if Justice required that such things should be granted the Power which till the grants were past hindred the People from what it was fit they should have can hardly be thought just The Truth is this difficulty would ask rather a Treatise than a Letter The Notions of Power and Right would be explained and setled It would be shewn how Right is acquired and how lost How the Freedom of Nature is changed into subjection why and how far some command others obey and in vertue of what with twenty other Considerations necessary enough to clear the difficulty as it ought but too long for a Packet To say briefly as much as may serve turn I observe that we use these words Just or Right as all others in different senses We call him a Just man who gives to every one what the Law makes his due in which sense the Law is the Rule of Just and Vnjust Just meaning as much as agreeable Vnjust the same as contrary to Law But sometimes we apply the same Terms to Laws themselves and say some are Just others Unjust As if Marriage or the propagation of posterity were universally forbidden or every body commanded to cut off their Legs or Arms such Laws would be thought and called Unjust In this case the notion of those words is very different from what it was before Unjustice now signifying opposition not to Law which cannot be opposite to it self but to something else which the Law-makers had in their eye when they made a just Law and which was their Rule and directed them to order what they did and not the contrary If we reflect what this is we shall find that Just and Vnjust are said with reference to the nature of man For other things being made for his use are not alwayes to be dealt with as is most fitting for them but as they may best serve him But man must be used as his nature requires and if he be not we say he is wronged I conceive therefore that the Root of Justice lyes in the nature of man and that the consideration of what is fitting or unfit for it is the original Rule of Just and Unjust To descend to more particulars and dispute how far one man may justly be hindred from his particular good for the greater good of the society in which he lives with the rest of the Considerations which belong to Law-makers is not to my purpose It is enough if I observe that Just signifies radically Commensurate or Fit generally implies Agreement which Agreement is supposed to be made on sight of what is fit for both parties agreeing So that antecedently to Laws which are and ought to be in practice at least betwixt members of the same common-wealth look't on as the only Rules of Justice there is a proportion or exigence of Nature with respect to which some things are Just others Unjust and to which when Laws have not an eye they themselves are thought not Just And this explication I take to be not only true but universally acknowledged For if positive agreements be thought absolutely necessary to the notion of Justice I know not how that notion can be found in the Laws of Nature and Nations which are the highest and most binding of all others and yet are before and manifestly without agreements To apply this to our case I consider that Government has been embrac'd for the good of the world to avoid the mischief of lawless humors destructive to society and that the Good of the Commonwealth is or ought to be the Princes Rule from which when he swerves his Action is not Just because unproportioned and not suited to that exigence of Nature which is the root of Justice yet it does not follow that a Prince every time he does unjustly may be resisted That is another and at present unconcerning Question I consider farther that nothing can more import the good of the Commonwealth than the Governors themselves For they are the main hinges on which the common good turns and the Fountains from which all goods flow to particulars If these be such as may endanger long setled Laws and Customs and render the properties of subjects uncertain and unsecure the Commonwealth alwaies totters and often falls But all this will unavoidably follow if the nomination of supream Governors be left to arbitrary pleasure They may be strangers and through ignorance unable to preserve national Laws They may be enemies and through ill affection studious to break them In fine to fancy that any thing can be more against the common good than to want known rules of succession and that a Nation should be bound to obey whoever is named by chance or humor is to fancy there may be some member more considerable to the Body than the Head If this discourse be good it may be understood how the Arbitrary power even of Conquerors may be bounded otherwise than by their voluntary Compacts and Concessions namely by nature and by the proportion of their Actions to the subject on which they Act. It is true that antecedently to compacts their Actions cannot be called Vnjust as unjust signifies breach of agreements but as Vnjust signifies breach of proportion and the violation of what nature requires They may be unjust even before they bind themselves by compact to observe this proportion This now I concieve is our Case and that since the good of the Commonwealth is the Rule of the Princes Action and that 't is plainly against that good that their supream Governors should be appointed arbitrarily the arbitrary dispositions of the Crown mentioned by our Author were effects more of Power than Right I think himself will grant if those Norman Princes were unconfin'd till they voluntarily confin'd themselves that 't was at least reasonable and fit they should be confin'd in this point and sure a Power to act unreasonably and
Transporting Corn c. by private Capricios and publick and obligatory commands tell me whether Bellarmin were not in a pleasant humour and had great care of the Commonwealth when he made a little inconvenience reason enough to oblige the Clergy to keep the Civil Laws and permits and makes it their duty to break them with twenty times a greater I say nothing of the greatest inconvenience of all the acknowledging a Forreign Authority which can oblige so great a number of persons living within the bounds and taken for members of the Common-wealth as belong to the Clergy to break all Laws even in Temporal things because at present I mind only how pat the reason is which he gives for his Directive obligation of the Clergy Otherwise that Doctrine brings not only confusion and trouble but ruin to the common-wealth and is absolutely intolerable But this is not a place for it To return into our Road Bellarmin tells us at last that the Clergy and Laity have even in Temporals different Laws a different Prince and different Tribunals and that the Common-wealth which holds them is in truth and formally two Common-wealths though because they all live in the same place and under protection of the same Prince it be materially one Also that in respect of the Clergy Princes are not superiour Powers and therefore the Clergy are not bound to obey them neither by Divine nor so much as Human right unless Directively in certain cases as was said before This is full and home for Bellarmin can speak plain enough when he has a mind to it But the Question and my Curiosity are now at an end For I do not mean to be laught at by persisting to enquire whether the Clergy be subject to him who is not their Prince nor in respect of them a superiour power It is something strange though By this account the Clergy are no more subjects to the Prince in whose Dominions they live than Aliens who live in his Country under his protection They are as much a new and strange kind of Aliens bred and born and unmoveably setled in a Common-wealth and yet Aliens still However it be I have no more to say to the Holland Deputys Bellarmin has acquitted them It remains that he acquit himself for as great a man as he is so unexpected and so important a Doctrine will hardly pass upon his bare word He proves it both from Human and Divine Right And I commend him for leaving nothing out but think nevertheless I may deduct the one half and confine my inquiry to Divine Right For Human Right being either by Civil or Ecclesiastical Laws what the Clergy have by Civil Laws is so far from prejudicing their subjection that it rather confirms it For Receiving is an acknowledgment of the power from which they receive Besides Princes whether they can or no yet use not to grant any thing derogatory from their own Soveraignty or if they do recal it on better consideration What in particular it is which the Clergy have this way we must enquire of those who know the Laws whatever it be much good may it do them Were all men of my mind peradventure it should be more than it is for I am of opinion they cannot be respected too much and whatever serves whether to preserve or increase that respect is the Laitys good as much as theirs and perhaps more As for Ecclesiastical Laws I conceive they need no place of their own at present but may come in either with Civil or Divine For if the stress be put only there so that before the Ecclesiastical Laws were made the Clergy were Subjects and had been so still if those Laws had not exempted them from subjection Princes I suppose will expect their consent should be askt Ecclesiastical Laws of this nature not binding without the concurrence of the Civil Power And then the Question will be to what and how far the Civil power is engaged which plainly belongs to Civil Right But if the Ecclesiastical Law be supposed not originally to give but declare and press that exemption as due to the Clergy by an antecedent Law of God or nature the exemption is then refunded into that antecedent Law and there as I conceive it only pinches Wherefore leaving Bellarmin's proofs from Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws to those who are skil'd and concern'd in them I am only curious to know what kind of proofs he will bring from the Divine Law which if it do command such things as he affirms of the Clergy truly I have hitherto been very ill instructed in it He divides them into the two branches of Positive and Natural Divine Law either of which would have serv'd his turn but he will needs undertake for both Beginning with the Positive he desires us first to observe That by the Positive Law of God he means not any command of God properly so called which expresly appears in Holy Writ but what may by some similitude be deduced from the Examples or Testimonys of the Old or New Testament Now this seems to me a very inauspicious beginning and as much as to say that by the Positive Law of God he means the not-Positive Law of God For pray what does Positive signifie It is used in contradistinction to Natural and Natural signifies the Law or Rule of Actions imprinted in us by Reason which inasmuch as it is our nature gives it the Title of Natural inasmuch as that nature proceeds from God the Title of Divine But because it happens from the shortness or corruption of nature that what appears reasonable to one appears unreasonable to another this Rule becomes a kind of Lesbian Rule bent by our passions several waies To remedy which mischief and not leave us altogether to the uncertain conduct of our erring Judgements God in his mercy has expresly declared his pleasure about what we are to do or avoid in the matters so declared This express declaration is called his Positive Law which supplys the defects of nature and freeing us from groping blindly in the dark and wrangling fruitlesly and endlesly about what is or is not our duty sets it in a clear light before us and leaves us nothing to do but perform it This being so I would fain learn of Bellarmin what pretence there can be for the Positive Law of God where there is no express command of his and we are left to our uncertain Deductions What difference betwixt this and the case of pure nature and what shall hinder us from wrangling as long and to as little purpose as if there were no such thing as his Positive Law in the World Nay though we could come to an end since this end is to be made at last by the force of prevailing Reason which can satisfie us of the Truth of the deductions it makes why is not that end to be refunded rather into Reason than the Law of God We may possibly have some assistance from it towards
they are both connected with one third If that connexion be not seen I should think 't is all one as if it were not and if it be seen then to him who sees it 't is evident I should think again that where there is no necessary consequence or connexion of Terms in the conclusion there is no connexion of them with a Third in the Premises For if there be their connexion is as necessary as the connexion of that Third with it self or its being what it is so that the consequence plainly is either necessary or none If this be so a consequence neither evident nor necessary is evidently and necessarily no consequence and so far from communicating the force of the Law of nature to the conclusion that it communicates none at all Wherefore take away the learned Terms and that which Bellarmin says is in plain English this I would have you believe that the Law of Nature commands the exemptions of the Clergy which it may do for ought I know though I neither see it does nor any necessity why it should But yet I would have you believe it because I find it would be very convenient it should be so Though this found not altogether so amusingly as in his language yet I fancy it might be as efficacious For plain dealing is a taking thing and might perhaps work with many but when you set upon them with dint of Argument people stand upon their guard and to attempt them with unnecessary and unseen consequences is a desperate business when the most evident necessary in the World often fails of success The truth is Bellarmin himself does not trust his Deductions at this time For he says they stand in need of Humane Constitution And I pray for what is this Humane Constitution needful Is it to make the not evident and not necessary conclusion evident and necessary and make that follow from natural Principles which does not follow from natural Principles This indeed is what needs but 't is more than Humane Constitution can do For Conclusions follow from the seen Identity of Premises and all the Authority of all mankind put together can never make that be seen which is not to be seen or an Identity where there is a difference Or does he mean that Humane Constitution is needful to make the Conclusion which cannot prevail by its own strength be accepted in vertue of the constitutive Authority This indeed Humane constitution can do for it matters not whether the conclusion be well or ill deduced if those who can command will have it obey'd But then what is established this way stands wholly upon Humane and not at all on Natural Right farther than as Nature or Reason is the ground of all Laws For take away the Humane constitution nature is so far from obliging any body to a consequence confessedly unconcluding that on the contrary it obliges him not to accept it he being not true to his Reason which is his nature who does This being plain to what purpose does Bellarmin keep such ado with the Law of nature when he meant to resolve all into the pure Law of man at last I should guess by the hint he gives presently after that he had a mind to make his Exemptions unalterable for he infers that what depends on the Law of Nations which he makes equivalent to his third branch cannot be abrogated or changed by Princes because it is in some sort natural This would have founded something like if he had not told us what he meant But the mischeif is we know before-hand that his in some sort natural means deduc'd from Nature neither evidently nor necessarily and that signifying not deduc'd the sort which he calls natural signifies a sort of standing upon nature so as not to stand upon nature but upon the needful humane Authority that is a not natural sort And then because his Exemptions can be no otherwise unchangeable than as they are natural there is neither evidence nor necessity of their unchangeableness and so the most that can be said of them is that they are unchangeable in some sort likewise namely in such sort as they are natural that is in a not unchangeable or changeable sort Wherefore when we come to cast up accounts with Bellarmin and see what his Divine Right amounts to we find that what he calls Divine Positive Law is even by his confession no Law of God but deductions from the worst and most hopeless of Topicks Which who will go about to examine had need be a man of great leisure and who can promise himself a great age otherwise his attempt will be desperate and what he calls Divine Natural Law is likewise no Law of Nature but Deductions like the former as weak and as endless and which to save us the fruitless trouble of examining he fairly gives us warning are unconcluding And this is Divine Right in Bellarmin's language Notwithstanding because Truth has influence on the actions of men not as it is in it self but as it appears to them it imports not so much what is as what is apprehended wherefore let Bellarmin's proofs be never so bad if you apprehend them good 't is all one as if they were perfect Demonstrations Tell me then what you think of the matter what you believe and what you do in this point whether Bellarmin and the Church be of the same mind and all the immunities attributed by him to the Clergy pass among you for unquestionably Divine and Unalterable Right And remember our Question is not whether they have exemptions or no. Every body sees they are and ought be free from divers burthens of the Common-wealth since otherwise they could not live a Clerical life as 't is necessary even for the good of the Laity they should But the question is what those Exemptions are and how They come by them For my part I should think that if any Exemption claimed or enjoy'd by them be discovered harmful to the Common-wealth such an exemption is neither necessary to a Clerical life nor commanded by God In particular I see no necessity of their exemption from Secular Tribunals and conceive they might be very good Clergy men without it What prejudice can it be to the Dignity and perfection of their state to be aw'd from doing ill by fear of punishment To do ill is the greatest prejudice to both how being restrained from prejudicing their state should be a prejudice to their state is beyond my understanding They are but men as much the best men as They ought to be and to have their frailty expos'd to one Temptation more than the rest of mankind and that the strongest of Temptations Impunity is in my opinion far from a Benefit I think he is not their Friend who exempts them from fear of punishment unless he exempt them too from the possibility of deserving it Again would They do any thing misbecoming their condition if They paid their shares in Publick
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
their Prince qui vicem Dei agit who is the Vicar of God as to God himself S. Tho. of Aquin. If he be Author of the work attributed to him De Regim Princ. l. 2. says a King is oblig'd with all care and diligence to look after Religion not onely because he is a man but because he is a Lord and a King and Dei vices gerit is the Vicar of God on whom he chiefly depends To omit Nicolaus de Lyra Fevardentius and more then a Letter would hold or you have patience to read for I think you are furnisht with a sufficient stock of that vertue if you can forgive the folly of saying so much as I have done which seems to me not much wiser then to go about seriously to prove there is such a place as Jamaica or has been such a Man as Harry the 8th I shall onely adde the Authority of the Roman Pontifical Printed at Rome 1595. where the Prayer appointed for the Consecration of Kings ends thus That you may glory without end with our Redeemer Jesus Christ cujus nomen vicemque gestare crederis whose name you bear and whose Vicar you are This being so consider now what a pleasant Argument you have light upon by which Kings may as well absolve Penitents and confer Sacraments as the Pope dispose of Kingdoms Notwithstanding let us look a little nearer upon it Christ say you gave all the power he had He had all both Spiritual and Temporal therefore the Pope must have it too If you will not be too hasty in your censure but delay it till I have time to explain my meaning I will answer you a Catholick may be a very good Catholick and believe all a Catholick is bound to believe and yet believe never a one of those two Propositions Not that I mean to be guilty of the blasphemy of denying to the Son of God all power in Heaven and Earth but that Son of God being man too I do not know a Catholick is bound to believe that man purely as man was a temporal King But of this more by and by when your second Proposition comes into play in the mean time let us consider the first viz. That Christ gave to the Pope in St. Peter all the power he had himself Pray how does this appear 't is included say you in this that he is his Vicar I beseech you consider again for I cannot readily think of an inference which seems to me more wild and more palpably contradicted by the open course of things with which we daily converse A Judge represents the Kings Person a Constable does it all Officers both Civil and Military supply his place in their several employments Can every one of these therefore do as much as the King Can a General coyn money or a Judge call a Parliament or a Constable make War and Peace We see their several Powers are bounded by their several Commissions and the priviledge of representing his person gives them no more power then he is pleas'd to confer upon them How can it be otherwise with the Pope He indeed is the Vicar of Christ and represents his person and so the Judge does the Kings but what power he has we are to learn from his Commission not his Title Let us now consider what a good Catholick may say to this point And first I believe no man can reprove him if he say he finds no temporal power included in any Commission recorded in Scripture Tradition or the Fathers and if he refuse to believe more then he finds there I think none will reprove him for that neither In Scripture we find Saint Peter commissionated to teach to baptize to feed the Flock to confirm his Brethren we find the Keys of Heaven promis'd and given him and what those Keys signifie we find there declared to be this that what he should bind or loose on Earth should be bound or loos'd in Heaven But of deposing Kings or disposing of Kingdoms we read no word That his Commission extends only to Spirituals is a thing so notoriously known and universally receiv'd amongst Catholicks none denying it but some Canonists who meddle ultra crepidam and a few Divines who handle their crepida unskilfully and follow them that to be serious and earnest in the proof of it is a labour as little needful and perhaps less pardonable then that which I have newly ended of shewing Princes to be Vicars of God However because I am to say nothing of my self hear what others say De Anath Vinc. Gelasias speaks very clearly Fuerant haec ante adventum Christi c. Before the coming of Christ figuratively and remaining yet in carnal actions some were both Kings and Priests as the H. History delivers of Melchizedeck Which thing too the Devil striving always with a Tyrannical Pride to usurp to himself those things which belong to divine Worship has imitated amongst his Followers so that amongst Pagans the same men have been Emperours and chief Bishops but when we were once come to the true King and Bishop Christ neither has the Emperour any longer assum'd the name of a Bishop nor the Bishop the regal dignity For although his Members that is of a true King and Bishop are magnificently said according to the participation of his nature to have assum'd both in a sacred generosity that the Regality and Priesthood may subsist together yet Christ mindful of the frailty of humane nature tempering with a glorious Dispensation what might conduce to the salvation of his People has so distinguisht the Offices of both Powers by proper Actions and distinct Dignities desirous his Followers should be sav'd by wholesome Humility and not again betray'd by humane Pride both that Christian Emperours should need Bishops for eternal life and Bishops in the conduct of the temporal things should use the Imperial Laws that the spiritual action might be distant from carnal assaults and he who militat Deo is a Souldier of Gods should not embroil himself with secular business and on the other side he who is entangled in secular business should not preside over divine matters both that the modesty of both degrees might be provided for lest he who had both should be puffed up and a convenient profession be particularly fitted to the qualities of the Actions This man was a Vicar of Christ himself and you see he is so far from thinking his Commission extends to temporal things that he plainly teaches Christ distinguisht them and left the spiritual Power so alone to him that for temporal Laws he was to be beholding to the Emperour I might peradventure have run the hazard of reproof if I had said that to joyn those two Powers is an Artifice of the Devil but I suppose that saying will not be reprov'd in so antient and so holy a Pope Symmachus succeeded as to his Chair being the next Pope but one after him so to his Doctrine You says he to the
in his garment and on his high King of Kings and Lord of Lords Isa 33.22 The Lord is our King he will save us Psal 2.6 I am made by him a King over Sion his holy hill and a great many more of the same nature These say they and the like places are both plain in themselves and plainly expounded of a temporal regal power by the Fathers To which purpose they bring Theophylact expounding that to the Heb. whom he made Heir of all things that is made Lord of the whole World but how did he make him Lord Namely as man in the second Psalm he speaks to him Ask of me and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy Inheritance And St. Anselm upon the same place Whom the Father appointed according to the humanity the immutable Heir of all things that is possessor of all creatures And Haymo upon the same place too God the Father apointed his Son Heir of all things that is of the whole World or all creatures not onely according to the Divinity in which he is coeternal to his Father and coequal in the Omnipotence of the Deity and in which he eternally possesses all things with his Father but rather according to the humanity assum'd by the word he is appointed Lord and Heir over all creatures as God the Father promis'd him saying Ask of me c. And the Son himself rising from the dead speaks thus in the person of the humanity All power is given me in Heaven and in Earth Eusebius Emissenus He who according to his Divinity had alwayes with the Father and Holy Ghost power over all things now also according to his humanity has receiv'd power over all things as Man He who lately suffer'd let him Rule both in Heaven and in Earth and be believed the God and Lord not of the Jews onely but of all Nations L. 2. Cont. Parmen Optatus against the Donatists Why do you break such a promise and confine to a kind of Prison the vast extent of Kingdoms why do you strive to hinder so much goodness why are you against our Saviours merits Permit the Son to enjoy what was granted permit the Father to perform what he promised Why do you set bounds and fix Limits when the whole Earth was promised by the Father There is not any thing in any part of the Earth which seems exempt from his Possession The whole Earth with its Nations were given him These and the the like places are the chief supports of the affirmative opinion for I omit their Reasons not onely because a man who were strongly bent upon it may invent specious pretexts almost for any thing and they seem to me no other but because I take questions of Faith not properly to belong to the decision of meer Reason I mean in this manner that People should rashly determine by their ill grounded reasonings what is fitting or not fitting for God to do We are to learn of our Fathers and the Church what he has done and not by Airy speculations determine what he should do If this Doctrine hath been delivered to our Fore-Fathers we shall sure enough receive it from them but if we do not it will hardly belong to Faith even though it could be proved true In the mean time those who maintain the negative bring particular Answers to all these places the substance whereof devolves to this that the Kingdom and Regal power attributed to Christ in the Scripture is to be understood of his Spiritual Kingdom the Church unless where his person is spoken of as comprehending the divine as well as humane nature in which Cases Regal power and all that can be attributed to God may justly be affirmed of him 'T were to write a Book instead of a Letter to dilate them all particularly and when all is done this is the substance But then on their side they alleadge Scripture and Fathers in my opinion much more convincing And first they affirm the question is expresly and plainly decided by Christ himself Joh. 18.36 When being askt by Pilate if he were a King he denies it not but withal affirms his Kingdom is not of this World And methinks people might take his word and cease to dispute of what he so plainly determined for I cannot think otherwise but this Answer meets the difficulty in the Face and so reserves whether the right of omnipotence or spiritaal Regality as very positively to exclude Temporal power They alledge again Luke 12.14 Who has made me Judge or Divider betwixt you Our blessed Saviour was moved by one who heard him and perhaps believed in him to cause one Brother to divide an inheritance with the other And he not onely refuses the motion but says in a phrase usual in Scripture of denying by interrogation it was a matter in which he had nothing to do Now if Christ were truly a Temporal King 't is hard to imagine how rendring Justice to his Subjects who demanded it at his hands and determining emergent Controversies in which the very Office of a King does in a great measure consist should not belong to him I hove nothing to do with Possessions and I am no Temporal King to seem equivalent They alleadge besides Jo. 6.15 where Christ perceiving the multitude were resolved to make him King fled from them and hid himself Put him to have received temporal Dominion over all the World from his Father and 't will be hard to unriddle why he used it not in this occasion His Subjects more disposed to obey him they were willing they were forward to do their parts what can be said why he did not do his and govern them I said before and I cannot but repear it 'T is as much the duty of a King to govern as of Subjects to be governed and I cannot for my life imagine any other reason why he should refuse to govern then this that he was no temporal King If it may be permitted me to speak freely this position of temporal regal Power in Christ seems to me to include both nonsense and blasphemy For Nonsense it is to put a Power in him to no purpose an useless Metaphysical potentia never reduced into Act and blasphemy it is to say he was deficient in his duty and how that position will get clear of either of these absurdities I can by no means understand Other places of Scripture they bring but these are the most material Now because a Catholick cannot be a Catholick who maintains a position directly contrary to Scripture for neither he nor his position would be endured those of the other side have invented several Senses which they give to the places alledged and though those Senses seem to me full of Nonsense yet I cannot but commend in the Authors that they chuse rather to contradict common Sense then Scripture But do you Judge My Kingdom is not of this World that is say they 't is not by way of Election or Succession
But if they will not and become bad there is none according to S. Thomas who has power to condemn them Alex. Alensis in Psal 50. I have sinn'd to Thee alone because there is no other above me who can punish me For I am a King and none is above me but you alone And Part. 3. A King is above all and therefore to be judged by God alone since he has not any man who can judge his actions nor is to be punisht by man But if any of the People sin they sin both against God and the King Nicholaus de Lyra. I have sinn'd to Thee alone as my Judge and who has power to punish for he had sinned against Vrias and others slain upon this occasion Yet because he was a King he had no superiour Judge to punish him but God Otho Frisingens Ep. ad Frederic before his Chronic. Whilst no person is found in the world who is not subject to the Laws of the world and by that subjection kept in awe Kings alone as being above Laws and reserved to the Divine Judgment are not aw'd by the Laws of the world Witness that both King and Prophet I have sinned to Thee alone Joan. de Turrenm in Psal 50. I have sinn'd to Thee alone as my Judge and who has power to punish me because Thou alone art above me who canst judge my Crimes Dio Vega in conc Vespert super Psal 50. con 2. Wherefore leaving them we must go the common way with the Fathers of the Church Hierom Austin Ambrose Chrysostome and Cassiodorus who say that David therefore us'd these words because being a Soveraign King he was subject to none but God accountable to the Laws of none and none but God could punish his sin For a King though he be subject to the Directive power of the Law yet is not to the Coactive Joan. de Pineda upon 34. Job For if a King or Prince will not willingly obey the Law who can oblige or by force constrain him Yet let Princes understand at last that if they do not of their own will keep the Law they shall render an account to the Supream King and be punisht for the Violation of Justice I conclude with a Jesuite Lorinus upon Psal 50. I have sinn'd to Thee alone viz. as alone knowing or having power to punish his sin who was a King and had no Superior None can say Apostate to a King or call Judges wicked unless he will be thought wicked himself as Chrysostom and Nicetas and Cyril in this place note I hope by this time you will acknowledge it was a superfluous care of yours for the security of Princes if that were your reason which made you so sollicitous for the immediate power For whatever become of that this is universally fixt That Kings are accountable to none but God And I think you need not much care what people say in a question disputed amongst Learned men when that for whose sake you desire it should be resolv'd is it self so fully resolv'd to your hand To deal with sincerity I should acquaint you what shifts they make to escape the weight of this Authority who undertake to abett a Power paramount in the Pope But they are such plain shifts that in truth I have not patience to insist upon them Some say this held among the Jewish Kings who were above the Priesthood but holds not among Christians who are subject to it as if Christian Princes were less absolute than those of the Jews or Christianity took away the Right of any body much less Princes I alwaies thought that much good had come to the world by Christian Religion and the concerns of Mankind went on more sweetly and more strongly but that it should be guilty of so great a mischief as to shake the foundations of Government so beneficial and necessary to humane Nature is a scandal which methinks a Christian ear should not hear with patience And Bellarmin give him his due as much a favourer of the Pope as he is in this yet is more a friend to Truth and tells us De Rom. Pont. L. 1. c. 29. That the Gospel deprives no man of his Right and Dominion but gets him a new right to an eternal Kingdom Nor have Kings less power in the New Testament than they had in the old And yet He with his distinctions betwixt Fact and Right Power direct and indirect with one whereof he still endeavours to ward all blows makes as mad work and reduces things to as much confusion I shall say nothing to them more than to entreat you to be Judge your self and consider whether in what I have alledged there be any room for those Inventions and whether the Doctrine be not delivered too plainly to be put off with such evasions And so I come to your Second Point and for the fear you have of Bellarmin's Argument peradventure it were Answer enough to say That S. Bernard understood what was meant by the word Feed as well at least as Bellarmin and he notwithstanding all the Cardinals acuteness tells Pope Eugenius L. 4. c. 3. that to Feed is to Evangelize Perform saies he the work of an Evangelist and you have fulfilled the duty of a Pastour Again Serm. de Resurrect Feed with your Mind with your Mouth with your Actions feed with prayer of the Mind exhortation of the Word proposal of Example I suppose no good Catholic but will side with S. Bernard rather than Bellarmin for as great a Schollar as Bellarmin was he is not yet thought a match for S. Bernard But neither is he alone of this mind Petrus Blesensis saies almost in the same words Ep. 148. What is to Feed the Sheep but to Evangelize to render the People acceptable to God by Word by Work by Example And thus Innocent III. and a great many more are cited by Caron to interpret this word Feed so that all the Cardinal 's subtle speculations upon the metaphor us'd in the Gospel hinder not the Argument from being as insignificant as you and more besides you to my knowledge think it And if I have not yet said enough to it hearken a little to S. Chrysost de Sacerd. L. 2. It is not lawful for a man to cure a Man with the same Authority with which a Shepheard cures his Sheep For here it is free to bind and restrain from pasture and burn and cut There the Medicine and power of the cure is not in him who Administers but in him who is Sick But we shall hear more of him anon Mean time since the Point you have propos'd besides your recommendation deserves in it self more consideration than this Argument Let me tell you for your satisfaction That those who treat these things put many differences betwixt the Spiritual and Civil power from the manner of Institution the ends at which they aim the means they use to their several ends c. That which I conceive most to your purpose is