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
doing so they judge he is to be opposed and if they be the Judges they are no longer Rebels but exercise a Power due to them then which nothing can be more pestiferous and destructive of Government and ruinous of the advantages mankind receives by it Of which people may think as they please but I believe the private men are they who reap the greatest benefit by it and are more happy then Princes whom many crosly envy and might peradventure more justly pity For certainly to be ty'd to perpetual labour and care and un-intermitted sollicitude for the benefit of others is a condition not much to be envy'd and he who secure of his life and fortune by the pains of other men has nothing to do but freely to pursue that course to which his inclination or advantage leads him is in a condition much more desirable Wherefore not only Princes and all honest men with them but all who are not stark fools ought seriously to joyn to the preventing a mischief so ruinous Now as it is obvious and easily foreseen so there are several remedies which men have provided against it Some affirm that when the People have once parted with their Power and chosen to themselves a Form of Government and Governours they part with it for ever and have no more to do but obey for the future without any right of intermedling in any case with commanding and this is pretty well and renders the Government stable and the Governours secure Others think that they make all safe by excluding the People from a capacity of being their own Judges and reserving that Prerogative to the common Father of Christendom who they think will take that care to which he is obliged for the good of his Children But this is a little more and in truth too much suspicious and does not take away the harm but transfer the power of doing it into other hands For the same Inconveniences may be fear'd from the Pope as from the People especially where Princes are his enemies as many professedly are and all may be even those of his own Communion And comes so near that universal Temporal Monarchy which some have attributed to him that I do not think that any of his Adversaries will admâ—t it or that his Friends will know how to maintain it At least for my part I do not Others and I think the most both in number and Authority take away all interposing of the People farther than to design the person as in Elections or however they concur but make the Princes power flow immediately from God and so make it Sacred and exclude both Pope and People and all but God himself from medling with it And because this is the thing of which you desire I should discourse to those Authorities already mentioned in my former Letter I shall add as many more as I think may serve for your satisfaction In the first place those words of S. Paul seem decisive of the question Rom. 13.1 There is no power but from God For certainly it cannot consist with them that Power should be from the People or any else but him That exclusive word Nisi excludes all besides Conformably speak the Fathers Some I have mentioned before I add Epiphanius Haeres 40. You see that this Worldly power is by God or rather ordinata ex Deo orderly and from God and has the power of the Sword and not c. from any other but God to revenge S. Greg. Naz. de Beatid Absolute Empire and highest full power subject to no other pleasure or dominion belongs to Kingdoms Optatus L. 3. cont Parmen Above the Emperour is only God who made the Emperour c. Bruno Carthus in Rom. 13. There is no power whether good or bad but from God Hincmarus Ap. Bochel in Decret Eccl. Gall. speaking of King Lotharius He ought to be subject to the principality of God alone from whom alone he could be placed in his own principality These more ancient Authors speak all as the Apostle with a phrase of exclusion plain enough yet later speak plainer Card. Cusanus L. 3. Concord C. 5. First I presuppose what is known even to the Vulgar that the Imperial Cessitude is independent of the Sacerdotal power having an immediate dependence on God Dante 's Aligh de Monarch has a whole Book to prove this position and concludes Wherefore 't is plain that the Temporal Authority of a Monarch is derived to him without any mediation from the fountain of Vniversal Authority Joan. de Parisiis de Potest Regal Papal Both Powers proceed from one Supream power viz. the Divine immediately Anton. de Rosell Monar part 1. p. 37. Whence is inferr'd that Caesar depends of God immediately Theodoric à Niem de Schism L. 3. c. 7. That Empire depends principally and immediately of God appears by evident reasons de Offic. Princ. c 5. If the People were obliged to Obedience only in vertue of the consent to the Prince their Disobedience would be said to be a breach of their agreement and promise but not properly and directly of the Divine Ordinance which according to S. Paul by Resistance is properly and immediately broken For the Power which is resisted is ordain'd by God so that now Rebellion ought not to be lookt upon as against Man but against God Tho. Waldensis Tom. 1. l. 2. ar 3. c. 78. after a whole Chapter to this purpose concludes thus This we say that the Power of a King is only of God given him immediately by God Victoria Relect. de potest Civ n. 8. Kings have Power by Divine and natural Right and not from the Commonwealth Those who write in behalf of the Venetians in the Quarrel betwixt them and Paul the Fifth laid this Doctrine for a ground-work That the Power of temporal Princes the Pope too amongst the rest as he is a Temporal Prince is given them by God immediately and without exception Bellarmin Answers and reprehends that word immediately but is pretty severely reprehended himself for his pains and the expression justifi'd by the Authority of divers Catholic Doctors as Navar Durandus Joan Paris Almain Gerson c. In fine he was so Answered that he thought it better to have recourse to the Inquisition than to more Arguments and so caused the Authours to be cited to Rome But his Patrons deserted him not and the Inquisition of Venice protected him against that of Rome and the Doctrine remain'd not only unblemisht but countenanc'd by the Protection of a very wise Commonwealth Permit me to conclude this Point with an Authority which with an English man may peradventure sway more than all the rest It being a Declaration of Parliament and that in Catholic times That the Crown of England is and alwaies has been free and subject immediately to God and no other in all that concerns the Regality thereof 16. Ric. 2. Forreigners may talk as their fancy or Interest leads them but I suppose a
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
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
of the Learned Men who Write in favour of the Pope stick to that way As Bellarmin is the most famous amongst them and most at hand I choose his Arguments believing as he was a Man of great Reading he fail'd not to make use of all that was considerable in those who Writ before him and seeing those who Write since borrow most from him He has Five in his Book De Rom. Pont. and Four in his Answer to Barklay The First are Answered by Barklay and better by Withrington and every one who Writes of this Subject takes notice of them In Answering I make use chiefly of Withrington inserting only upon occasion what I find in others Only to indulge something to my fancy and ease it of the grievous pain of Transcribing I neither tie my self to the order nor preciseness of the Arguments but make entire Arguments of themselves what the Author meant sometimes a proof of some part of an Argument going before While you have the Substance I hope you will allow me a little Variety for my own ease Bellarmin then After he had taught against the Canonists That the Spiritual and Civil Power are in themselves distinct and have different Offices different Ends c. yet when these two meet together then he affirms they make but one Commonwealth in which the Spiritual Power is superiour to the Temporal For saies he there cannot be two Heads and therefore one Power must of necessity be subject to the other when they both Club into one Commonwealth But this they do where the Law of Christ is receiv'd For we being many are one Body in Christ Rom. 12. And in one Spirit we were all baptiz'd into one Body 1 Cor. 12. And because the Members of the same Body must depend one of another and Spirituals cannot be said to depend on Temporals Temporals must depend on Spirituals and be subject to them To this they Answer differently Some granting the Spiritual and Temporal Power make but one Commonwealth affirm the Members independent one of another as the Hand depends not on the Foot nor the Foot on the hand but each free and absolute in their proper Functions are subject only to the Supream Head Christ Others in my opinion more rationally deny the Two Powers club into one Commonwealth and say The Spiritual makes one and the Temporal another and to many others as there are Independent Heads of this Power That the same men in different respects make both these Bodies and that as Clergy and Laity and all not excepting the Prince himself in as much as they are Faithful are subject to the Spiritual Power according to the nature of Spiritual Subjection so the same Laity and Clergy not excepting the Pope himself in as much as they are Citizens and parts of the Temporal Commonwealth are subject to the Temporal Power that is for as much as concerns the Law of God purely and abstracting from Humane Constitutions and such Changes as time has brought into the World For now the Pope is himself an absolute Prince and other Clergy Men have Priviledges and Immunities justly belonging to them When therefore 't is assumed that the Church is one Body they distinguish this word Church and say if it be taken Formally that is the Faithful under the notion of Faithful then indeed they make but one Body but neither doth this Body include both Powers for 't is only the Spiritual to which they are subject as Faithful as Citizens they belong to the Temporal But if the word Church be taken Materially for the Men which make up the Church an Acception something improper but yet such as comprehends both Powers then say they In this sence the Church is not one Body but two or if you vvill twenty as many as there are several Supream Temporal Powers in Christendom One Spiritual in relation to the Spiritual Power and which is properly the Church The rest Temporal in relation to their several Temporal Heads And this Answer as it seems fair in it self and justified by the sence and apprehension of Mankind for France and Spain for example both acknowledge the Pope and are both parts of the Church and that one Body of which the Apostle speaks but he that should therefore think them not to be Two distinct Bodies and Independent Common-wealths would be thought something extravagant so 't is a little more strongly inforc'd against Bellarmin by other parts of his own Doctrine For he teaches elsewhere That Church-men besides that they are Church-men are also Citizens and parts of the Civil Common-wealth and that all Members of every Body must be subject to their respective Head That the Civil and Spiritual Power are in their nature distinct Powers and have distinct Offices and Ends c. and that Christ did distinguish the Dignities and Offices of Pope and Emperour that one should not presume upon the Rights of the other That Christian Princes as well as Infidels acknowledge no Superiour in Temporals since Christ took not away the Rights of any and a King by becoming a Christian loses no Right he had before and the like Besides this Answer seems wonderfully strengthned by some Authorities mentioned in the former Letters Such as Gelasius to the Emperour Anastasius The Prelates of the Church owe you all Obedience And again The Bishops themselves are to obey your Laws and that because there are Two principal Powers by which the World is Governed the Sacred Authority of Bishops and Regal Power Likewise Pope Anastasius to the same Emperour Bishops are subject to the Laws of the Prince in what concerns Public Discipline and Princes to Bishops in the dispensation of the Mysteries and Sacraments according to the famous Canon of Leo the IV. Nos si incompetenter It is to be noted that there are Two Persons by which this world is governed The Regal and Sacerdotal as Kings are Chief in Worldly so Priests in Divine matters Therefore David though by his Regal Vnction he were over Priests and Prophets in affairs of the World yet was under them in those of God Much more might be alledged on this Subject but this I conceive is enough to shew the Answer given to Bellarmin has the support of Authority as well as Reason A Second Argument is from the ends of both Powers whereof one being Eternal the other Temporal happiness because the Eternal happiness is the Supream and Last end of all things Temporal happiness must be subordinate to it And because according to Aristotle where the Ends are subordinate the Faculties likewise are subordinate the Civil Power which aims only at Temporal happiness must be subordinate and subject to the Spiritual which looks after Eternal This Argument they Answer likewise two waies First by granting the whole which they say concludes nothing against them For admitting the Temporal Power to be subordinate to the Spiritual nothing follows more than than 't is under the other according to the Order which the other
a form of Imprecation not a Legal Decree as when he saies a little after And let him be damn'd in the lower Hell with Judas the Traytour c. or as the stile of Bulls now is Let him know he shall incur the Indignation of God c. For they think that for the Pope directly to command People should be damn'd is not very commendable in him nor very wise in any who should think he does so Wherefore to look upon these kind of expressions as other than Threats by which men may be frighted from Wickedness they conceive is both against S. Gregory's Sence and Common Sence too The next is the Example of Gregory the Second who forbad Tribute to be paid to Leo the Iconoclast and this is one of those Stories which Onuphrius reckons amongst Fables and Platina expresly denies for he saies the Italians were so exasperated against the Emperour that the Pope was feign to interpose his Authority to keep them from choosing another Emperour So that till the matter of Fact be agreed 't is an uncomfortable and useless Employment to busie our selves with thinking what will follow out of it There follows the Deposition of Childeric King of France by Pope Zachary with vvhich they make quick work and positively deny it not that the King was Depos'd but that he was Depos'd by the Pope The French indeed consulted him as they might have done any other whose Credit they had thought useful to their purpose vvhether were more truly King He who managed all the Affairs of the Kingdom or he who had the bare Title but medled with nothing And He answered the former And this was all he did for the rest what was done was done by the French themselves Not but that 't is likely he understood well enough the meaning of the Question and was inclin'd to favour Pepin all he could but he did no more and those who did have long since given account to God of their action I know not of what humour the French were in those times but he that should at this day maintain in France The Pope has Power to Depose their King would go neer to be confuted with a Halter The Seventh and Eighth Examples are The Translation of the Empire to the Germans and setling the Electours who are to choose the Emperour This is a Question of vvhich Bellarmin has written Three entire Books and is of more both importance and labour than to be treated with any exactness in a Letter That which Withrington Answers is in short That the Pope concurred to the Translation of the Empire and Nomination of the Electours not as acting by his own sole Power but as one who for the place he held had much and perhaps more Interest in the business than any other To which purpose he Cites Mich. Coccinius saying that The People of Rome and the rest of the Nations of Italy opprest by barbarous People and not only not protected by the Grecians but ill used too and afflicted by their Avarice and Imperious humour transfer'd the Empire from the Grecians to the Germans in the person of Charles the Great And 't is not to be doubted saies he that this Translation was made and had its force and efficacy from the Consent and Authority of the People of Rome and the rest of Italy And whereas Innocent the Third Writes to Bertoldus That the Apostolic See transfer'd the Roman Empire from the Grecians to the Germans We do not grant the Apostolic See transfer'd it otherwise than by Consenting to those who did or by declaring it ought be transfer'd but the Translation had its force and strength from the Consent of the People To which purpose he alledges also Card. Cusanus speaking in this manner Whence the Electours ordain'd in the time of Henry the Second by common Consent of all Germans and Others subject to the Empire have their Radical Power from this common Consent of all who by the Law of Nature could choose themselves an Emperour not from the Pope in whose Power it is not to give a King or Emperour to any Country in the World without its Consent But to this concurr'd the Consent of Greg. the Fifth as of the single Bishop of Rome who for the Degree in which he is has an interest in Consenting to the Common Emperour And rightly as in General Councels His Authority concurs in the first place by Consent with all the rest who make the Councel the force nevertheless of the Definition depends not on the first of all Bishops but on the common consent of all both of him and the rest This is what they say How far it is to be allow'd is another Question The Origin of Empires and Rights of Princes are things I have more disposition to admire and reverence then Dispute In the mean time here are Eight of his Twelve Examples which you see are all Contested how rationally you will judge Those which follow are of Gegory the Seventh who Deposed the Emperour Henry and Three Popes more who followed his Example to which he might have added several other it being acknowledged that after Gregory the Seventh had once begun many have imitated him and almost all claim'd a Power to do so But as He was the first unquestionable Author of that till then unknown Fact so they maintain that Fact was unjust in him and not allowable in any of his Successours They Answer then first with Jo. Paris That Arguments are not to be drawn from such singular Facts which proceed sometimes from Devotion to the Church or from some other Cause and not from Order of Law And with Greg. Tholos From hence I gather only that 't is a difficult Question Whether Popes can Depose Emperours or Kings who formerly had Power to make Popes Besides there are found divers Depositions of Popes by Emperours as well as of Emperours by Popes so that there has been a great Vicissitude in these things Whence 't is a bad way of Disputing to argue from Fact and the Examples of Deposition Out of all which Ambitious disturbers of the Commonwealth Vsurpers of Kingdoms and Rebels to their Lawful Princes may gather first That every Deposition of Princes is not therefore Just because it has been done for all Facts are not Just and secondly That no such Consequence ought to be made there is an Example of such a thing therefore the like may be attempted again And in the words of Bellarmin himself De Rom. Pont. L 2. C. 29. speaking to the Instances in which Popes have been Depos'd by Emperours Such things saies he have been done but how justly let them look to it 'T is plain that Otho the First Depos'd John the Twelfth with a good Zeal though not according to knowledge for this John was one of the worst Popes that ever was And therefore no wonder if a Pious Emperour as this Otho was but not so skillful in Ecclesiastical Affairs conceiv'd he might be Depos'd
Melchisedech That when Christ being a King and a Priest received all judgment of the Father that is most full judicial power He joyning the same with his Priesthood did institute in the Church a regal Priesthood translating in suos I conceive he means St. Peter and his Successors all the power he had of his Father This new coronation of King Peter so long after his death and the mystery of King and Priest meeting in Melchisedech which St. Paul never dreamt of though he treat the subject particularly and something to better purpose and the admirable expedient to avoid dissentions by taking away Regal power are pleasant matters and deserve to be reflected on but that I have so much of this divertive stuff to produce that I cannot stay every where Thomas Bozius tells us Tho. â—ozias de jure stat praefat ad Aldobrand that if Christ be King of Kings and Lord of Lords in like sort the Church must be Queen and Lady that all temporal Regal power doth reside first in the soul of Christ and then in the Church his Spouse the Queen of the World and from her is deriv'd to others Faithful or Infidels as out of a fountain Isid Moscon de Majest militant Eccles P. 96. Isidorus Mosconius sayes to the same purpose That not only all faithful people but likewise Infidels and every natural creature is subject to the commandment of the Pope he is to be worshipped of all men and for this cause he receiveth of all the faithful adorations prostrations and kissing of his feet What pretty truths there are in the World which negligent men overslip by inadvertence who would have thought the Mogul and King of Pegu and Chinese Tartar had deriv'd their little streams of power from the great Channel of the Church Ungrateful men who so little acknowledge their Benefactors But since all natural creatures are subject to his commands I wish some body that has credit would prevail with him that Lyons and Bears and Adders and such naughty natural creatures might be forbidden to do us any harm for the future For as simple as he seems to sit at Rome and though he is pleased to make but little shew of any such power he can stop the mouths of Lyons and quench the violence of Fire So that had we not been Hereticks he might have done us a greater kindness here at London in the time of the fate dismal Fire then we are aware of I warrant you he could have whisper'd down the wind and with one grave Nod have cool'd the courage of the Fire But let us return to Mosconius P. 91 teaching us farther that the Pontifical and Regal power and all other powers are most plentiful in the Pope and do reside in the Pontifical dignity That all dominions whatsoever depend upon the Church P. 656. and upon the Pope as Head of the Church That in the Pope Authority is consider'd in Emperors and Kings power P. 670. and thence it is that power doth depend upon Authority P. 27. That the Pope is call'd universal Judge King of Kings and Lord of Lords P. 677. That Emperors and Kings may be compell'd to keep their oaths taken in their Coronation and Confirmation in that by virtue of such oath they are made the Popes Subjects P. 80. That all temporal Jurisdiction must be exercised not at the Popes command but at his Beck Princes will charge command God who is Lord of all doth by his beck command according to that Dixerat nutu totum tremefecit Olympum That Christ had full Jurisdiction over all the world and all creatures P. 85. and therefore the Pope his Vicar hath so In truth these Authors of yours are considerative men and as careful as they are able They reflect that Popes are generally old men and have often weak lungs and 't was charitable to exempt them from the painful trouble of commanding and make a nod serve the turn Carrerius in his zeal against impious Politicians and Heretics teaches us That true just ordain'd by God Alex. Carrer de Potest Rom. Pont. p. 9. and mere dominion as well in spiritual things as in temporal was brought forth by Christ and the same was committed to St. Peter and his Successors That Christ was Lord over all Inferiors P. 111. not only as God but likewise as man having even then Dominion in the earth and that therefore as the dominion of the world was in Christ both divine and humane so it must be confessed that it was in the Pope his Vicar That the mystery of Redemption being accomplisht Christ as a King gave unto Peter the administration of his Kingdom and St. Peter did execute that his power against Ananias and Saphira That Ghrist as he is man is directly Lord over all the world in Temporalities P. 124. and that therefore the Pope is so likewise in that he is Vicar That the supreme power of judging all and the top of dignities P. 126. and the height of both powers are found in Christs Vicar That as the divine and humane dominion were in Christ P. 150. so in Christs stead the dominion of the world in the Pope is both spiritual and temporal P. 151. divine and humane That the unremovable Truth doth design by Peters only coming by water to Christ that the whole dominion which is signified by the Sea is committed to St. Peter and his Successors 'T is quaint that and surprizing but yet this water me thinks is something an unstedy foundation That as the Pope cannot say he is not Christs Vicar so he cannot deny but that he is Lord over all things because the earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof whereby all things heavenly earthly and infernal are subject unto Christ the Lord and thence it is that he did commit unto the Pope who doth supply his place upon earth the right of the Heavenly and Terrene Empire That he should forget the infernal Empire the famous Purgatory power which for all it be under ground time has been when no glebe above ground has been more fruitful Elsewhere he teaches that there are divers Powers of men given by God P. 142. and divers Authorities all which do depend upon the highest Authority meaning I suppose the Popes and thence as the stars from the sun receive their light That the Imperial power concerning the administration of temporal matters doth proceed from the Pontifical power P. 145. as the light of the Moon from the light of the Sun P. 161. That the Empire of Rome before it was converted to Christ was a dominion usurpt and tyrannical because the true dominion was in the line of Christ That the Emperor is the Popes Minister for God did appoint him tanquam summi Sacerdotis Ministrum That no King or Emperor hath jurisdiction or dominion but from Christ and by consequence can have none at all but from his
the Bishop of Rome in place of Christ is set as a Prince over the whole world in spirituals and temporals and that it is naturally morally and by the Law of God to be held with a right faith that the Principality of the Bishop of Rome is the true and only immediate Principality of the whole world not only as touching things spiritual but likwise temporal and the Imperial Principality is depending upon it as being mediate ministerial and instrumental ministring and serving it and that it is ordained and instituted by it and at the commandment of the Papal Principality is moveable revocable corrigible and punishable I marry Here 's a man speaks to purpose Hang this squemish faint-heartedness which serves for nothing but to cover an ugly face with a vizor as ugly We know well enough what the mincing indirect in ordine ad spiritualia power would be at and 't is a great deal better to speak plainly for Orthodox truths such as concern the Law of God and right faith should be spoken so that people may understand them and know their duty As for Kings they are likely to boggle as much at the mask as the face If they be turn'd out of their Kingdoms and reduc'd to beggery the beggery will be direct beggery whatever the power is which brought them to it and this fine distinction but uncomfortable alms One would think this fellow were not to be match't and what think you of him who says in down-right terms Alvar. Pelagius de planctu Eccl. l. 1. a 37. That the Pope hath the propriety of the Western Empire and the rest of the world in protection and tuition He bids fair this man but of all commend me to Jacobus de Terano who explicating that scurvey text Tract Monarch· Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars tells us It was spoken but for a time not for ever that it was to hold only til the Ascension of Christ and afterwards that should come to pass which was spoken when I shall be lifted up from the earth I will draw all things after me that is I will recover all the Empires and Kingdoms of the world and will take them from Caesar from Kings and Princes to give them to the Pope I have not met with any who bids fairer for the purple than this man And so I leave him and the rest of your learned Authors for though more men might be alledged and more from these men yet in truth I am weary and must pass over sundry passages of profound learning and useful knowledge as that Papa is deriv'd from the Interjection Pape Moscon p. 22. because his dignity and power is admirable to all men and is as it were the amazement of the World according to the Gloss in the Proeme of the Clementines Papa stupor mundi non Deus non homo sed utrumque That he is God best defin'd by negation Manch l. 3. c. 1. Carrer p. 132. so that if one ask whether the highest Bishop be a Duke a King an Emperor to answer warily we should by denying affirm the Pope to be quid praestantius quidve eminentius So that we may hope one day to see a mystical Theology made for the Pope and the inaccessible mystery of his power declar'd by negations Moscon p. 92. That unto the Pope as Pastor of the Church Lanc. Conrad l. 2. c. 1. S. 4. and Bishop of that holy Sea and by reason of his dominion and excellence is given Adoratio Duliae such worship as belongs to Saints and Reliques Besides I have seen cited That he is holden to be Christ's Vicar not only in respect of things in earth August Triump q. 18. a. 2. in Heaven and in Hell but even over Angels both good and bad That he is greater than Angels as touching dominion not in respect of himself merely but by Authority from God and may be superior to any Angels concerning recompence of reward art 5. and may excomunicate them That he is equal to God and can make something of nothing and wrong to be right and such pretty matters which if the ears of you Catholics were not as much hardned as the hearts of us Heretics would sound a little odly But to our purpose The method of discourse requires now that I should apply these sayings to the matter in hand but the application is so easie and obvious that to spend time in it must needs be equally tedious and needless For pray tell me can any Commonwealth be safe or subsist at all if Princes have no dominion but what they receive from the Pope If they hold their Empires and Kingdoms of him if they may absolve their subjects from allegeance and transfer their rights from one line to another If they be his Ministers his Vassals his Subjects If their power be ministerial and subservient to the Papal to be exercis'd at his beck and be at his command both corrigible and revocable If any thing be plain in the world this is that either Princes must be taken out of the world or these Maxims For without more ado he that makes a Prince be a Subject makes him no Prince speaking as I do of absolute Princes Wherefore leaving these things and their application to your consideration I turn my self to reflect on what I concieve you may reply Two things there are which I have heard alledged in your behalf with some appearance but not much substance First that notwithstanding all this Catholic Princes do live safely and govern quietly and therefore to conclude these doctrines are inconsistent with government is to conclude that cannot be done which we plainly see is done Next that while men are men there will be quot capita tot sententiae that nature is not furnisht with means to confine the fancies of private men to the limits of strict reason that these are problematical Questions which particular men dispute into probabilities but for which the Church is not responsible having never either defined or otherwise ingaged her authority for them To the first I reply that a certain King took poyson so long that it became food to him and yet I think poyson for all that a very dangerous thing and very inconsistent with health The Princes you mention have Antidotes undoubtedly with which I am not acquainted but let the Antidote be never so good poyson will be poyson still And truly I think Sir Thomas Moor did honestly when finding some passages in the book which Henry the 8th writ against Luther of which by the King's command he had the perusal and in which he thought the Pope was complemented a little too far he represented to the King that one day possibly they might fall out as afterwards they did and that then He might wish some things unsaid While those Princes and the Pope continue friends they need not much apprehend and possibly are not much accquainted with what passes amongst
But he was more vigilant than stood with your profit Cardinal Bellarmine was then alive and he writes a letter to Blackwell perswading him to make amends for his fault which he compares to the falls of St. Peter and Marcellinus whereof one deny'd Christ the other committed Idolatry The Pope himself sends a Breve to the English Catholics and forbids the Oath and when they remained yet unsatisfied and made some exceptions of some wrong information and the like usual in such cases justifies the first Breve by a second and so utterly dashes the Oath that ever since the generality of Catholics have refused it and those few who continued constant in defence of the lawfulness of it were look't upon little better than Apostates The great maintainer of it Withrington a learned and honest man was so briskly prosecuted that he was fain to take sanctuary in a Prison and glad he scap't so If after this these things must still pass for probabilities probabilities are things in which I have been much mistaken for I thought a man had been at liberty to take which side he pleas'd but I see a man may as safely maintain Heresie as that side of these probabilities which displeases the Pope Neither can I see how the blame can be taken from him and cast upon private men For private men would have gon right enough if He would have let them alone and had not oversway'd them by his authority and an authority so absolute and merely such that neither He alledges nor I could ever see any reason to conclude that Oath unlawful even in your own grounds In the year 47 when upon the interposing of the Army under the command of the then Sir Thomas Fairfax it was hoped the difference betwixt King and Parliament and disorders of the Kingdom might have been composed and Catholics comprehended in the general settlement in case they could vindicate their principles from inconsistency with civil government Three Propositions were framed by the Catholics to that purpose importing that the Pope or Church had no power to absolve from obedience to civil Government or dispence with word or oath made to Heretics or authorise any to injure other men upon pretence of their being excommunicated c. The Priests were consulted about the lawfulness of these Propositions They met some of most orders amongst them and all agreed they were lawful The Laity rested in their judgment and the most considerable of those who were at hand subscrib'd them This was not very public and at a pretty distance and if it were known a body would think there was no great harm in it unless it be made prejudicial to Christianity for men to live with their neighbours as honest men and good subjects should do But they thought otherwise at Rome The vigilant old Gentleman there who must be pretended ignorant of what passes in Italy and at Rome got an inkling condemned whether the proceedings or propositions I know not for he was so wise as to keep his censure to himself and never let it see light and punisht such of the Actors as were willing to be punisht I know of one a principal one too who was sent beyond sea and there did penance in a house of his own Order for the grievous fault of having been honester than the Pope would have had him and I presume made good resolutions of amendment and becoming a new man and a pious knave for the future And I suppose the rest did the same unless chance or peradventure stubbornness excuâ—â—d them Unhappy Catholicks amongst whom 't is punishable even to be honest How truly has a learned man observ'd that you have the choice of being thought either bad subjects at home or bad Christians at Rome But you must feed upon the fruit of your own wayes In the mean time pray lay the blame of these things no more upon private men when the Pope so manifestly and industriously takes it upon himself and He may reserve you know what he pleases But take yet another instance and that even at this time upon the Stage Upon the restauration of his Sacred Majesty the Catholic Irish Clergy hoping to obtain the effect of some agreements made in the time of the troubles which the then Lord of Ormond the King 's Lieutenaut there commissionated a certain person now living and sent him over into England to sollicit those pretensions in their behalf And finding a profession of Allegeance necessary to their business they framed one which they sent to their Procurator to be made use of in their names and is now in every bodies hands and generally known by the name of the Irish Remonstrance This Profession not appearing sufficiently authentick the Procurator causes a meeting of such of the Irish Clergy as were then at London and informs them of the necessity of a general subscription to it One Bishop and three and twenty other very considerable men subscrib'd it some seven or eight held back professing yet the thing both Catholic as to the doctrin and lawful as to the action but asking what they should get by it But the game being once a foot it was presently and hotly follow'd by the Popes Ministers Cardinal Francis Barbarin at Rome the Nuntio at Paris and Internunce at Bruxels interpose with all concern imaginable They speak they write against it pretend it condemn'd before hand by two Popes meaning the Brief of Paulus V. about the Oath of Allegeance and the censure of the three Propositions by Innocent X. which never saw light and prevail with the Divines of Lovain to censure it They countenance they encourage they promote he Dissenters and brand the Subscribers with the odious names of Seditious and Schismatic and Heretic and Apostate One and he a venerable man was told to his face He had better have died than subscribed But the greatest bustle was about the Procurator himself Him they set upon with all Arts they tempt him with fair offers and the promise of very considerable preferments That failing they persecute him all they can they make his Superiors for he is a Religious man cite and excommunicate him all diffame him and at last have brought things to that pass that few believe him a Catholic and those few keep their charitable thoughts to themselves for fear of being infected with the dangerous Contagion So that so far as I can percieve if the Subscribers were the honester men the Dissenters were the wiser If these opinions must still pass for probable about which Divines may busie themselves without interresting the Church you have a strange and unintelligible way of government amongst you Methinks probabilities should have equal dealing and Divines left to scuffle about them as well as they can without partiality on either side So I think 't is with your other Probabilities in the hot disputes betwixt the Jesuists and Dominicans Scotists and Thomists and the rest Let them beat the Pulpits as hard as they
his I am taught to love my neighbour as my self because I am satisfy'd the way in which I am is the way to Heavean I wish every body would chuse it But if you think me a dangerous person for this you must think Reason a dangerous thing which he that fears to be trapand let me tell you is more trapan'd by his own fears You talk pleasantly of half Catholicks and motly Religion but I think you expect no answer and need not be put in mind that Religion as sacred as it is cannot hinder men from using their weak apprehensions and disorderly fancies and irregular deductions as well upon it as every thing else and he that shall take all that for Faith which every even faithful man offers him may too truly say inopem me copia fecit and find perhaps at last that too much Religion has left him none at all For the new trouble with which you threaten me I hope the more you examine my answer the less cause of exception you will find against it Nevertheless if you do prove dissatisfy'd I will endeavour when I know why to satisfie you as well as I can The noble Person cite was unquestionably a wise man and his saying is a wise saying and I am of his mind and wish such an Authentick definition made in this matter with all my heart But Friend I am no Pope to make one and though I am perswaded an Authentick definition of truth might produce very good effects I fear an unseasonable dispute might do as much harm Those two Powers like two boundless Seas have sometimes strugled together and in their unresistable Waves buried multititudes of unhappy People We may bless God we live in a calm disputes might raise the billows again and who knows when they would be laid I could speak with Freedom to you but since you talk of communicating what I say to others consider that one will mistake ignorantly another pervert wilfully a third deduce rashly and in a matter of this consequence where our duty required by the Law of God is concern'd all interpose eagerly and the most ignorant being still the most forward and full of noise the great good you fancy by setting bounds to the two Powers would prove clamour and bustle and inextricable confusion and if any miscarriage-happen all will be imputed to the Author who as innocent as he may otherwise be can never yet acquit himself of medling with what he has nothing to do No Friend let us preserve the Majesty of Supream Powers in an awful distance and submit to them with the reverence of a quiet obedience and not make them cheap by unseasonable disputes Princes and Bishops are both sacred let what belongs to them be so too and not toucht without the excuse of necessity or obligation of duty But People should know how to behave themselves when the two Powers are at odds For my part I conceive this is a Case which may safely be left to Gods providence and that those who do amiss sin more by Passion then Ignorance Let a man truly mean to do well and bring an upright Conscience to he Action and I believe he will not want as much knowledge as is necessary for him This I see that God being Author of both Powers it is not possible they should enterfare but by an abuse of the one and that abuse will be visible enough and when the case happens those who do not want honesty will not miscarry for want of knowledge In the mean time I should be very sorry to see the case happen I will not contribute towards it so much as even to mention it Obedience is the duty which God and my condition require from me and in the performance of that I will endeavour to be found unblamable and leave disputing to those who value the praise of a witty or subtle man above that of a faithful and quiet subject Besides though I might possibly hit of something more then is usually say'd on the argument which in my Opinion uses to be treated lamely enough yet I take it much to exceed the sphere of my ability In two words it is a question which I neither could sufficiently handle if I would nor would if I could But for your second question since it trenches as you say upon Faith and we are taught to be ready to give satisfaction to any who demands an account of the hope in us I shall obey the Apostle and you to my power You tie me nevertheless to pretty severe conditions for what is there or can there be so plain which mistaking zeal will not reprove or what other remedy can I bring to settle your quietness then Reason which yet I conceive to be be the very thing which causes it The onely expedient I can find to speak as you would have me is to say nothing at all I mean of my self farther then to deliver upon occasion may sence of what others say but answer your objection in the words of such men of whom you may be secure they will run no hazard of reproof from our Church and if your Reason can as well rectifie your self as their Authority will justifie them I hope you may at last be satisfy'd Remember then if you please that I take not upon me to determine dogmatically what is true and what false but only to acquaint you what may by a Catholicek unreprovably be said Peradventure I have no reason to be displeas'd with the bargain for dogmatising being so much out of Fashion in this age it is a great deal more easie as well as more fashionable to deliver what other men say to the point then to handle and conclude the point it self But to your difficulty The Pope say you is acknowledg'd by Catholicks to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth and I acknowledge that he is so From this you frame such an Argument What power Christ had the Pope has Christ had all power therefore the Pope has so too and this by an Article of our Faith Before I answer let me intreat you to consider what work 't would make if it were apply'd to Princes instead of Popes which I think it may as well be For if the Pope be the Vicar of Christ on Earth Princes are the Vicars of God on Earth and that I think is as good and reaches as far And if his Vicarship import a power to dispose of Kingdomes why will not their Vicarship import the power of the Keys and why may not he who purely upon the score of Vicarship comes to the Pope for a Title to a Kingdom as well go to his King for Remission of his sins If the Pope must be said to have the temporal Power as well as spiritual because Vicar includes both I see not how Princes can be deny'd to have the spiritual since they have the temporal and are Vicars as well as he This Doctrine would make brave work and introduce a
very pleasant Reformation into the World But I forget that I am to say nothing of my self I must therefore undertake a needless labour and shew from other men that Princes are the Vicars of God and though the unanimous consent of every body might well excuse me for none that I ever heard of either doubts they are so or boggles to call them so when the phrase comes in their way yet I must not break my bargain Let us then consider what this word Vicar signifies and in such plenty or rather such a multitude for I wish the plenty were as great as the number as we have amongst us we cannot sure be ignorant what a Vicar is We see he is one who supplys the place of another who not able for other respects to attend to his proper employment delivers it over to be executed by him whom we call his Vicar Kings we see govern the World and the Government of the World being the proper work of Providence they do the business which properly belongs to God But the nature of God being of that unsociable excellence that we are not able to bear the immediate Rays of divine brightness and converse with him whose Face none can see and live our nature requires he should do this by such substitutes to whom we may address our selves and have recourse for what we need Since Kings then supply the place of God or do that which he should do and which he truly does by them they want nothing to the perfect notion of his Vicars but this that they be appointed and impowr'd by God for that end With this difference notwithstanding that Vicars are necessary for other men from the imperfection of their natures who make them because they cannot attend to two employments at once but are necessary for God from the superexcelling perfection of his nature and imperfection of ours which cannot bear an immediate converse with him Now that they are immediately substituted by God to govern the World under him or in his place since t is not likewise to be deny'd I hope a few Authorities will serve to prove And yet I cannot tell whether that hasty word Immediately will down with all For some Divines put this difference betwixt the Spiritual and Temporal Power that the first is immediately from God the second by mediation of the People subjecting themselves by way of Election Succession or such other means by which Governments are either introduc'd or establisht And for my part though I were not ty'd from dogmatizing irritare crabrones is a thing from which I have much aversion especially in a question which I conceive of an extraordinary importance For whether the power be from God immediately or mediately so it be from God I conceive it extends as far and is as much to be obey'd Saul and David were immediately appointed by God and yet I think as much obedience was due to Solomon as either of them and that St. Peters Successour whether Clemens or whoever else was as much Pope as he And if election made the power mediate we see Popes are not Popes till they be elected There are indeed who by this mediation understand a reserve in the people to reassume in certain cases the power which they have given But this I must needs think very abominable and shall not stick to say whoever reproves me for it is himself more reprovable St. Paul has taught there is no power but from God so I believe and if any think they have found better Masters of Faith I for my part mean to stick to those which Christ has given me But let us see what is said by those whom no Catholick I suppose will reprove The Council of Paris speaks methinks to purpose when it says L. 2. c. 5. No King must think his Kingdom left him by his Progenitors but truly and humbly believe 't was given him by God And that earthly Kingdoms are not given by men but God the Prophet Daniel testifies Dan. 4.14 5.25 Hierom. 27.5 But to them who think their Kingdoms given them by Succession from their Ancestors and not rather by God agrees that which God reproves by the Prophet They have reigned but not by me Osee 8.4 they have been Princes and I knew them not Wherefore whoever Reigns temporally over other men L. 5. l. 21. let him believe his Kingdom was given him not by men but by God St. Austin de Civit. Dei Let us not attribute the power of giving Kingdoms and Empires to any but the true God Tertullian They Empeperours know who gave them the Empire Apoleget adv Gent. c. 30. They know 't was he who made them men and gave them souls They are sensible 't was God alone under whose power alone they are second to him and after him first before all men Again From thence is the Emperour from whence the man before he was Emperour from thence the power from whence the spirit or breath I am not good at subtletys but methinks 't is hard to make that power mediate which is not from Ancestors and Succession not from men but from God alone More refin'd wits perhaps may make it hang together that Kings have their power from God alone and from something else too and that their power is mediate in which none interposes but himself and prove a gift from the people of that which God himself gives as if his power were under Age and could not make a valid donation without them and when they have done such fine things we are still just where we were for 't is acknowledg'd of all hands even by those who least favour the temporal power that it is from God and if it be so those who have it from him are his Vicars But yet you shall not take my word even for so much He was a Vicar of Christ himself who speaks thus to the Emperour Anast 2. Ep. un The brest of your clemency is Sacrarium the sacred depository of publick felicity that by you whom God has commanded to preside as his Vicar on Earth And before him Eleutherius in an Epistle to King Lucius our and I think the Worlds first Christian King preserved in our Antiquities tells him 't was needless to send him the Roman Laws which the King desir'd but wishes him to take the Law of God and the advice of his own Nation and frame such as were proper for his Country as being himself the Vicar of God After him another uses these terms to the Emperour Steph. 6. ap Baron an 885. n. 11. Although you similitudinem geras which I know not how otherwise to English then represent the person or are the Vicar of the Emperour Christ himself The same phrase is found in Pope Hermisda In Ep. ad Rom. c. 13. St. Ambrose speaks plainly Let them know they are not free but under the power which is from God for they are subject to
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
Emperour receive Baptism from the Bishop the Sacraments Penance desire their Prayers their Benediction lastly you administer humane he dispenses divine things to you Greg. the 2d Ep. 13. to the Emperour Leo As the Bishop has no power to look into the Palace and meddle with regal dignity dignitates regales deferendi so neither has the Emperour to look into the Church c. Bishops are therefore set over Churches abstaining from the business of the Comwonwealth that Princes in like manner may abstain from Ecclesiastical matters Leo 4. 2. q. 7. c. Nos si incompetenter It is to be noted that there are two Persons by which the World is governed the Royal and the Sacerdotal As Kings preside in the affairs of the World so Priests in what belongs to God It belongs to Kings to inflict corporal to Priests to inflict spiritual punishment He Judex carries the Sword for punishment of the bad and praise of the good these Preists have the Keys to exclude the excommunicate and reconcile the penitent Nicolas 3d. C. Inter haec 32. q. 2. The holy Church of God is not govern'd by worldly Laws she has no Sword but the Spiritual with which she doth not kill but quicken Adrian the first in the Council of Franckfort seems to me with one little word to explain very well the Commission given to St. Peter Peter sayd he in reward of his confession was made Porter of Heaven and had power to bind and loose so much we already know 't is recorded in Scripture but what was it he could bind and loose Souls says the Pope These Popes understood and us'd their power as well as most of their Successours and they knew nothing of Temporal power but confin'd what was given them to spiritual and divine things and care of the Soul And that this too is the sense of the Church I think will appear by the Prayer us'd on the Feast of St. Peters Chair which antiently ran thus O God who by giving the Keys of Heaven hast deliver'd to Peter the Pontifical dignity of binding and loosing Souls This last word Souls is left out of the latter Editions I suppose to render the Prayer more conformable to the expressions of Scripture and peradventure to keep more close to antiquity of which they are very tenacious at Rome for Platina in the Life of Leo 4th delivers the rude draught of this Prayer whence 't is likely the Prayer was taken without that word But the meaning with the word and without is the same Words may alter but the Churches sense alters not But let us hear some other of the Fathers Hosius Bishop of Corduba who presided in the Council of Nice and was counted in his time the Father of Bishops writes thus to the Emperour Constantius God has committed the Empire to you Vid. Athan. Ep. ad Solicitarios and entrusted us with what belongs to the Church And as he who looks upon your Empire with envious Eyes contradicts the divine Ordination so do you take heed that by drawing affairs of the Church to you you incur a great crime It is written give what is Caesars to Caesar and what is Gods to God Wherefore neither is it lawful for us to take an Empire on Earth neither does the Power of Sacrifices and holy things belong to you S. Jo. Chrysost hom 4. in verb. Isaiae Bodies are committed to Kings Souls to Priests He has material those spiritual Arms. S. Hierom. in cap. 16. Mat. The Spiritual Key extends not it self to Temporals without Arrogance Theophylac upon John 21. Our Lord makes Peter not a Prince not a King but commands him to be a Pastour Feed says he not Kill c. S. Anselm upon Mat. 26. There are secular Officers by whom Temporal things and Spiritual Officers by whom Spiritual things are managed Wherefore the material Sword is given to carnal and the Spiritual to Spiritual Officers and as what belongs to the Church is not proper for Kings so neither ought the Bishop to meddle with what belongs to Kings Which because Peter who represents spiritual men did when he us'd the material Sword and cut off our Servants Ears he deserv'd to be reprehended by our Lord. Hugo de san Victor de sacr fid l. 2. p. 3. c. 4. Earthly Power has the King for Heads Spiritual Power the Pope Earthly things and all ordained for earthly Life belong to the power of the King Spiritual things and all belonging to Spiritual life to the Pope Again l. 2. p. 2. c. 3. It is given to the faithful Christian Laity to possess Temporals to the Clergy onely Spirituals are committed St. Bernard speaks thus to the Pope De consid l. 1. c. 6. Your Power is not in Possessions but in Crimes and for these not for them you have received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven Consider Hugo's onely Spirituals and St. Bernards not for Possessions or Temporals and judge whether a Catholick is like to be reproved for not extending the Popes power beyond Spirituals And in his 2d Book speaking of Temporals Be it says he that you may some other way challenge these things but not by the right of Apostleship for he Peter could not give what he had not himself what he had that he gave the care as I said over Churches Rupertus Abbas upon these words nor a Rod Mat. 10. speaks thus But now there are two Rods one of the Kings of Gentiles another of the Disciples of Christ The Rod of of the Kings of Gentiles is the Rod of Dominion the Rod of the Disciples of Christ is the Rod of Direction the Rod of Pastoral duty solicitously watching over the cure of Souls The Rod which is of Dominion is not granted to the Ministers of the Gospel of Peace and that is forbidden here nor a Rod c. Cardinal Damianus L. 4. Ep. 9. ad Olderic Episc Firman Between the Kingdom and Priesthood the proper Offices of each are distinguisht that the King may make use of the Arms of the World and the Priest be girt with the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God If any Object that Pope Leo engaged himself often in War who nevertheless is a Saint I say what I think that neither Peter obtained the Apostolical Principality because he denied Christ nor David deserved the Oracle of Prophecy because defiled another mans Bed Schoolmen as they speak more plainly are a little more severe Almain de Authorit Eccles c. 2. puts this difference betwixt Ecclesiastical and Lay power that by this onely corporeal punishment is inflicted by other Spiritual precisely Joan. de Parisiis c. 10. de potest Reg. Pap. Granting that Christ had temporal authority and plwer yet gave it not to Peter c. 15. Answering the Objection from Quodcunque solveritis c. I answer with Chrysostom and Ravanus by this is not understood any power given but Spiritual to absolve from the bond of Sins and it were foolish
I think will be so madly blasphemous to question the absolute Soveraignty and Omnipotent power of God over all things But the same person was man too and 't is from that formality the Pope claims for suppose 't is no less impiety to affirm that what belongs to the Divine Nature is not communicable to any to whom that Nature is not communicated then 't is to deny of the Divine Nature that which truly belongs to it And this Bellarmin well understood when he argues thus De Rom. Pont. l. 5. l. 4. Christ as man while he liv'd on Earth neither had nor would have Dominion meerly temporal over any Province or Town But the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and represents Christ to us as he was while he liv'd amongst men Wherefore the Pope as Christ's Vicar and consequently as Pope has not Dominion meerly temporal over any Province or Town Speaking now of Christ precisely as Man those who attribute temporal power to him and make him a secular King go one of these two ways They either alledge right of Succession by descent from David or a particular grant from God the Father in whose power it being to dispose of all Kingdoms they affirm he has transfer'd this Right upon his Son as Man Of these two the first is hard to prove and in my opinion signifies nothing when 't is prov'd The descent indeed of Christ from and that by two several beanches is recorded in the Gospel but descent gives a tittle to none but the nearest of the descent and that Christ was the nearest is so far from appearing that I know not how it possibly should 'T is true that Solomon and his Posterity Reigned to Jeconias but of him the Prophet Hier. 22.30 Foretold there should not be of his seed a man who should sit upon the Throne of David and have power longer in Juda So that the Succession of that Regal Line of David seems ended in him 'T is true Zedechias or Mathanias Reigned 11 years after him who was not of his seed for he was his Uncle but from him to Aristobulus of the Race of the Machabees who first reassum'd the Regal Diadem there was not any King at all amongst the Jews That Nathan or any of his Posterity either Reign'd or had right to Reign nothing appears and much less that Christ was the nearest of the descendents from either that or the other branch In so much darkness I think 't is evident there can be no clear title However I conceive another thing is clear which even supposing that Christ were next in descent to David would quite take away all Title to his Kingdom and that is that in his time the Kindom was legally and justly translated from the Family of David to the Asmoneans For certainly to affirm that the Machabees and their Successors who with excellent vertue recover'd the lost Scepter and setled it in their own Family were all Intruders and Usurpers and Tyrants would be a wild and preposterous assertion and such an one as would unsettle all the translations of Empires which concur in the course of History whereof few perhaps have been made with greater virtue or more justice What King can be secure of his Title if the Asmoneans were no Rightful King And if they were descent from David gives Christ no more title to the Throne of David then Signior Paleologo far be all irreverence from the comparison has to the Empire of Greece or Goodman Plantagenet to the Crown of England A title therefore by descent seems very hard to prove but though it were prov'd I think there is so little got by the bargain that it might have been e'en as well let alone For right to the Kingdom of David is but right to the Kingdom of David and I suppose the Pope will not agree to have his Authority confin'd to the Guetto at Rome and be put to the trouble of Assembling the dispers'd Jews that he may have over whom to Reign and wringing out the ancient Kingdom of David from the present Possessors that he may have where to Reign He knows well enough the strength and stability of long possession and I dare say will not change his spiritual title at Rome for the best and fairest temporal title which can be made him to Hierusalem and where else the right of David can give him any interest 't is hard to imagine The other Plea is a Grant from his Father who may undoubtedly dispose of Kingdoms and every thing else as he pleases But his usual way of giving Kingdoms is to put those to whom he gives them into actual possession by Election Succession the Sword or other secondary means To give bare titles without other fruit is a course not suitable to the method of his proceeding Lawyers indeed have invented a distinction betwixt the Dominion and usus fructus of a thing and the distinction is useful here below but I suspect distinctions are strangers in Heaven and that plain dealing providence deals little in Chican However it be being resolv'd not to penerrate into the depth of the question my self I shall onely observe to you what people say on both sides and leave you to judge This short reflexion by the way I suppose I may irreprovably make that if the Father made any such grant the Son was not ignorant of it And if he knew such power was given him and yet refused to use it I perceive not how he will be excus'd from the blame of not doing what belong'd to him to do A King certainly is as much oblig'd to govern as a Subject to obey and since 't is manifest blasphemy to say Christ was deficient in any point of duty this in reference to my dulness is unavoidable Christ did not perform the duty of a temporal King therefore he was no temporal King But these are onely my thoughts by the by what people say on both sides is this Those who would have Christ a temporal King alledge in proof these places of Scripture which speak of his power in general and expresly apply the name of King to him in particular Such as Heb. 1.2 Whom he made Heir of all things by whom also he made the Worlds Heb. 2.7 Thou hast Crowned him with honour and glory and set him over all the works of thy hands For in that he subjected all things he left nothing not subject to him 1 Cor. 5.24 When he shall have evacuated all Principality and Power and Vertue Mat. 28.18 All power is given me in Heaven and in Earth Jo. 23.3 Knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands Jo. 5.22 For the Father judges no man but has given all judgment to the Son he has given him power to judge because he is the son of man Apoc. 17.14 They shall fight with the Lamb and the Lamb shall overcome them because he is Lord of Lords and King of Kings And again 19.16 And he has written
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
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
Tract 12. in Mat. Jesus taking occasion from the two Brothers who sought to be advanc'd above the other Apostles with indignation of the rest settles the Rule of justice to the faithfull how a man may obtain the first place with God The Princes of the Gentiles not content only to Rule their Subjects seek violently to Command them But with you who are mine this shall not be Least they perhaps who seem to have Principality in the Church should domineer over their Brethren or exercise power upon them For as all Carnal things are by necessity not willingness and Spiritual by willingness not necessity so the principality of Spiritual Princes ought to be placed in the Love not Corporal fear of their Subjects And after he had spoken much of the Humility befitting Prelates least he should be thought an enemy to their true Power he so Answers that Objection that withal he explicates wherein that Power consists Adding This I say not to debase the Ecclesiastical Principality For it is sometimes fit according to the Apostolical Instruction publickly to rebuke sinners that the rest may be afraid It is sometimes fit he should use his Power What is that and deliver the Sinner over to Satan to the destruction of the flesh that his spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ Yet this is seldome to be done For the Vnquiet are to be reprehended the Pusillanimous to be comforted the Weak to be sustained Magnanimity shew'd to all Reprehension then and Excommunication are the things in which Origen thought the Spiritual Power consisted S. Ambrose Orat. in Auxent Against Weapons and Souldiers of the Goths I may grieve I may weep I may sigh My Weapons are my Fears for such are the defence of a Priest To resist in any other manner I neither ought nor can S. Bernard de Consid L. 2. S. Peter could not give what he had not what he had that he gave the care as I said over the Churches Did he give Dominion too Hear himself Not domineering saies he in the Clergy but being made the Example of the flock And that you may not think this was said only for humility not for truth it is the saying of our Lord in the Gospel The Kings of Gentiles have dominion over them and who have Power upon them are called beneficial and infers but you not so 'T is plain Dominion is forbid to Apostles Go you now and dare to usurp either with Dominion the Apostleship or with the Apostleship Dominion Aut Dominans Apostolatum aut Apostolicus Dominatum You are plainly forbid the one If you will have both together you will lose both Otherwise think not your self exempted from the number of those of whom God complains so they have reigned but not by me They have been Princes and I knew them not Now if you will reign without God you have glory but not with God Dominion is forbidden Ministry is commanded Again Girt your sword to you the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God And L.4 Set upon them with the Word not the sword S. Anselm in 26 Mat. Note that there are two swords in the Church one material the other spiritual but the spiritual constrains only the willing the material the unwilling too And note withall that the Saint by Church means materially not formally that is that amongst Christians and the faithfull as well as Infidels there is the power of life and death and they are of the Church who have it not that it belongs to them as they are of the Church Pet. de Aliaco de Resumpt Concl. 1. answering some Arguments brought to prove that the spiritual Power extends it self to Temporals To all these things may be said that they are to be understood not of the judgement of Coaction but the judgement of Discretion nor that they belong to the Clergy not by natural and divine Right but humane Laws and concession of Kings or Emperors And Concl. 4. To those who teach the Clergy may make Laws in Civil matters and Rules according to which Princes are obliged to judge and govern I insist not upon it because they say it purely voluntarily and without alledging Authentical Scripture Again C. de Reform Laic Princ. Consi 6. The Church cannot temporally constrain Princes to reform these things Gul. Oâ—hum Dial. Par. 1. L. 6. C. 9. The Pope as Vicar of Christ has Power of Excommunication but not to inflict any greater punishment Joan. Ferus L. 3. Comment in Mat. 16. I will give Thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven These are not material Keys but signifie metaphorically Power Peter therefore receiv'd Power not any earthly Power that he could give or take away or alienate Kingdoms c. but the Power to bind and loose to remit and retain sins to open and shut and this not arbitrarily neither but as a Minister to execute the will of God This Ferus by the way is in the Index of prohibited Books but these Commentaries printed at Rome are excepted out of the prohibition which because I have not I thought convenient to tell you so Anton. de Rosell de Potest Imp. Pap. Par. 1. C. 38. Whence is gathered that Secular Power never was in Christ nor his Successors which is confirm'd by the Authority of Bede when upon that of St. Mat. he says Amongst you who are mine violent dominion shall not be For as all carnal things are placed in necessity spirituals in voluntariness so spiritual Princes have their principalities in love not fear But those who have carnal Coercion should fear that of the Apostle Rom. 13. If you do ill fear namely the Secular Power because their weapons are wars The sword therefore is not permitted to the Pope This Rosellis is got into the Index too Donec expurgetur of which if I had reflected when I writ my last I had told you so much But because he cites V. Bede who it seems had learnt his Doctrine from Origen and St. Ambrose I put him in I see these Authors freely cited by Catholicks and while they speak conformably to the Fathers and Popes themselves know not why they should be rejected You have in the former Letter from Leo 4 that corporal punishments belong to Kings spiritual to Priests From Nicol. 2. That the Church of God hath no sword but the spiritual I add Joan. 8. Cap. Porro 16. Q. 3. The Church unacquainted with corporal Arms patiently expects mercy from her only Lord and Defender when he pleases And Calestin 3. C. cum ab homine Extrav de Judiciis teaches us that if a Clergy-man remain after Deposition and Excommunication still incorrigible since the Church has not Power to do more he is to be restrained by the Secular Power and banishment or some other lawfull punishment inflicted And this seems to me very evident from the Custom of the Church even at this day when if a Clergy-man be found guilty of a
Iconoclast I value them not Thus then stood things in the vvorld when Hildebrand Archdeacon of the Church of Rome was chosen to the Papacy in the year 1083 and called Gregory the VIIth The Contests which in his daies began betwixt the Spiritual and Civil Power are the reason I suppose why he is so differently represented by those who vvrite of him His Enemies give him the Character of an Imperious Tyrannical and several waies Wicked Man his Friends on the other side praise him as much and affirm he was a man of great Prudence and Vertue and so far that it hath been attested by several Miracles And for my own part I must confess I incline to believe well of him For he had been the support of the Papacy during the time of several Popes his Parts and Industry having drawn upon him the greatest weight of all business and was so far from aspiring to that dignity that if Baronius say true He treated with the Emperour not to consent to his Election assuring him before hand that if he did He would be very severe against the Abuses practic'd in his Court. Besides if Sigonius may be believ'd and the passages he relates vvhich can hardly be read vvithout horrour the Emperour was a very Wicked Man but that which concerns this matter was That all Benefices were with all the Licentiousness of a depraved Court expos'd to sale and He that could Fee a Courtier was vvithout Merit or even Capacity possest of the most considerable Preferments of the Church As this vvas a mischief palpably destructive to all Goodness so 't is not incredible from the irregularity of a debauch'd Court. And if the Pope desir'd to have it remedied the end he propos'd was but what became him if the means had been so too I am the more inclin'd to believe this true because the Germans in a great measure took part with the Pope forct the Emperour to comply and after several Traverses at last took the Crown from him and plac'd it on his Son However it were the Emperour notwithstanding the Popes Remonstrances gives consent to the Election and confirms him and the Pope was as good as his word And first Excommunicates those who should receive Investitures of Benefices from Laymen afterwards the Laymen who should grant them and lastly provok'd by the Emperour who in a Synod at Wormes had forbidden Obedience to him Excommunicates and deposes the Emperour himself And this iâ— the first unquestionable Example of this kind which has appear'd in the Christian World Bellarmin indeed and his Followers would make us believe there are Examples more Ancient but in my opinion he proves them not well and you see Onuphrius counts them but Fables and those of that Age at least those vvho favoured the Emperour exclaim'd against it as a Novelty unheard of not to call it Heresie as one faies But though the thing were now done it appears not yet in vertue of what Power 't was done As that Age was not I think extraordinary subtle the distinctions of Direct and Indirect Power were not yet found out and the Pope himself speaks in common That the care of the Christian World and Authority to bind and loose was committed to him confiding in the Judgment and Mercy of God and Patronage of the B. Virgin and supported by the Authority of SS Peter and Paul c. but descends not to particulars So that it appears not whether he acted in vertue of a Spiritual or Temporal Power Directly or Indirectly and 't is likely he speculated not so far One thing is pretty remarkable in his second Sentence for he made two which ends in this manner After he had commanded all concerned to withdraw their Obedience from Henry and yield it to Rudolphus speaking as he does all along to the Apostles SS Peter and Paul You then See the words in Platina saies he most holy Princes of the Apostles confirm what I have said by your Authority that all men at last may understand if you can bind and loose in Heaven we likewise on Earth may give and take away Empires Kingdoms Principalities and whatever mortals can have Let Kings and all Princes of the World understand by his Example what you can do in Heaven and what power you have with God and hereafter fear to contemn the commands of the Holy Church And shew this Judgment upon Henry quickly that all Sons of Iniquity may perceive that he falls from his Kingdom not by chance but by your means This nevertheless I desire from you that by Repentance he may at your request find favour of our Lord at the day of Judgment For my part I cannot imagine but a man who speaks thus must needs mean uprightly and think at least he does well Notwithstanding the Apostles did not do as he desir'd them For this Rudulphus after he had fought twice upon equal terms with the Emperour was overthrown in the third Battle and so wounded in the right hand that he dy'd of it and dy'd full of Repentance and acknowledgment of his own fault and the Justice of God who had deservedly punisht him in that hand with which he had formerly sworn Fealty and Service to his Lord. So that though I believe the Pope thought himself much in the right yet the Court of Heaven thought not fit to grant his Request but ordered things quite contrary to his expectation and desire The next famous Example is of Frederic the IId a Prince of great Power and Parts who falling out with several Popes as resolute as himself after several breaches at several times made up and several Sentences publisht and recall'd and renew'd again was at last with the astonishment and horrour of all present saies M. Paris solemnly Excommunicated and depos'd in the Councel of Lions And this made both Princes and Prelates begin to look about them foreseeing that if this deposing Power should go on a slight Pretence might at last serve turn to unthrone perhaps an Innocent Man and bring the vvorld into confusion which possibly was the cause the Popes Sentence was not executed For this Frederic notwithstanding those proceedings kept the Empire till his death which happened long after But still I see not any ground to judge whether the Power were yet thought Direct or Indirect and in likelyhood People had in common a great Veneration for the Supream Pastour and his Decrees and thought them wicked men vvho submitted not to them but what kind of Power he had and hovv far it extended as far as I can perceive they little considered 'T is observable both in this Sentence and the former of Gregory VII that the Emperour is first Deposed and afterwards Excommunicated in aggravation as it were of the former Penalty The business was a little more discust in the Contests betwixt Boniface the VIIIth and Philip the Fair of France As this Pope is Recorded for a man of more mettle than Vertue his proceedings were
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
in the case Whether an Opinion imputed to a Prince be Heresie or no and Whether he hold it or no and would introduce it among his Subjects If both these depend on the Popes Judgment and his Judgment be irrafragable the safety of all Princes lies in his breast and no Prince can be longer secure of his Crown than he is of the Popes favour For the Pope may proceed to Judgment when he pleases and if he be to be obey'd let him Judge how he pleases No Prince can be a Prince longer than he pleases For put the case say they To deny in the Pope a Power to Depose Princes is an opinion which may by this Rule be declared Heresie whenever the Pope thinks convenient The King of France for Example himself holds that Opinion and endeavours his Subjects should do so to This King therefore and I believe it will go as hard with all the rest is Deposable if for no other reason yet for thinking himself not Deposable And so all Kings are without more adoe at the Mercy of the Pope If they acknowledge themselves Deposable they grant the Power and are beholding to him that he puts it not in Execution if they deny it for that very reason they are to be Deposed and are again more to thank him that he does not Depose them when they deserve it To this particular then of the Popes Judgment If it be understood of a Natural Judgment others say they may Judge as well as the Pope whether the Prince deserve to be Depos'd or no and those who live upon the place better as having better information from their Eyes and Ears than he can have from the Report of others But if it be understood of an Authoritative Judgment such whose Sentence obliges People to the Execution of it they deny the Pope or any else has any Authority to Judge in that manner of the Behaviour of Princes For say they the Authority of every Judge is confined to his proper Tribunal a Judge of Assize is no Judge in the Spiritual Court nor is a Bishop a Judge of Assize Now the Pope's is a Spiritual Tribunal and in that he may in fit circumstances judge even of Princes and condemn them if they be faulty and award Spiritual Penalties against them But if he proceed to Temporal Punishments he passes to a Tribunal in which he is no Judge nor his Sentence so given more to be obey'd than that of a Court Marshal in the Common Pleas And to say otherwise were to take all Judges and all Tribunals out of the vvorld besides his own For there is no Action but if well done belongs to Vertue if ill to Vice And He being as much Judge of Vertue as Vice as of Heresie and Faith there is no Action nor can be which by this account does not belong to his Tribunal and so all other Judges are useless For the rest they flatly deny the first Proposition and affirm Subjects are so far from being obliged not to endure an Infidel or Heretic Prince that they are oblig'd to Endure and Obey him too not so far indeed as to turn Infidels or Heretics for his sake nor so far as not to represent his Errours or Miscarriages to him in that dutiful manner which is allowed by the Law and their Allegiance but for the rest let him be never so much an Infidel or Heretic He is still their Prince and as such to be obey'd Bellarmin proves he may not from Deuteron where the Jews are forbid to choose a King who is not a Jew And this seems a little far off For if in Poland for Example the Law were to choose only a Polander or in Germany a German this might very well be true and withal be little to purpose But yet he brings it nearer The Reason of this Law saies he was least by choosing a Stranger they might be brought into Idolatry But there is the same danger and the same mischief in choosing a Prince who is not a Christian and remaining subject to one who becomes no Christian therefore Christians are bound to Depose a Prince who deserts Christianity and endeavours to pervert his Subjects after him This Argument saies the other side makes nothing for the Pope It may seem to countenance the pretensions which Rebellious People make to a Power over their Kings for those are they who Choose and by Consequence are to Depose if this Argument hold but the Pope has no more to do with the one than the other or if he have he has as much right to Choose as Depose For the Law then they acknowledge the Reason assigned by Bellarmin is in likelyhood true but when he assumes that the case of not Choosing and not Obeying a Prince already chosen or otherwise in Lawful possession of the Principality is equally mischievous they think him wonderfully out Before he is Chosen he is no Prince nor have the People any tye to him and while they are at their Liberty they will not do well to Choose ill and subject themselves to a Bad Man But when he is once Chosen or otherwise establisht they are no longer Free but Subject and that for Conscience neither have they any other part in the disposition of the Commonwelth but Obedience This Prince though Election were the means by which he got his Principality yet has it now and that by Divine Right and is truly the Vicar of God whose particular Commission for his Deposition unless it can be produced those who resist him resist the Ordinance of God and acquire Damnation to themselves A Man does ill who chooses a Bad Wife and is bound by the law of Reason to choose a Good one But can he therefore cast her off when he has her and because he did amiss in taking a Scold do worse in leaving her The Cardinals are bound to Choose a Good Man for Pope if they choose a Bad one or he become Bad after his Election Bellarmin will not therefore allow them to Choose another And yet his Argument is every jot as efficacious in that case as in that of Bad Princes A Bad Pope may do as much mischief as a Bad Prince and if the danger and mischief be equal to Choose him and Obey him the Pope is as fully confuted as the Prince But that Bellarmin should impose upon them that the mischief of Choosing and not Deposing is equal and make it a kind of known Principle too and such as needs no proof they take very unkindly at his hands For if they refuse to choose a Bad Man there is no mischief at all nor injury so much as to him who is refused But if a Prince once lawfully Establisht be afterwards cast out there follows Bloodshed and War the Hazard perhaps the Ruine of the Commonwealth So that his equal Cases put the greatest mischiefs that can be on one side and none at all on the other which is a very partial and something unequal
equality or else they make the Disturbance and Hazard of the Commonwealth no mischief which that Bellarmin should go about to perswade them argues he had more confidence in his Logic than they have Opinion of his Judgment 'T is great pity this Doctrine if it be true was not in fashion a little sooner the Ignorance of it cost the life of many a good Christian and the Bloud of abundance of Innocent Men shed in Ten Persecutions might have been saved if the first Masters of Christianity had Instructed People a little better and made them understand the convenient use of their Power For it had been but Antidating a little the course of Providence and setting up a Christian Emperour in the place of Nero or Dioclesian and all had been well And 't is a little strange those Primitive Christians whom none suspects of want of Zeal either understood or practis'd their duty no better Neither the one nor the other saies Bellarmin but the Reason why they Depos'd not Nero and Dioclesian and the Apostate Julian and Valens the Arian was because they wanted Force For that they wanted not Right nor the Knowledge of it is apparent by the Apostle who 1 Cor. 16. bids the Christians appoint New Judges and if they could make New Judges they might as well have made New Kings if their Force had been equal to their Justice But certainly some body is extreamly out Bellarmin or his Adversaries for they affirm very confidently that the Primitive Christians were not so weak and helpless as he pretends S. Peter himself liv'd in Nero's time and he had power to restore the dead to life and cast the living into sudden death A body would think this was Power enough in conscience and that Nero with all his Guards and Legions was not more secure of his Empire against this miraculous and unresistable Force than Ananias of his life It was not then for want of Power that he taught Christians to be subject to the King as most excelling c. and choose to lay down his own life amongst the rest rather then practice an expedient which Bellarmin thinks so necessary and which to him had been easie enough if he had been of Bellarmins mind But to speak only of Humane Power Tertullian liv'd in those daies and Writ what he saw and knew He affirms the contrary to what Bellarmin thinks very plainly Apologet. C. 37. Should we want Numbers or Forces if we had a mind to be open Enemies not secret Revengers Are the Moors and Marcomans and Parthians and whatever Nations of one place and confin'd to their own Limits more than those of the whole World We are but Men of yesterday and yet have filled all the places you have your Cities Islands Castles Burroughs Councels and Camp it self your Tribes Courts Palaces the Senate and the Market We have left you only the Temples For what War are not we fit and ready even though we were Inferiour in Number who endure death so willingly if in this Discipline it were as lawful to Kill as to be killed c Eusebius L. 8 c. 1. Writing of the times before Dioclesian Who shall describe saies he the numerous Congregations and multitudes of meetings in every City and the open concourse to Oratories for which not content with the Ancient Buildings they in every City set up spacious and Large Churches from the very Foundations A thing testifi'd by Maximinus himself who saies to Sabinus that Dioclesian and Maximinian commanded Christians to be proceeded against because they saw Omnes ferè mortales All men generally leaving the Worship of the gods Euseb L. 9. C 9. unite themselves to the Christians The Army of Julian too was almost all Christian say Historians in so much that when Jovinian chosen Emperour after his death shew'd a backwardness to his Election as being himself a Christian and unwilling to take the Command of Men accustomed to Wickedness under Julian Theodor. L. 4. C. 1. they all cry'd out He should not doubt and refuse a Command not Wicked That he should be an Emperour of Christians and Men brought up in Discipline and Piety which the Elder of them learnt of Constantine and the Younger of Constantius and that if Julian had circumvented some he liv'd not long enough to settle the Mischief S. Austin too testifies of them In Psal 124. that They could at their pleasure have deposed Julian but would not because they were subject for Necessity not only to avoid Anger but for Conscience and Love and because our Lord so commanded And abundance more they alledge in this kind To the Proof which Bellarmin brings from 1 Cor. they Reply That since the Christians had Force enough to Create New Judges they see not why they had not Force enough to Create New Kings too And the truth is if the Judges meant by the Apostle were such as could claim and exercise the Authority invested in those who were appointed by the Prince it was little less than to set up New Kings or at least deprive their Old of a good part of the Subjection due to them For he that refuses to submit to a Magistrate Commissionated by a Prince makes more bold with the Prince himself than is consistent with the duty of a Subject For since the Inferiour Judge has his Authority from the Prince to refuse it is in plain terms to refuse the Authority of the Prince Which the Apostle they think was far enough from Authorizing or even perswading Christians to do They conceive then that what the Apostle did in this case is no more than what Good Judges ought to do at this day it being no unusual thing for them to wish the parties not to expect the Rigour of the Law but compound their Differences fairly amongst themselves to which purpose they either Assign or leave them to choose Umpires themselves Yet all this while never intend by their Charitable Compassion to forfeit their own Right or debar the Parties from having recourse to them again if the other Method proves not to their satisfaction Such say they was the Apostles meaning in that place He desired to prevent as much as might be all Contentions among the Faithful at least the Scandal of their breaking out and being taken notice of in the Courts of Heathens To this purpose he wishes them to keep their Frailties from becoming public and if they could not avoid Contentions at least to end them by the Judgment of Men chosen amongst themselves but never intended to invest the Men so chosen with an Authority any way prejudicial to that of the lawful Magistrate Even now say they the Apostles whether Counsel or Command is still in force and People do ill who expose their Frailties to the knowledge of Public Courts notwithstanding if they will needs go to Law Courts have their full Power now as they had then and as much as if S. Paul had never written any such thing
By the Judges then mentioned by the Apostle they understand Vmpires chosen among themselves to prevent the Scandal of Public Suits but without any Authority derogatory to the Public Magistrate and alledge from S. Thomas That if the Faithful had been forbidden to appear upon Summons before the Tribunals of Infidels it had been against the subjection due to Princes and contrary to the Command of S. Peter Be subject to every humane Creature to the King as precelling and to the Rulers as sent by him Bellarmin cannot digest this Vmpirage but persists against Barklay to maintain they were True Judges yet withal confesses they had no Coactive Power as to the External Court and that Christians were obliged when ever Cited at the Suit either of Infidel or Christian to answer before the Legal Magistrate because saies he they were not Chosen by consent of the Contending Parties alone but appointed by the Church But this I think makes them no other than bare Umpires for such they are and are so esteemed among us who are often appointed by our Court to decide particular Differences And all the obligation to stand to their Award was for ought appears the obligation of doing what became Christians whom S. Paul in that place and our Saviour before him had instructed Not to contend in Judgment but part with the Cloak too to him who would take away the Coat And this Obligation for ought I know continues still and Law Suits are a blemish to the perfection of Christianity even at this day where men should do a great deal better to decide their differences by a Friendly Composition than lose so much time and undergo so much Trouble as is required to follow the Law But if either We now or They then are not so perfect as we ought but will have recourse to Magistrates there is nothing in S. Paul which hinders their Jurisdiction Mean time I conceive the difference betwixt a Judge and an Umpire is that one has Power to execute his Sentence the other not wherefore Bellarmin may call them what he pleases but if they had no Coactive Power as he confesses they had not they were not what our and I think all Languages properly call Judges This Argument then seems to come off lamely enough while it supposes the Primitive Christians wanted Force against the plain testimony of Primitive Christians themselves and would prove a right to set up New Kings by setting up New Judges vvhich Judges had not that Power vvhich is necessary to a Judge and makes his proper distinction from an Umpire however vvhich did not prejudice the Authority of the Legal Magistrate In short it amounts to this Christians are now free from Subjection to their Princes because S. Paul advised them heretofore to do something which did not take away their Subjection to Inferiour Magistrates Peradventure a second Proof may be more lucky which Bellarmin makes in this manner To tolerate an Heretical Prince is to expose Religion to most evident danger For such as the Ruler of a City is such will be the Inhabitants Ecclesiastic 10. But Christians ought not to tolerate an Infidel Prince with evident peril of Religion because where Divine and Human Laws are opposite we must obey the Divine Law And the Divine Law obliges us to preserve the true Religion Human Law only to have this or that Man for King And to say truth Bellarmin is a little more lucky than ordinary for his Adversaries besides vvhat he Cites from Scripture grant him at least one Proposition namely That the Law of God is to be prefer'd before the Law of Man and they hit it so seldom that 't is well they agree in any thing But then they deny all the rest and affirm that to tolerate an Infidel King is not to expose Religion to evident danger That Christians ought be subject to the Prince God has set over him whatever he be That there is no Contrariety betwixt the Law of God and the Law of Man in this case and lastly That our Subjection to Princes is not only by Human Law And while they are in such an humour of Contradicting 't was great luck that Bellarmin could get any thing granted For the first they say Bellarmin forgets himself and his Doctrine elsewhere When 't was for his purpose he could acknowledge that The safety of the Church depends not on Human Industry but the Divine Protection and that he will be sure to take care of her and provide Remedies against all mischances which may befall her And they think if Bellarmin be forgetful there is no great fear that God will be so too or danger that any Wickedness will prevail against the Power of Omnipotent Goodness For what greater danger is there in these later daies more than in the former when for Three hundred years together Princes not only were Infidels but employ'd all their Power and all their Industry to root out Springing Christianity out of the World Notwithstanding which the Church continued and increased and prevail'd at last So that if a King happen to persecute the Church to think as Bellarmin seems to do that all is presently lost is to rely on the Arm of Flesh a little more than becomes a good Christian and to distrust either the Power or Goodness of God and besides manifestly to contradict the Evidence of History And for the second That People may not tolerate an Infidel Prince because that would expose Religion to evident Danger This Tolerating of a Prince seems something an unmannerly phrase for Subjects A Prince may when he sees fit Tolerate the unwaywardness of his Subjects and not punish all the faults he sees But for Subjects to Tolerate their Prince is an expression hardly tolerable They are to obey him not in his Infidelity which 't is permitted them even to oppose by all the dutiful means consistent with the Fidelity of good Subjects but in the rest to refuse Subjection is no less than to acquire damnation However Tolerating say they signifies not Acting Exposing signifies Acting and that not-doing should be thought Doing they apprehend very strange Yet if any Inconvenience follow from not Acting it is then only imputable to him who Acts not when He is otherwise obliged to Act. And no man can be oblig'd to Act but where the Action is Just and Lawful Now Rebellion and Tumults and Murther and such Actions as those of necessity must be by which a Lawful Prince is resisted by his Subjects till Bellarmin have prov'd Just and Lawful Actions they think they may safely deny any apprehended danger of Religion will justifie those who do them If any harm come they are all accountable to God who do it the People who do Nothing have nothing to Answer for unless it be blamable to trust Gods Providence and not to intermeddle without sufficient Cause a sufficient cause of Condemnation If the Laws of God did warrant the Interposing of the People something might be
form and if a Wicked Prince may be punisht by the Church with a punishment worse than Death I know not vvhy the charitable Anger of a Churchman may not be satisfied vvith it However it be according to Bellarmin himself De Eccles C. 6. Excommunication is the most grievous punishment which the Church can inflict when she has proceeded so far She has no more to do saies Coelestin 3. Wherefore if Deposition be a thing with vvhich the Church has nothing to do Bellarmin may be content if that be not done which cannot be done and e'en subscribe to Pet. Gregorius teaching as learnedly as honestly L. 26. de Repub. C. 5. that Rebellion against Princes upon pretence of their Vices cannot scape the Crime of Treason and Indignation of God and those who reign wickedly are rather to be left to the Judgment of God than the hands of Subjects be polluted with Sacriledge and Parricide God wants not Means when he pleases either to amend or take away such Bad Princes But to return to the Argument They positively deny any bargain at all made in Baptism unless you vvill call the Purpose they make to live Vertuously an express bargain and a submission to the Law vvhich the Baptized embrace and consequently to the punishments of it an implicit one as indeed who is once Baptized vvhether Prince or Private man may upon occasion be Admonisht and Reprehended and Censured by the Church but if Human frailty and the Temptations to vvhich our Nature is subject make a Prince break either this Bargain or Purpose that he should therefore be content to be Deposed or that he Bargains to submit to any such Penalty they flatly deny and say that by the same Reason since every Private man makes the same Bargain in Baptism which any King does every Man that Sins might presently without injury Done him have his Estate Confiscated or be sent to the Galleys or the Gallows Which would make strange vvork in a World so frail as ours And for this Reason they deny the Consequence as vvell as the Antecedent of this Argument For say they although a Prince should bargain to forfeit or Crown or Life if he forfeit his Faith unless he bargain expresly that the Church or Pope be Garranty of this Treaty and give them power to proceed to Deposition in case of Failer on his part nothing is done and they have otherwise no power to do it For all the Power they receiv'd from God is Spiritual and is not to meddle with matters so Temporal So that a King must not only submit to the Churches Power but create in her a Power vvhich God gave her not or nothing vvill come of it Upon the whole they say two things which seem remarkable enough First that this claim from Bargain or Promise whether express or tacit plainly evinces there is no Internal proper Power in the Church to Depose Princes for then there were no need of this External Right by bargain besides that if such Power accrue to her as it cannot be other than according to the express Terms of the Contract so it vvould not be Indirect as Bellarmin pretends but as Direct as can be imagined there being in the World no Power more Direct than I have over those things for which I have bargain'd Next they say that Bellarmin manifestly contradicts what other Divines and himself vvith them teach of the Nature of the Promise made in Baptism Suarez observes that this Promise is not to be understood a proper Promise or Vow made to God but only an Obligation which the very Profession of Christian Religion made in Baptism induces by reason of the Divine Law and Power granted by Christ to his Church Which I take to signifie Whereas in things in vvhich we are otherwise free we can oblige our selves by Vow or Promise as vvhen I Vow to give Alms or do any other good Work and this Vow induces an Obligation vvhich otherwise I had not but in things vvhere we are otherwise obliged if I Vow to perform them I am oblig'd to no more by my Vow than I was before that the Promise made in Baptism is of this second sort and People were oblig'd to the performance of the Christian Law then receiv'd although they made no promise so to do De Monach. C. 19. So Bellarmin elsewhere teaches That the promise made in Baptism is nothing but a testification or acceptation of the Obligation which the Law of God brings with it Neither are the Baptized bound to any either Explicite or Implicite intention of obliging themselves farther than as they are oblig'd by the Law of God And farther That Baptized Christians are forced by the Church to keep the Laws of Christ not so much in virtue of their Promise as out of this that they are become Members and Children of the Church and every Member is subject to the Head and every Child by the Law of Nature to his Parent Wherefore manifestly either the Law of God obliges Princes to submit to Deposition without any bargain of theirs or this Bargain he talks of leaves them as free as they were before If the Law obliges them 't is to no purpose to mention Bargains if it do not 't is to no purpose neither since their Bargain signifies nothing for they bargain no farther than to observe the Law And the Argument amounts to this They bargain to be Depos'd because they bargain to observe the Law which obliges them to no such thing Besides if we examine a little more narrowly and ask by what Law of God Princes become liable to Deposition Bellarmin Answers 't is by Bargain which is not to be liable by the Law of God And if we ask again vvhere any such Bargain appears He tells us 't is not an Express but a Tacit Bargain imply'd in the Law of God which is plainly to prove the Bargain by the Law and the Law by the Bargain and that is such a kind of Argument as I think they call a Circle but sure 't is none of the best nor needed have been so much esteemed by Bellarmin There follows an Argument which you had light upon and propos'd to me vvith so much smart Rallery in a former Letter from the Comparison of the Chief Postour in the Church to a Shepheard Which in short is this When it was said to S. Peter Feed my Sheep all Power was given him which is necessary to a Shepheard in regard of his Flock But a Shepheard must have Power against Wolves and Rams that they hurt not the Sheep and Power to provide as is convenient for the Sheep themselves Then applying the Notions of all Three by similitude to Princes as you have formerly observed he concludes The Pope has Power over them in respect of every one They Answer there is more wit than solidity in this discourse Similitudes of all other being the worst Topies and which affords the weakest Arguments as
seldom running in the School Phrase of all Four The Metaphor is generally and more fitly understood so that by Wolves are meant Persecutors by Rams the Prelates of the Church and by Sheep the rest of the Faithful But allowing him to use the Similitude as he pleases and apply it after his own fashion to talk vvith him in his own language they observe many differences betwixt a figurative and real Wolf a figurative and real Sheep and many defects in the Similitude and Reasons vvhy the Argument concludes not even keeping vvithin the terms of the Metaphor But to consider the Thing Here say they the Church is compar'd to a Flock as it vvas before to a Commonwealth and may to be a City or Family or Ship or Army or twenty things more All these several Comparisons make no difference in the things compared For whether you consider the Pope as Prince of a Spiritual Commonwealth or Shepheard of a Spiritual Flock his Power as Prince is not different from his Power as Shepheard but the same and if you consider it according to all the Comparisons of which it is capable 't is still one and the same and that a Spiritual Power Wherefore all the Similitudes that are or can be will never make it other than it is and the Pope whether he be lookt upon as a Prince or a Shepheard or a Pilot or however he be considered can do no more than a Spiritual Prince and a Spiritual Shepheard c. Now when Bellarmin Argues the Pope is a Shepheard and a Shepheard may drive away or kill a Wolf and an Infidel Prince is a Wolf all this say they even allowing the Comparison is to be understood of Spiritual driving away and Spiritual killing But when he infers Therefore he may Depose him he passes from Spirituals to Temporals and leaves his Allegory and the truth too The Pope may Admonish and Command the Flock not to follow the Wolf in what he is a Wolf but in what he is not a Wolf but a Shepheard himself what ever the Pope say to the contrary they are bound to obey the Power which God has set over them It is by Divine Law that Subjects obey their Prince and Princes cease not to be Princes by turning Infidels nor Subjects to be Subjects by becoming or remaining Faithful And that all the Similitudes in the World should dispense with the Law of God Bellarmin may talk as long as he will but they will not believe him For the rest these kind of Arguments if too much credit were given to them would make mad work Every Bishop and every Curate is as truly a Shepheard as the Pope Their Flocks indeed are not so large but they are truly Flocks and suffice to denominate their Governours with propriety Shepheards If this quality enable him who has it to Depose a Prince there is no remedy but every Bishop has Power to Depose the King who is of his Diocess and every Curate him who belongs to his Parish And since Private men have something less Title to their Estates than the King to his Kingdom if Kings be subject to this Power Private men are much more and so because the Argument with a little more stretching would reach to every Sin within a little while every Sinner might be dispossest of his Estate at the pleasure of his Bishop or Curate which in time would make such work that People would go near to hate all Arguments and all Scholars for Bellarmins sake and as the Turks do Forbid all Learning that they may live in Peace and Security Besides if the fancy should take a man to apply this very Allegory to Princes for if it were said to S. Peter Feed my Sheep it was of Cyrus I say to Cyrus Thou art my Shepheard Isay 44. and of David Thou shalt feed my People Israel 1 Paral. 11. and then apply this Notion of the Wolf and furious Ram to a wicked scandalous Pope over whom he must have Power if he cannot otherwise preserve his own Flock Bellarmin must either unravel all he has weav'd here or Princes will have more Power over Bad Popes than he will think fit to allow them In the mean time of the two waies by which he saies in Rom. Pont. his Doctrine may be prov'd Reasons and Examples These are all he produces of the first kind You will judge of them while I pass to the other He brings in all Twelve Two in the Old Law and Ten in the New Those of the Old are Ozias depos'd for Leprosie by Azarias and Athalia by Joiada for Idolatry Of these two one was never Deposed and the other never a Queen but by Usurpation Ozias for his Presumption was miraculously struck with Leprosie and by the Priests according to their duty and the command of the Law put out of the Temple and separated from the People but for the rest continued King till his dying day his Son supplying his place in what his Disease permitted him not to interpose himself Athalia endeavoured to settle her self in the Kingdom by the Murther of all the Children of Ochozias but was mistaken Joas was saved by his Aunt Jeboseth and by the honesty and credit of her Husband Joiada put in Possession of the Regal Dignity whereof the Right had been in him all the while So that the Argument from this Instance stands thus The High Priest amongst the Jews was instrumental in placing his true Soveraign in his Throne therefore the High Priest among the Christians may tumble a lawful Soveraign out of his Throne which for a man of Bellarmins Vogue is something odly Argued His Third Example and First from the New Law is the dealing of S. Ambrose with the Emperour Theodosius whom after a Cruelty commanded by him in a transport of Anger he admitted not into the Church till he had Repented and make satisfaction I know not but methinks he makes the most unpromising entry into his business that may be In the former Instances one had no Deposition the other no Lawful Prince to be Depos'd and in this there is neither Deposition nor Pope to make it S. Ambrose was Bishop of Milan not of Rome and I hope he will not extend this Deposing Power to every Bishop However what he did not only every Bishop but every Ghostly Father may do both lawfully and laudably It is the Office of Churchmen to induce Sinners to Repentance if they can and perswade them to those Remedies which may hinder them from relapsing into the same faults And they have here the Zeal of an excellent Prelate successful with an excellent Emperour for their encouragement and this is all I can perceive in this passage The Fourth is a Priviledge of S. Gregory the Great to a certain Monastery in which there is this Clause If any King Bishop Judge c. violate this Decree of what Dignity or Degree soever he be let him be depriv'd of his Honour This they take to be
especially since many Doctors thought so as well as he For 't is one thing saies he in Tortus to bring Examples of Kings saies he of Popes say they and another to prove their Power and Authority Secondly They Answer that if it be a good Proof that a thing may lawfully be done which has been done before the Wickedest things in the world may be prov'd Lawful People may lawfully Rebel Public and Private Faith may be broken Commonwealths may be overturn'd c. for all these things have been done And without more adoe Popes may be Depos'd by Emperours as well as they by Popes for that has been done too Lastly and with a little more smartness They say this way of Proof plainly begs the Question and assumes the very Point in Dispute Bellarmin affirms and his Adversaries deny the Pope may justly Depose Princes now to Argue He has Depos'd them therefore He justly may assumes That what he has done is Just which is the very Point they Contest with him and therefore think it had been something shorter and altogether as much to purpose to have said 'T is Just because 't is Just. Every body knows Popes have both challenged and used a Deposing Power but every body is not satisfied that this Power is justly due to him Bellarmin undertakes to prove it is and brings for an Argument That he has us'd it which no body denies and would have that conclude That therefore he justly may which if his Adversaries had thought a good consequence they had not put him to the trouble of making it For they knew and acknowledged the Antecedent enough before But they think the Popes did amiss who did so and if barely saying that they did the thing be proving they had right to do it they confess they are in the wrong but if it be not Bellarmin is so and should have considered that barely to say his Tenet over is a kind of Proof which takes with none but very good natur'd People and as far as I see his Adversaries are a little more stubborn I am so weary with long Writing that I must intreat your permission to refer what remains to another opportunity I will hope I have said enough to quiet your suspicions and am sure I have said so much that I need some quiet my self and must take leave after so long a Journey to rest a while Your c. The Ninth and Tenth OF THE Controversial LETTERS OR Grand Controversie Concerning The pretended Temporal Authority of POPES over the whole Earth And the True Sovereign of KINGS within their own respective Kingdoms Between two English Gentlemen The one of the Church of England The other of the Church of Rome LONDON Printed for Henry Brome and Benjamin Tooke at the Gun at the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard 1674. FRIEND I Expect that which you say remains with much impatience and t is only to tell you so that I now write for I do not intend to give you my thoughts of your last till I receive your next Only let me tell you it wambles in my stomack I know not how and works not kindly but because your next possibly may fully settle me I will not yet complain But methinks this next opportunity of yours is long a coming Have you been sick or diverted with business of greater consequence then clearing your self and your Church from an aspersion of which I take no joy to tell you the suspicions are more pregnant than I wish they were For 't is undeniable that Tenets inconsistent with Government are maintained among you You say they belong not to Religion and that indeed is something but not enough This may serve in some measure to justify your Religion but nothing at all to clear your selves For what matter is it whether your Religion be innocent if all that profess it are guilty though upon another account If you think these Tenets true you will be apt to practise them at one time or other although they do not belong to Religion Religion indeed is the strongest Principle of action but not the only one It is no part of Religion that two and three make five but yet if you do think to pay a debt of five pounds with twice forty shillings no body will deal with you And if all the Papists in England adhere to these Doctrines whether this adhesion of theirs proceed from Religion or any other motion the men will be unsafe and irreconcileable to the security of their Country let the Religion be what it will But if there be any who think them false it were convenient both for the satisfaction of their Prince and Fellow subjects and the interest of the thinkers People should know who those any are We cannot know your thoughts unless you acquaint us with them And because we have reason to believe that some do hold them and no reason to believe of any particular man but he is of the number till he disclaim them what can we do but involve you all guilty and innocent if there be any such in the same condemnation of diffidence You tell me the French plainly and openly condemn them The honester men they and the more shame for some body that there should be more honesty found in France then England You should do as they do though t' were but to be in the mode In all their airy toys their Feathers their Perukes their Pantaloons you can follow them fast enough But when they play the men and set you examples of prais-worthy actions there you are content to be out of fashion as if it were an honor to be as light as they and a shame to be as wise But pray what security is it to England that they are good subjects in France If they were knaves all over the rest of the world and we all honest at home it were a great deal better for us than that they should be honest abroad and we knaves at home I perceive indeed by what they do that you tell me true when you say these Tenets are no points of your Faith But then methinks you should have the less difficulty to disclaim them Unless perhaps you think them true which if you do either make them out to be consistent with goverment or you will not be consistent your self I tell you plainly I shall think ill of you if you think well of these Doctrâ—nes unless you can shew them innocent and safe which as far as I perceive you do not go about to do and when you offer at it may I believe with as much hope of success offer at the Philosophers stone In other Countrys you tell me They are more reserved and will not say you can not but you shall not And I believe you have liv'd in those other Countrys and suck't their Polities with their Air. But for my part I must confess I am for the mode once in my life and would be of the French fashion in this
only such as are propos'd for Faith This being admitted as it is universally the difficulty is plainly answered For 't is as plain as can be that here is nothing propos'd for Faith The Emperor is depos'd his deposition is that which is decreed and that is propos'd as a thing to be done not believed To depose is one thing to define they have power to depose is another Had they made such a Decree and obliged all Christians under Anathema to believe it had been to purpose to alledg it But as far as I can learn there was no thought of any such thing in the Council Now for Acting People may act and sometimes very rationally upon probable grounds and such as none are bound to believe And they may have very good grounds for acting in one case which themselves may not think sufficient in another It is very unreasonable out of a particular action to conclude a power which shall extend to all cases when from the bare action there is no necessity of believing a power even in that case The most that can be made of it is that the Council suppos'd or took for granted they had power to do what they did And it may be they had For the Emperor had sworn particularly to stand to the Judgment of the Church He pleaded in this Council by his Procurators who when they saw things go against them made no exception to the Jurisdiction of the Court but appeal'd to a future Council more general pretending all were not present who had right to sit there But why may not a Council take for granted more then every body is obliged to grant This supposition of theirs was undoubtedly one of the Reasons of their Decree And Bellarmin assures us we are not bound to believe any of their reasons So that for his particular he had no reason to expect this Decree should cause belief in any But whether he had or no this is plain without him That where there is nothing to be believ'd there can be no belief and where there is nothing in his languag propos'd for Faith there is nothing to be believ'd Here is something commanded but nothing defin'd and as sure as no Mass no hundred Mark no Definition no Article of Faith Wherefore I cannot sufficiently wonder to see learned men lay so blindly about them some with great formality citing the Council and heightning its authority by reckoning up the number and quality of those who met there others striving to diminish it by consulting Historians and carefully observing all exceptions they afford when all this while the Authority of it neither applys it self nor can be applyed to the matter in hand For t is evident they defined nothing one way or other and afford us no more then a bare matter of fact past indeed in or by a Council but whatever be true or whether the Fact were just or unjust our belief is not a jot concern'd and this even by the confession of those who most urg the Council The Fate of eager Disputers is upon us with much ado we are where we were again and must either be taught this Doctrine by Decrees which teach nothing or which neither are nor were intended for teaching Decrees or not to be taught it all as far as I perceive For this is the sum total of his ten Councils His fourth and last Argument is He says from Scripture and if you will pardon a scurvy pun t is indeed very far from it so far that one would not readily perceive what Scripture has to do with it As tedious as it is to transcribe I must submit to the pains of setting down and you to the patience of reading his whole Discourse for fear I should be suspected of wronging it by contracting Fourthly says he We prove it from the divine writings as Greg. 7 proves it in 21 Epistle of the 8 Book For we find the Ecclesiastical Primacy of the Bishop of Rome most manifestly founded on Scripture and Tradition in which Primacy is contained most ample Power of governing binding and loosing whomsoever even Kings and Emperors and this neither Barclay nor any Catholick denies But out of this principle is gathered plainly enough that there is in the Bishop of Rome a power to dispose of temporals even to the deposition of those Kings and Emperors For by that spiritual Power the Pope can bind secular Princes by the bond of excommunication by the same he can loose the people from their Oath of Fidelity and Obedience he can oblige the same People under pain of Excommunication not to obey the excommunicated King and chuse them another Besides since the end of spiritual government is the gaining eternal life which is the supream and last end to which all other ends are subordinate of necessity all secular Power must be subject and subordinate to the spiritual power of the supream Ecclesiastical Hierarch which secular power he is to direct and if it deviate correct and judge and in fine bring to pass that it hinder not the salvation of Christian people And this is the reason why both Greg. 7 and Innocent 4. when they depos'd Emperors to shew they did it justly alledg'd the words of our Lord Whatever you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever you shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Mat. 16. And feed my Sheep Jo. 21. namely to signify that their power to dispose of temporals when the salvation of souls the safety of Religion and preservation of the Church require it depends not on the uncertain opinions of men but the divine Ordination of Christ the eternal King and highest Bishop and who above all is God blessed for ever according to the Apostle Rom. 11. This is every word of what he calls proof from Scripture if you or any else think it so you shall find me reasonable But indeed it sticks with me Let us see The Ecclesiastical Primacy of the Pope says he is founded in Scripture and Tradition and this Primacy extends to Kings and Emperors and contains most ample power of governing binding and loosing and this no Catholick denies Very well and because I must acknowledg my self a Catholick I must acknowledg I think it all very true Thus far we are right Only I take this most ample Power to mean no more then most ample Ecclesiastical power for that is all which Ecclesiastical Primacy imports which Ecclesiastical Power that it extends to Kings and Emperors no King nor Emperor who acknowledges the Ecclesiastical Primacy scruples to admit For they take themselves to be part of the flock of Christ and claim their share in the benefit of the Keys as well as others But out of this Principle says he the deposing Power is plainly gathered The Controversy sure will quickly be at an end now Scripture is acknowledged on all hands and what is plainly there or may be plainly deduc'd from thence will find a ready
submission from every body And though I suspect this Gathering will go near to take the business out of the hands of Scripture yet since it is no great matter who does it so the Miracle be done let us only observe at present how he gathers this plain inference of his and how it follows if the Pope be invested with the Power belonging to Ecclesiastical Primacy he is invested likewise with the Power of deposing Kings It is worth while to attend a little to a matter of this consequence and a little attention will serve turn where things are so plain Pray how does this follow so plainly why thus says Bellarmin Because the Pope by his spiritual Power can bind even Kings with the bond of Excommunication Suppose he can what then And by the same he can loose people from their Oath of Fidelity and Obedience and oblige them under excommunication not to obey the former excommunicated King but chuse them a new one How He can absolve subjects from the duty of Obedience and oblige them to chuse a new King Why this is the very thing call'd Deposing and if he can depose undoubtedly he can depose But whether he can do this is the thing in question and what he undertook to prove by a plain collection out of Scripture and does he offer us for proof the very thing to be prov'd This it neither proving nor gathering but saying twice over what they who deny once will deny as often as it is or can be repeated till it be prov'd T is in plain terms to say he can loose the band of Allegeance therefore he can loose the band of Allegeance or he can Depose therefore he can Depose In good earnest I should not easily have believed that such a man as Bellarmin should have over-seen himself so much But I perceive the greatest men that are are men and have their failings And though I should not have run proud of my own wit if I alone had observ'd a defect so palpable yet I must needs confess I am not the first discoverer Jo. Barclay has been before me and it may be as many as have considered the Argument as the truth is I say almost nothing which I have not from others If you remember I engaged no farther then to acquaint you what others say and I am as good as my word But it is so tedious and hobling a labor to be alwayes going over and over again with This man says that and t'other man the other that I cannot endure alwaies to cite my Authors But to return to our matter All we have here in proof of the deposing power is that the Pope has it which he that will take for a proof may but I fear that who believs it for that reason had as good believe it for no reason at all And how much soever there may be of Reason I verily think there is little of Scripture in it There follows the subordination of the two Powers from the subordination of their ends which is one of the 5 Arguments related in my former Letter and which to repeat again I suppose would be as ungrateful to you as tedious to me But there Bellarmin alledg'd it as an Argument from Reason and how he comes here to intitle it to Scripture I cannot guess The truth is I am wholly to seek why these two together and these two are all which belong to this Head should be called proof from Scripture when no place of Scripture is so much as alledged He assumes indeed that Ecclesiastical Primacy is founded in Scripture and Tradition But this is part of the question No Catholick disputes it with him The question is whether the Scripture teach the deposing Power is joyned to that Primacy I would fain see that place of Scripture which teaches this When Bellarmin undertook to prove his doctrine by Scripture I expected as I think any man would he should produce some place which teaches it either expresly or so that it might plainly be gathered from it And instead of this he brings us one reason such as it is and another which is not so much as a reason but a bare saying over what he was to prove and this he calls proof from Scripture He cites indeed in the Process of his discourse Mat. 16. and Jo. 21. but does not go about to shew how they are to his purpose only by way of History tells us that two Popes alledg'd them to shew that they dealt justly and that the power they challenged is not founded on uncertain opinions but divine Authority Undoubtedly these Popes had reason to desire it should be thought they dealt justly and that this power of theirs was not founded on uncertain opinions And every body knows they have alledged those places and more But every body is not satisfied with those allegations nor can perceive by them that divine Authority does indeed warrant their deposing claim neither does Bellarmin contribute any thing to their satisfaction They find in S. Hierom that the spiritual Key extends it self not to Temporals without arrogance and some body else from S. Jo. Chrysostom has told them that by the Keys is not understood any power given but spiritual to absolve from the bond of Sin and that it were foolish to understand it of a Power to absolve from the bond of debt And if they think it as wise to understand it so as to understand it of a Power to absolve from the bond of Allegeance they may do so for Bellarmin But you have a great deal to this purpose cited formerly and much more might be added if it were necessary by which it may be gather'd something more plainly then Bellarmin gathers that the Church understood not the power of the Keys as those Popes would have us understand the 16 of S. Mathew The like is of the other place of Feeding of which you observ'd unhappily that to understand it of Deposing is to think Christ meant his Sheep should be fed with knocks Upon that occasion you know I brought you S. Bernard affirming that to feed is no more then to Evangelize Fac opus Evangelistae Pastoris munus implesti I could easily produce Authority enough for the right sence of this place But another of the 5 Arguments mention'd in my last being drawn from hence you see there are all that Bellarmin could make of it which I have no mind to say again Several other Arguments there are scattered up and down by several Authors But I take these to be the principal At least they are those which Bellarmin chose and he being look'd upon as the Principal Patron of this opinion I think it needles to look after more and in his judgment worse It is now time to acquaint you with the arguments produc'd on the other side and the answers to them You shall permit me to contract them into as little room as I can for my Letter swells and I am weary both of
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
will consequential or reductive or secondary not Indirect Power For I think all the world will say a King has very direct Power to make War and yet he does it not but upon occasion and in order to peace and in consequence of his power to maintain peace and establish plenty and security and convenience which is his primary object and to which making war is by necessary consequence reduc'd But however 't is a comfort to know what he means And now we know what we talk of let us a little consider the import of the Thing and leave the Terms which if he will use improperly I have not so much as indirect power to help it 'T is likely that to deal with words as he pleases is not the only Priviledge of a Cardinal In the first place then I would fain know what real difference this word Indirect makes betwixt his opinion and the Canonists which even he himself disproves And we will take the Canonists opinion as he states it himself De Rom. Font. l. 5. c. 1. That the Pope has by divine right most full power over the whole World both in Ecclesiastical and Political matters In this there are three particulars That the Popes Power is most full That 't is in Political and Civil as well as Spiritual matters And that 't is by Divine right In one of these three he must disagree with them if he will disagree at all Now his own opinion in his own Terms is That the Pope as Pope Ibid. has not directly and immediately any temporal but only spiritual Power but yet by reason of this spiritual Power he has at least Indirectly a certain and that highest summam Power in Temporals I am unsatisfi'd with more then one thing in this opinion as you will perceive by and by But for the present I only desire an Oedipus to unriddle to me the difference betwixt the two opinions The Canonists say the Popes Power is Plenissima Bellarmine says Summa They say 't is over Temporals as well as Spirituals he says 't is Spiritual or over Spirituals and over Temporals too They say 't is by divine Right and in this you may be sure he will not quarrel with them 't is true he forgot to express it here but he says it often enough elsewhere They say no more and he says all this Where is or where can be the difference Or shall we once in our lives find an example of things different which differ in nothing He puts indeed Direct and Immediate Power as that which he would deny But if he have rightly exprest them they mean by their Direct and Immediate if any where they use those terms no more then Plenissima and he understood they meant no more And if his Summa do not say as much as their Plenissima take in Direct and Immediate and all I am much mistaken neither can I think but Summa will abundantly satisfie them or if it do not they are very unsatiable men At least this is very clear that all the difference he can pretend must lye in this word Indirectly And this he tells us at last imports respect to a secondary object As if the Canonists ever deni'd Spirituals to be the primary object of the Popes Power or cared a jot which was primary and which secondary so he had full power over both Because I do not love to see Friends fall out I will answer for the Canonists for once and engage they shall not quarrel with him for putting in a word more then they as long as that word signifies but what they think as well as he They are men who will hearken to reason and not fall irreconcileably out with a man for expressing their mind in his own words They have no quarrel to Secondarily and will make none for calling this Secondarily by the name of Indirectly Allow them but their Plenissima and they shall keep the peace I warrant them Here is then no difference but only of a word which they that use and they that use not both think the same Sure Bellarmine was in a pleasant humor when he would go about to perswade the world that full Power in the Pope is a great error and contrary to Christian Doctrine if you call this full Power Direct But if you call it Indirect then all 's well and Christian Doctrine safe And all this while Direct full Power is no more then most full Power and Indirect no less My Masters We had need have a care of our words He that has the knack on 't may say unoffensively and make good Doctrine of that which if it be less luckily worded may chance destroy the Law of Christ and undo the world What difference betwixt this and Montulto's Pouvoir prochain And which of the two is the more serious trifler And yet to see what a conceited world we live in There are who make no difficulty to disclaim the Canonists freely and call their opinion extravagant and naught and what you will But propose the very same opinion to them with no other difference in the world then this insignificant sound Indirectly and as if there were charm in those four syllables they become presently shy and mysterious and will rather hazard to be ill thought of themselves then say what they think I know a certain Gentleman who writ to me not long since of this very matter who I think was charm'd for company but I name no body Charms usually last but to a certain time and when the term is past the man perhaps may recover But now I think on 't better 't is good not to be too positive These Reductives and Secondaries and Consequentials are crabbed words and I am a meer bungler at School-gibberish I fear it may be with that as the Poet said pleasantly of another sort of canting People must be mad before they can understand it Subtle men say there is a difference betwixt five and two and three And some such difference for ought I can answer there may be here The Pope may be said in one opinion to look straight forward and in the other a squint upon Temporals which is a difference such as it is but which hinders not but the squint-ey'd man may hit as surely and as strongly as the other Now because I am not concern'd in the airy speculations of your Ens-rationis-men nor mean to be I will not much stand with them for a Cobweb-difference or two which may pass with such as are mad enough to understand it But I look for a difference which we dull men of the world may be able to conceive A substantial and useful difference by which it may appear that whereas one opinion is naught and dangerous the other is innocent and safe I would see how your indirect men are better Subject then the other and faster to their Prince and their Duty how they are less guilty of wrong to the Soveraignty and Independence
of Princes in short how they are not as bad as those who are direct Knaves These are the things in which alone the world is concern'd if the two opinions agree in these let them differ in inconsiderable niceties as much as they will they are the same in danger the same in inconsistency with Civil Government and that if you remember was the thing with which we began and where for ought I see we still stick Till I see such a difference I must needs think all you have said no better then pure illusion and all you can say till you say where this difference is will be but to talk learnedly from the purpose For my part I must profess I can find none But because I would be glad to learn of any body I will entreat Bellarmine to tell me what difference he finds and what provision he makes with his learned distinctions for the Security of Princes and Fidelity of Subjects The first which comes in my way is in the state of the Question That the Pope directly and immediately hath not any temporal Power but only spiritual but indirectly at least in vertue of this spiritual Power hath highest or soveraign Power over Temporals And because Directly's and Indirectly's should break no squares he leaves them out against Barclay Cap. 12. when he had a mind to speak properly When we speak properly says he we say the Pope has Power in or over Temporals but not Temporal Power as Pope Now to acknowledge my ignorance I must confess I am quite gravel'd at very first and cannot for my life imagine what kind of thing this only Spiritual and not Temporal Power should be which yet is highest or soveraign even in Temporals Without doubt vve men of the vvorld are vvonderful ignorant things and if vve but offer to understand any thing these Scholars say 't is odds vve mar all Who of our lovv form but vvould have thought that Povver over Temporals had been Temporal Povver If I mistake not I have heard from some body that had some acquaintance vvith these Scholars that Powers are specifi'd by their Acts which is indeed too high for me It may be to purpose and it may not But I had verily thought that who could do temporal things had temporal power and vvho could do spiritual things spiritual I was out it seems and perceive now that properly speaking 't is otherwise For all that I cannot but think there is such a thing as Temporal Power in the vvorld and if Power in Temporals be not It there remains nothing that I know which can be It but Power in Spirituals and for the same reason Power in Temporals must be Spiritual Power and so Kings because they have to do vvith Temporals have in truth Spiritual Power only vve speak improperly in the vvorld and call it Temporal But this does not fadge neither For then the Pope should be said to have Temporal power for this proper reason because he has power in Spirituals Now I remember me there is a certain Pope vvho says Kings have no Superior in Temporals Inno. 3. C. per Ven. Qui filii sint legit This Barclay objected to Bellarmin and he answers that by Superiour in Temporals is meant a Temporal Superior Now I consider not how vvell this answers Barclay For let the Superiour be a temporal or a spiritual Superiour so he be Superiour in Temporals The King has a Superiour in Temporals But this is not to my purpose I only observe that Bellarmin vvas of the mind vvhen he vvrote this that Superiour in Temporals was all one vvith Temporal Superiour And then I see no reason in the vvorld vvhy power in Temporals should not also be all one vvith Temporal power Certainly since Power makes the Superiour there is as much sympathy betwixt the Superiour and the Power as this comes too But in the name of vvonder vvhat does Power in Temporals signifie and vvhat Temporal Power Bellarmin means the Pope may by his power in Temporals dispose of the temporal thing call'd a Kingdom The Canonists mean some such thing by their Temporal Power By this account both signifie power to dispose of Temporals and methinks 't is no such mortal quarrel vvhether a dog must be said to be beaten vvith a stick or a staff Or are they perhaps mere sounds to vvhich belongs no sence but vvhat they give them as they find convenient for their purpose and so vvhen vve are askt vvhat Temporal or what in Temporals signifies we must answer vvith Montalto What you please Father Never believe me if I can make more of this in Temporals then an Inchanted Castle vvhich houses and entertains the Knight as long as he has use of it and as soon as he is gone vanishes into a pure Temporal Inn. Which way soever I turn me I am quite at a loss so that I think 't is best to give it over and let Bellarmin alone vvith his power over Temporals and no Temporal Power and speak to you in a language vvhich both of us understand Do you in earnest believe there is any such difference betwixt these two that the one makes a good the other a bad Subject And that a King is safe enough as long as his Subjects speak properly Marry if their language once become less exact then let him look to himself Good School-masters are the only Guards if this be true I am afraid to meddle vvith Bellarmin again for vvhether I say I or no 't is odds but I shall be out still But yet I guess he meant his Power in Temporals is truly Power If it be true Power sure there is true obedience due to it And if all Christians are bound to obey him in Temporals Kings can have no Subjects but Infidels unless to be even with the Pope they fall to commanding in Spirituals For if they can command in nothing I do not see how they are Kings But this is but shifting sides and leaves us still vvhere vve vvere Let Bellarmin say vvhat he vvill He vvho has power to command is to be obey'd if the Pope can command in Temporals I must obey him in Temporals And he vvhom I must obey in Temporals is my King and no body else So that the Pope is universal Monarch vvithout more ado and there is no King in the World besides himself For 't is not the proper name of Power but Power which does the business Call it how you vvill properly or improperly if there be a Power in the vvorld vvhich Kings themselves must acknowledge and submit their Crowns and leave their Kingdoms vvhen this Power requires them They are not Kings I mean Soveraigns of vvhom vve only speak And they vvere mightily out vvho said Princes vvere solo Deo minores that they vvere accountable only to him and had none else above them and twenty other such untrue things For Bellarmin has found one that is above them and I fear above God too
at least he can take away vvhat God gave vvhich is to make a little too bold vvith him But I am out again as I fore-saw I should be All this says Bellarmin follows from the vvicked direct Temporal Power of the Canonists not from my innocent Indirect power over Temporals I told you there vvas no medling vvith Schollers While vve keep vvithin our own verge vve may happily light upon a little indirect sence vvhich may serve turn and do vvell enough among our selves but if vve go beyond our bounds and tread the forbidden paths of Schollership it turns presently direct nonsence I verily thought this had follow'd But it seems it does not Bellarmin has stopt the Carrier with a Distinction which for fear of mistakes you shall have in his own words If Adver Barc c. 5. saies he there were in the Pope Spiritual and Temporal power directly and he were King of the World as he is Bishop of the universal Church and other Kings did but meerly execute temporal Jurisdiction truly the Pope might at his pleasure deprive whatsoever Kings of the administration and execution of temporal Jurisdiction and by this means take away Civil government or confound it with the Ecclesiastical and would be greater then Christ because he could take away Powers which he willed should be and be distinct These now to my apprehension are naughty things and the opinion out of which they follow a naughty opinion And I must needs commend Bellarmin for chusing another out of vvhich it may not follow that Popes at their pleasure may deprive any King of the execution of temporal Jurisdiction and take away Civil government and be greater than Christ This you see is vvhat he saies follows from the other opinion and vvhat he makes us expect does not follow from his Let us hearken then to what he saies of it and understand it if vve can But goes he on if we put in the Pope only Spiritual power Directly and Temporal Indirectly that is only in order to Spirituals it does not follow that the Pope can take away or confound Civil government Once in my life I was in the right This is what I thought was not to follow What is that which does then Why It follows only saies he that the Pope by his Spiritual and Apostolic most eminent Power can direct and correct the Civil Power and if it be needful to the Spiritual end take it away from one Prince and give it to another Pray assist me a little for I am in again as deep as just now with in Temporals not Temporal Was not this taking away Civil power the thing vvhich he said did not follow from his opinion and does he not now say it does Or have I rendred him amiss Let me see his own words are non sequitur posse tollere sed solum sequitur posse adimere O! 't is tollere which does not follow and only adimere vvhich follows And here 's a plain difference for one vvord has four syllables and the other but three The mischief is those who understand not Latin will not presently find it and I hardly know how to help them For whether it be that Latin be the more proper language for distinctions or that he be better at Latin then I at English I am puzled to render it And yet I have consulted my Dictionary but there is but one English word to take away for both But methinks it sounds scurvily to say it does not follow he can take away but it does follow he can take away That looks like saying and unsaying giving and taking vvhich is Childrens play To make some difference then we must say It does not follow he can take away but it follows he can away-take which though it be to force the language a little yet 't is better to make bold vvith that then spoil the sence and make no distinction at all Princes then were in a sad case if the wicked doctrine of the Casuists were true that their Kingdoms may be taken away but as long as they may only be away-taken all 's vvell enough But yet this is not well neither Bellarmin loves to speak properly and this away-take perhaps would not please him as indeed it has but an odd sound To be then both just to him and not injurious to our language we vvill put it thus It does not follow he can take away Civil power vvith a vvord of three syllables it only follows he can take it away with a word of four This is true English and a true difference For one kills on Tierce and the other en Quart which though they may happen from the same hand and the same sword are yet distinct killings And so thanks to Bellarmin we have master'd a deep point of learning and understand the Canonists opinion is a very wicked opinion because it exposes a Prince to the villanous thrust en Tierce but Bellarmin's very innocent vvhich laies him open only to the fair en Quart Now you may judge with your infallible judgment as you please but I must needs think that to take away with a word of 4 or if you will 40 syllables is to take away and to hit en Quart is to hit and if any judge these things may be practic'd upon our sacred Soveraign I must farther think and plainly tell you he deserves to be confuted by Judge and Executioner too But stay May not Bellarmin say perhaps that to take away Civil Power from one Prince and give it to another is not absolutely to take away Civil Power but only to translate it since the Power remains only put into other hands Truly he may say this for ought I know and twenty other things of which I shall never dream But I think he could not mean it in this place For here he intends to speak contrary to the Canonists and as mad as they are I believe there is none among them so sensless to say or think that Civil power can absolutely be taken away out of the vvorld by the most direct and unlimited Power that is or can be They know vvell enough there must be Civil Power as long as there is Civil Government and there must be Civil government as long as there be Cities and Men. So that Civil Power can no more nor sooner be taken out of the vvorld then Mankind For should the Pope take all Power into his own hands and appoint Lieutenants here and there where he could not be in person these Lieutenants must of necessity have and exercise Civil Power even though they were Churchmen As the Pope himself actually does For when in his own Territories he punishes Malefactors for civil Crimes he does not do this in vertue of his Spiritual power but as a Temporal Prince as one that has Civil power as well as Ecclesiastical Wherefore I conceive Bellarmin cannot say he meant his taking away Power of taking it absolutely out of the vvorld taking from
one and giving to another being not to take away Power it self but to translate it because there is no vvay by vvhich Civil Power can be taken away but only by translating nevertheless if he did as this is not the first time he has said vvhat he had no great reason to say I must tell him that this translating is every jot as unsatisfactory to us because 't is every jot as unsafe to our Soveraign as plain taking away For if it be taken away from him vvhoever has it next 't is taken away from him And vvhoever holds this may be done let Bellarmin speak never so subtly I must hold is no good Subject There is another distinction or two or explication or vvhat you vvill call them vvhich stick in my stomach To understand them the better it vvill be convenient to mention the occasion he had to make them Barclay in his 12th Chapter objected against his opinion that it makes Christian Princes Vassals to the Pope and hold their Kingdoms only at pleasure or precariously And this he proves by this Argument The Pope if it be necessary for the good of Souls may take away a Kingdom from one Prince and give it to another but to Judge and decree whether it be necessary or no belongs to the Pope and none must judge whether his Sentence be right or wrong Therefore he may at pleasure Dethrone the one and Crown the other Bellarmin Answers that Christian Princes must by no means be call'd the Popes Vassals and much less be said to hold their Kingdoms at pleasure But are true Kings and true Princes This goes well but yet if his opinion make them Vassals I hope they may without offence to it be call'd so But however Princes are to thank him for this confession that they are true Kings and Princes and may hope so much may for his sake pass for true doctrine Which if it once do there is so much true fidelity due to those true Kings that what takes it but indirectly away will be found directly false Coming then to speak to Barclay's Argument he says 't is faulty every where major and minor and all Still there is no medling with Schollers These two premises of Barclay are two Propositions which he has borrowed from Bellarmin himself and were very good Propositions as long as he had the handling of them but as soon as ever another but breaths on them they fade and wither to non-sence and yet I perceive no alteration in them but that before they came out of Bellarmins mouth and now out of Barclays However he tells us This Proposition The Pope may if it be necessary for the good of Souls take away a Kingdom from one and give it to another needs explication for it may be well and ill understood it may be true and it may be false I make no question but it may be and is false but I would fain see the Explication by which it may be true This it is The Pope indeed may if it be necessary for the good of Souls take the Kingdom from one but if he admonish him before if he give him time to repent if he find him pernicious and incorrigible May he so Why then your opinion for all your Buts and Ifs is pernicious and you incorrigible good Bellarmin What 's this to say but that he cannot steal his Kingdom in the dark but may rob him of it in broad day light This Admonition and Space of Repentance is in other words The Pope must first say to the King look you I deal fairly above-board and give you notice before hand that if you do not do as I would have you within such a time it may be a month or two it may be so many hours for this space of Bellarmin's is for ought I see at the Popes appointing too I will turn you a grazing and provide my good people another King I see no such matter of substance in these formalities but that they might be well enough spar'd if conveniently they could But they are a sort of impudent things which will thrust in whether the Pope will or no. For Kingdoms are no such inconsiderable trifles that they can be pass'd away in private and none know when or how Except King Phys and King Vsh none ever yet stept into another mans Throne without warning and I believe none ever will Does Bellarmine think it can happen in the world that there should be a King so tame that without more knowledge of the matter as soon as a sentence of Deposition is brought should quietly submit and turn private man and enquire no farther Kings are more inquisitive then so and stand more upon their terms and look to be better satisfi'd And though they did not Subjects who have sworn Fealty have a little curiosity in them and will be asking why and by what necessity they must change Lords and obey Peter who have sworn to Paul There goes time to all this for nothing will come of it till all parties be agreed Now Bellarmine requires no more to make his sentence just nor so much as nature will force upon him let it be never so unjust Of necessity there must intervene more time in the change of Kings then he requires to his admonition and space of repentance So that his Explication amounts in short to this The sentence were unjust if it requir'd things should pass in such a manner in which 't is impossible they should pass but very just if things be so done as they must be done in spite of sentence or whatever else to the contrary which is certainly a very trim Explication and alters the Proposition wonderfully for the better We cannot put so much as a Tenant out without warning and he would perswade us we are much beholding to his Explication for requiring as much Ceremony in the change of a Kingdom as a Farm And yet when all is done I cannot tell whether he be in earnest or no and think these Formalities so indispensably necessary that a King cannot be depos'd without them It is hard to say what Plenitude of Power may do and I doubt he would not be well look't on who should go about to fix its bounds But besides that a Case may happen where a King cannot repent though he would or at least make amends by repentance A Case may happen where he will not repent nor believe he hath reason so to do Bellarmine would perswade us Ozias in the Old Law was depos'd for Leprosie What! did the High Priest admonish him to repent of his Leprosie and not proceed to Deposition till after convenient patience with him he found him incorrigible in his Leprosie Ozias might and 't is likely did repent the fault for which he was struck with Leprosie but unless his repentance could make him clean again as to the matter of Deposition he had as good ne'r repented at all for he vvas according to Bellarmine
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
thought fit that they refuse to give him that Title Now Bellarmine sticks to the consequence which is all the mischief and makes the Pope do all that a supreme Monarch could do and thinks all is well if he do not call him so when as if he could do what Bellarmine would have him he truly were supream Monarch and Bellarmine might make no bones to call him by his proper name The truth is ' â—would anger any King at heart to be put out of his Kingdom and not so much as know why nay while on the contrary he is fully perswaded he cannot be dispossest even by those who dispossess him If a Canonist come and tell him Sir you must descend the Pope your supream Lord has so commanded If he believe the Canonist he understands how a superior Power is to be obey'd and submits as a Lieutenant when his Commission is recalled But if Bellarmine come and tell him you are now a private man the Pope has so declared Without doubt he will reply what if he have Have not you your self told me that I am a true King no Vassal of the Popes but supream in Temporals Have not you told me the Popes Power is only spiritual and do you tell me now I must give up my temporal Crown to the command of a spiritual Authority All this is true quoth Bellarmine but yet you must obey What! must I obey one who cannot command in such things Yes he can 'T is something hard for you to understand who are no Scholar you can understand what 't is to obey and that is enough for you the rest belongs to us of the Trade In my conscience this would sooner put a man out of his wits then out of his Kingdom and who kept his wits I believe would go near to keep his Kingdom too In fine the sum total of the Canonists account is but this That the Pope by reason of his absolute supream Authority in all things is not to be questioned but obey'd in whatever he commands And if Bellarmine go less in substance whatever he do in words I am mistaken Nay how much short is he even in words when he tels Barclay C. 17. That if the spiritual Prince happen to abuse his Power by excommunicating a temporal Prince unjustly or absolving his Subjects from their obedience without just cause and so disturb the temporal Commonwealth This were sin in the spiritual Prince but yet that temporal Prince could not assume to himself the judgement of spiritual things or judge the spiritual Prince and much less depose him from his spiritual Seat This is worded in opposition to Barclay who by the same Argument which Bellarmine brings for the Deposition of Princes proves that they may as well depose Popes But if this do not signifie that right or wrong the Pope is always to be obey'd I understand it not For Deposition according to him is a spiritual thing an act of spiritual Power to judge of this a Prince must not assume to himself no not in case of Injustice And if he must not question what remains but to obey it and this in all Cases just or unjust Let the boldest Canonist that is out-go this if he can Upon the whole I see no other difference betwixt the two opinions but that one is abominable false and the other abominable false and abominable full of non-sense besides They with one bold untruth subject all Princes to the Pope and for the rest discourse at least consequently Were their Principle true all would follow which they say He makes Princes as much subject as they and when he has done cals them true soveraign Princes and discourses so that no part hangs together Every one fals together by the ears with his fellow and makes such mad work that a body can understand nothing of it but that 't is false Consider a little what he teaches in his Rom. Pont. against these Canonists That Christ or the Christian Law deprives none of the Right and Dominion he had before that otherwise Christianity would be injurious and a wrong instead of a benefit and therefore Christian Rings and Emperors acknowledge no Superior in Temporals but are true and supream Princes in their own Kingdoms Again That Christ our Lord has distinguisht the Acts Offices and Dignities of Popes and Emperors that one should not presume to meddle with the Rights of the other and a great deal more to this purpose But that strange things happen in the world now and then one would not suspect that these things and Deposition should both be taught by one man and that man a friend of the Popes Sure if I were Pope I should not think my self much oblig'd by him who gives me a Power to do injuries But with what Distinction-sodder shall we ever cement these things Does a King lose nothing when he loses his Kingdom Is nothing taken away when all is gone Is he depriv'd of no Right who is depriv'd of the Right to reign Is it no injury to be turn'd out of a Throne to be forc't to change Purple for Rags and languish out a despised life in helpless Beggary Do Christian Princes acknowledge no Superior in Temporals if they acknowledge one at whose command they must quit their Temporals By the way we are at our Superior in Temporals again with the meaning of which for my late bad success I dare not meddle It signifies you know ee'n what you please But let it signifie what it will I am sure no Distinction can hinder but who has Power to command in Temporals is Superior in Temporals And he would make us believe at the same time both that Christian Princes know none such and yet do know a certain Person who can command away their Temporals from them To make both these true at once is me thinks a pretty confident undertaking Then again what means this that the two Powers are distinct and one not to meddle with the Rights of the other I am sure he does not mean that the same Person cannot have and exercise both because then the Bishop of Rome could not be a temporal Prince Now I understand how in that case the Powers are distinct in themselves notwithstanding they are united in one Person because that one Person commands temporal things in vertue of one power and Spiritual in vertue of another which certainly he may do who has both But when there is but one Power extended to both kind of actions The powers certainly are then confounded if they can be confounded at all For what can confounding or mixing in this case signifie but making one of two which one shall have the vertue of both So liquors so every thing that I know in the world are blended or confounded together Wherefore 't is Bellarmin not the Canonists who truly confounds these Powers They make them two but say the Pope has both Bellarmin saies he has but one and that the Spiritual only but
would have this one Spiritual Power command both in Spirituals and Temporals Which is of two to make one third Power neither wholy Spiritual be cause it extends to Temporals nor wholy Temporal because it acts in Spirituals but equivalent to both And if this be not to confound the two Powers and make one of these two which he saies Christ would have divided I would be glad to learn what is and what other way they can be confounded And yet the jest is even while he does this he presses the confusion of the Powers as a great inconvenience upon the Canonists who are not altogether so faulty as himself and can extricate their Doctrine a great deal better In two words either he confounds the Powers and then he disobeys Christ who he saies would have them kept asunder or he does not and then he disobeys him in permitting one to meddle with the rights of the other For certainly 't is the right of the Temporal power to command the Subjects to that power and require their allegiance and service And to take away these Subjects and this Allegiance is to meddle and that very far too vvith what belongs to the right of another The Truth is these Tricks turn a question of as great importance as any in the world into pure words and illusion The vvorld is in suspence about the decision of this great Question concerning the independent Soveraignty of the two Powers and how that command in the Gospel Reddite quae sunt Caesaris Caesari quae sunt Dei Deo should be obey'd All the learning of ten Ages teach the powers were distinguisht by Christ one given to the Bishop the other to the Prince The Canonists and they but some and all late men teach they were given both to the Pope This third indirect Party coming to settle a point of this importance profess at first that the Powers truly are as Christ commanded they should be distinct and the Pope for his share has the Spiritual only Would not any man think now the business decided and that we had no more to do but obey our Prince in Temporals and Bishop or if you will Pope for I will not meddle with that question in Spirituals and there 's an end Why this 't is to be illiterate says Bellarmin and not understand distinction The Popes power is only Spiritual but yet this Spiritual power indirectly and for the good of Souls virtually and by means of some other proprieties of speech extends likewise to Temporals and may dispose of Kingdoms as it sees fit Why then call it Temporal in the name of God if it can dispose of Temporals and say the Pope is Universal Monarch if he be so and stand to it Yes we do stand to it replies Bellarmin but we love to speak properly and do not call the Pope Vniversal Monarch though he can dispose of all the Kingdoms of the World because he does it not in vertue of a Temporal power but by a spiritual working and after an indirect manner Hang the manner how he does it if he can do it What has the World to do with these mannerly tricks A King is well holp up who after he is dispossest comes to understand that this came about after another fashion and in another manner then he was aware of Well! but are you for the Canonists or against them why truly I am for them and I am not for them And our Question What must be said to that Must we obey our King or the Pope This is what the world looks after Why according to one half of the resolution which says Princes are supream in Temporals and have in them no Superiour we must obey our King according to the other half which saies a power vvhich is only Spiritual can dispose of Temporals too we must obey the Pope But how must I do with this Licet and non Licet must I cut my self in two and list a Leg and an Arm under one a Thumb and a Shoulder under the other and if I happen to meet in the battle fight my King-self against my Pope-self Because this is something difficult and they are men of reason I imagine they would condescend a little in this point and let me remain entire As long as the answer is divided 't is well enough But then I must chuse the right half That 's it I would be at Pray tell me then must whole I take the Spiritual or the Temporal half Why the truth is you must take the Spiritual half Parasits and Flatterers may tell you otherwise But this is the truth of the story Why then to what purpose all this illusion of my Princes Soveraignty and Independency when after all he is neither Soveraign nor Independent To what purpose this bustle against the Canonists only to say the same thing at last but with more ado Could you not have plainly told me at first what I must trust to and spared the trapan of so many useless disguises The result of all your Spirituals and Indirects and good of Souls and whatever else is in short I must obey the Pope against my Prince only I must in spight of all sence believe my Prince is a true and Soveraign King and has no Superiour in Temporals and the Pope no power but Spiritual and so besides a Traytor and a Rebel become sensless and a block into the bargain Here 's your fine opinion of which you make such a Mystery and are so shy to discover your thoughts Come come leave dodging and deal above-board Answer me these things and shew me that Bellarmin speaks sence and sence not injurious to Government and the safety of Princes or disclaim him plainly as you have the Canonists 'T is at your choice to do what you will but do one and that effectually or take notice I tell you I will believe for the future your Church is a wicked Church absolutely inconsistent with Civil Government and has not one sound member in her no not one Put me not off with formalities and think to scape with telling me this doctrine belongs not to your Church as a Church and that only the Material men hold it 'T is the material men I only care for at present We converse not with your formal Church vve hear and see and deal with Material men These are they can do us good or harm and 't is but reason we should know vvhat to expect from them Formalities are ayry things no rope can catch them but Material men you know maye be suspended and vvhen they are found guilty and have no hopes of reprieve but in the innocence of their formalities I doubt it goes hard vvith them In two vvords clear your selves from an imputation which you have brought upon your selves or confess you cannot be cleer'd and remember that silence is a confession and so I shall take it as all Justice in the world does and believe it vvas not the wickedness
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
be at and shall never be so senceless to be diverted by vvhat he saies from considering vvhat he vvould do I tell you once for all we would fight as freely against the Pope as the Turk if he come like a Turk in Arms and you may easily believe me for all Nations do it vvithout difficulty when there is occasion French Spaniards Italians themselves have all had their turns Marry if he come like a Pope to direct our feet in the ways of that peace which Christ bequeath'd as a legacy to his Church I for my part vvill fall down at his feet and kiss them too laugh you as much as you vvill In the mean time I vvould advise you as you do me to let Politics alone and not go about to perswade the vvorld Heresie was the cause of all the danger of 88 vvhen if there had been no such thing there had not been one Ship or one Souldier the less Had Queen Elizabeth been Inquisition-proof as much as King Philip he vvould have done just as he did For 't was the enemy of Spain and friend to Holland not the enemy to the Pope vvith vvhom he had the quarrel Had the Pope himself been in her place the Pope had been invaded as she vvas And this I say not altogether by guess for both he and his Father actually did invade the Pope and his Father take him prisoner too But so much for your Politics and my reservedness of which I have now given you the very reason and told you the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth As for Bellarmin I wish you had spared some of your smartness He was a great man and if you would undertake to answer all that he has writ peradventure you would go neer to find him so Nay do but write on any chuse what you think the easiest Subject as much as he has done of intricate matters and if you do not somewhere or other give occasion of as much sport as you have made with him I shall much marvel A great piece of Mastery it is out of so many Volumes where 't is impossible the Author should alwaies be equally attentive to pick out a few lines and turn them to Burlesque If I had a mind to take his part against you perhaps I could make it appear He is not altogether such an Ass as you would make him even in this question For example You quarrel with him because as you say he forgets to explain what he means by Indirect where he first uses the word As if those against whom he then writ did not understand it well enough and need no explication His notion pleases not you and you say it is not the Notion of the world Suppose it be not He writ to that part of the World which understood it in his Notion If they understand one another what is' t to you and me what words they use Again you say He makes no use of that word in the whole course of his Arguments What is it to purpose whether he did or no It may be he had no occasion But if you consider his Arguments you will find they proceed all upon what he understands by Indirect Power and that they are all along opposite to the Canonists who maintain in the Pope a power properly Temporal whereas he places in him only a Spiritual Power and then endeavours by those Arguments to prove that supream Spiritual Power may in vertue of its being so extend also in some cases to Temporals which is in his language to be Indirect and was so understood by those against whom he intended his Arguments So that he is so far from forgetting as you imagine his Indirect that he makes use of it and nothing else More I could say in his behalf if I had a mind But I mean not to engage for him He has friends a great deal more learned then I who can speak for him when they think convenient As you have ordered the matter I have enough to do to quit my self However I mean now to endeavour it and quit my self so if I can that I may hear no more of you For I am very weary of being baited thus long at one stake and will come no more there if I can help it I tell you then I will stand by your Parliament-Doctrine as much as you or any of his Majesties Subjects and take it unkindly at your hands you should surmise I would do otherwise That Parliament was a Catholick-Parliament if you remember and might have put you in mind that Catholicks may be both good Catholicks and good Englishmen 'T is true there may be Traytors of them and those Traytors may disguise their Treason with the pretence of Religion as who would not get as hand some a vizard as he could for so ugly a face But 't is plain that their Religion has no inconsistency with their duty to their King and Countrey when we see their Religion was no hindrance to them for providing for the liberties of their Countrey against the encroachments of pretended Religior On the contrary I conceive it more shameful and more wicked for us who persevere in the same Faith to degenerate from the same Loyalty then for men of other perswasions But to go on I disavow and detest the wicked and pernicious Doctrine which teaches the deposition of Kings whom I acknowledge to hold independently of God and will be ready on all occasions to lay down my life in confirmation of this Truth and when you please will give under my hand that 't is new false erroneous contrary to the Word of God and several ways mischievous besides and will never maintain any opinion to the contrary I know not how you will relish this way of speaking but I can assure you 't is a way in which wiser men then I have walk't before me But to give a direct Answer to the Question to which you have reduc't the whole and which by the way I am very glad you have confin'd to Temporals for I do not mean to be perswaded out of my Religion by your earnestness I answer thus That I will at all times and in all occasions stand by my King against whatsoever Power and under whatsoever pretences And because you are particularly jealous of the Pope I declare I will stand by my Soveraign and believe it my duty so to do against the Pope as firmly as against any other as being fully perswaded he has no Power Direct or Indirect Virtual or Formal or by whatever names it has or may be call'd to depose or dispossess him of all or any part of his Dominions or authorise his Subjects not to perform faithful obedience to him And I absolutely disclaim all Doctrine to the contrary by whomsoever maintained and under whatsoever disguises And if you distrust my word I will pawn you my hopes of salvation and swear all this in as ample manner as you can devise
the Popes Legat would have diverted them from their design on England by representing that the Kingdom held now of the Pope maintained both to his face M. Paris ad an 1216. that K. Johns grant was void and this among other things because there was no consent of the Barons It is not possible they should so confidently avouch this to one who could not but know the truth unless it had been notorious and undeniable even by Walo himself Wherefore it is manifest that the clause above mentioned was inserted for forms sake without truth it being not more known that there was a Charter than that it was made without the consent of the Nobility What the consequence of this is will fall into consideration by and by when we have discours'd of what remains The next point is that K. John had an undoubted right to the Crown when He past this Deed. Suppose he had what then Right to wear the Crown and Right to give it away are very different things and very far from inferring one another He urges that the Regal power in disposing of the Crown was the same then as at the conquest That the Conqueror both receiv'd the Crown by gift from K. Edward and dispos'd of it by Testament That although K. Edwards gift should pass for invalid yet the very title of Conquest was sufficient for an Arbitrary power of disposing it the very grant of Magna Charta from the Prince to the People being a plain Argument that at least the power of our Norman Princes was originally arbitrary and unconfined till themselves were pleas'd to restrain it by voluntary compacts and concessions which hapned not till after the fact in question Thus does our Author discourse with a Tide of smartness threaten Shipwrack to our liberties which way soever we steer To deny an arbitrary right in the Conqueror seems to question the right of his successors To grant it seems to confirm the Deed in question and expose us to the mercy of the Pope Before I answer particularly I take leave to suppose not because it cannot be prov'd but because no body will require proof of what every body acknowledges That rights questionable in their origin become unquestionable in tract of time The Goths and Vandals broke into the Roman Empire and mastered a great part of it with a known violence but unknown Justice Should ear be given to the exceptions which might be made against their Title and the right of their posterity and all who hold under them questioned till the right of the first occupants were clearly made out the world would be embroyled in inextricable confusion and suffer little less from our disputes than their Arms. Few either Princes or private men would enjoy their Estates with a safe Conscience The bonds of Obedience would be broken the security of Life and Fortunes taken away and the Ligaments of human society dissolv'd These things are so evidently contrary to the good of mankind that speculations which would infer them are evidently contrary to reason Speculate what you will of Justice it is most certain that to ruin the world is a most unjust thing or if you will criticize upon the notion at least irrational and wicked and intollerable Wherefore whatever were the origin of establish't Powers when they are establish't and by long continuance become necessary to the quiet and security of mankind they are most certainly just and to question them is madness in all and Treason in Subjects To examin by what means this comes to pass how true Right is acquired in Time and even bad Titles become good at last I conceive an Argument too high for me and besides see it needless to meddle with it For while the thing is universally acknowledged and cannot be deni'd without extream mischief to the world the labour of enquiring more particularly into it may be dispenc'd with Two things I take to my present purpose which I suppose none will deny me 1. That the Right of succeeding Kings cannot be questioned on pretence of doubt nay if you will defect of right in the proceedings of such as have reign'd so long since as the Conquest 2. That Power and Right being manifestly two very different things it follows not that because things were then done which ought not be questioned now I mean with prejudice to Posterity that they were therefore well done and according to Right To speak now particularly to what is alledged It is true that the Conqueror had or pretended a Gift from K. Edward I suppose to have something to say But 't is apparent that not K. Edward's gift but his own sword gain'd him England The Ratio ultima Regum was his only unanswerable Argument and had Harold got the Victory and preserv'd the Kingdom he would have preserved Right enough to it notwithstanding the Gift of K. Edward and as much right been acknowledg'd in his Successors as now in those of the Conqueror It is true also that the Conqueror did dispose of the Kingdom to the prejudice of his eldest Son but 't is likewise true that Duke Robert did claim and put for the Crown notwithstanding his Fathers Testament and had he prevailed had transmitted a Right to his Posterity which by this time had been unquestionable These are matters purely of Fact of which kind there are innumerable in History but from which according to the maxim that Fact does not infer Right no Argument can be drawn What the Conqueror did He did by the power which his Conquest gave him success and length of time has establish't what depends on his actions into a firmness which admits of no dispute But this concludes not that all he did was just even in him and much less that the same Actions are justifiable in his Successors As for what is next urged That Conquest sufficed for an arbitrary Power it is undoubtedly true for he did arbitrarily dispose of things as he pleased But that his Conquest gave him Right so to do or transmitted such a Right to his Posterity is not to be admitted without very good proof It is universally agreed that Conquest gives right only where the War is just which I think signifies that his Conquest gave him none at all For the War is not just unless he have a good Title who makes it and if he have Conquest only puts him into possession of what was wrongfully with-held but his Right is antecedent to and independent of his Conquest Indeed where the revenge of some collateral wrong or other cause put just Arms into the hands of any Prince there what he gains is thought justly his own by vertue of his Conquest But this is not our case The only cause of this War was because Harold with-held the Crown to which if the Conqueror had a just Title that which made it so gave him his Right if he had not the War was not just and Conquest could give him none Whether his Title were
unfitly is not what the world means by Right Right to do ill sounds very like Right to do wrong and is in this case neither better nor worse For if arbitrary placing of Governors be against the good of the Commonwealth and Right or Just signify as much as Fit or Good and that as at present it must with respect to the Commonwealth there is a Right in the Commonwealth which requires their Princes should not be set over them arbitrarily and those arbitrary dispositions of the Crown were manifestly against Right And yet perhaps it is enough that they were unreasonable and unfit For unreasonable Actions are no more to be drawn into consequence than unjust ones and peradventure bind no more where collateral considerations do not give them a strength which they have not of themselves I have alledged these considerations more to hint what may be said than because I think nothing else can For after all it may with truth be maintained that the power of the first Norman Princes and of the Conqueror himself as well as the rest was actually confined and in the manner our Author would have it by voluntary Concessions long before Magna Charta and the establishment of those liberties to the subject which he supposes confine it now They all took Oaths at their Coronation and bound themselves to the observation of Justice If an Oath do not bind a Prince an Oath deliberately and solemnly made in the face of God and Man in a matter too mainly concerning the good of the Commonwealth for whose security he gives that Oath and which she accepts as full security there is no talking of Confinement upon him of security to a Commonwealth of Laws and Obligations and Compacts but all must be left to the arbitrary unconfin'd pleasure of one man a Position which is the Freedom of this part of the world I suppose will not find much entertainment However it is the strength even of Magna Charta it self which cannot confine a Prince if his Oath do not first confine him to observe it Now who swears to render Justice undoubtedly swears to render Justice to the Kingdom in the first place For the concern of the whole is the concern of all particulars every one being as much and perhaps more interested in the Rights of the Kingdom than in his private pretensions If any man doubt of this I suppose no Englishman at least will doubt but that he is to acquiesce to the Judgment of Parliament And it is positively declared by Parliament 40 Ed. 3 that the Fact of K. John was contrary to his Coronation Oath in which nevertheless for ought I can find there is nothing more than general expressions of rendring Justice However it be since it is a judged case that K. John broke his Oath in his arbitrary disposition of the Kingdom it is a judged case that his Power was confined in that particular and this independently of Magna Charta and all subsequent Compacts And if his then sure of all the rest for they all swear as much as He. But if any man will continue stiff in this opinion and believe nothing able to confine the arbitrary power of Conquerors but their own Concessions I would entreat him to direct me to that Concession which has confin'd their power in this point besides their Coronation Oath I do not find either in Mag. Charta or any where else any Article concerning the disposition of the Crown Learneder men may know more but my Ignorance perswades me that if the Norman Princes had such a Right and that Right can only be restrained by voluntary Concessions and those direct to the point their Successors have it still And 't is not easie to be perswaded otherwise till the Concession appear But this no Englishman can either say or think nothing being more notorious than that it cannot be done now Whoever will take the pains to examin how it comes to pass that this original power is now restrained will not easily be satisfi'd if nothing else will satisfie him but a direct Concession I believe he will be forc'd to confess at last that such a Concession is neither extant nor needful and acknowledg that Power is bounded as truly and as strongly by Nature as Grants Upon the whole I conceive there may in the first Norman Princes be considered the Power of Conquerors and Right of Kings That their Power was unconfin'd enough but ought not be drawn into Precedent although it be against all Reason and Justice to question now those effects of their Power which remain among us even to this day For these have strength not from their Power but from what is able to turn Unjust into Just as Titles originally bad become good in process of Time That even their Right was confined the very notion of Right implying limitation For right signifies proportion of the Action to the subject so that an unconfined Right is not Right That their Right was confined in this particular by the good of the Kingdom as has been discours'd before and though it had not Right to what they did is very far from inferring Right to what K. John did the two remarkable precedents mentioned by our Author being so remarkably different from this case that they can be no Precedents nor warrant for it William Rufus reigned after his Father and excluded his Brother in truth by the favour of the Kingdom yet claiming by his Fathers Testament That claim may be allow'd without allowing King Johns resignation For in the Conquerors fact there was no more then of two sons both fit both equal to the Kingdom to prefer whom he thought fittest The Laws and Liberties and condition of the Kingdom was the same under either so that apprehending in likelyhood no greater interest in the business than whether their King should be called William or Robert They approved the Fathers choice and willingly obey'd whom he appointed But King John's Fact was quite of another strain A Stranger and such an one who could never become a denizen one taken up with other cares and dwelling too far off to be ever able to act as was fitting for the good of England was made the supream Lord and which was worse the Tenure of the Kingdom altered and of free turn'd into subject The Kingdom was sensible of their Interest in the business and disclaim'd the fact both then and ever since I am mistaken if Reception of Laws be not generally held a very material consideration to their validity But the cases are otherwise so apparently different that a Right in the Conqueror to dispose of the Crown as he did may safely be granted without any necessity or colour of allowing in consequence a Right to King John to dispose of it as he did If Henry 1. succeeded in vertue of the same Testament his case is the same with the former But this Gentlemans information was better than mine if he had other Title than
Election at least till his Brother consented as he soon did the same title which K. Stephen and after him K. John had to the Crown I should think their Examples a very good Reason that the proceedings of those times are not to be drawn into consequence For if they may it will follow that the Kingdom of England perhaps is at least has been Elective Which I suppose no Englishman will admit if they may not I know not to what purpose they are alledged For these reasons I am perswaded nothing can be drawn from the proceedings of the first Norman Princes to justify the Resignation of King John which is so far from being binding to our times that it never had any validity at all But not to leave the matter disputable betwixt my No and the Yea of who will maintain the contrary I will fairly put it to Judgment and say whatever was done and by whatever right about the times of the Conquest that K. John in particular could not validly do what he did and that this has already been decided and in such manner that there is nothing so firmly setled in the world which may not admit of question as well as this In the reign of Ed. III. the Pope demanded the long unpaid one thousand marks granted by K. John and threatned by legal process to recover this rent A Parliament was called chiefly for this business and it was unanimously resolv'd Rot. Parl. 40 Ed. 3. That neither K. John nor any other could bring Himself his Kingdom or People into such subjection without their consent and against his Coronation Oath And that in case the Pope should by process or otherwise attempt to constrain the King or his Subjects to perform the premisses They would become Parties and resist him with all their Power This is plain and peremptory and directly to the point I cannot but muse to observe them speak doubtingly of the matter of Fact Supplication of Souls and the more because Sr. Tho. More very positively denies the Church of Rome could in his or any time produce such an Evidence When I consider He was a learned man and no Enemy to the Pope had great means of being well acquainted with Records and passages of former times unknown to others and speaks as if he had good ground for what he said I hardly know what to think of it I wish he had inform'd us what his grounds were peradventure there is more to be said than we are aware of But since he has not and the Parliament does not directly deny the Fact I for my part must be contented to take things at the worst and not deny what I cannot disprove I have this for my comfort that if the Fact were true it was in Sr. Tho. More 's words right naught worth and the Authority of Parliament to bear me out By the way our Author in alledging the consent of the Barons at that time the only representative of the Kingdom speaks against a solemn Declaration of Parliament and this undeniable proof may be joyned to what I produc'd before to make good my denial of their consent However the Question is positively decided and by an Authority irrefragable to Englishmen But lest we should be suspected of partiality in our own case let us put it to the Judgment of Forreigners When the differences betwixt this King and the Barons became irreconcileable they sought protection from France The Pope sent a Legat to disswade the French King and his Son from medling with a Kingdom the Dominion whereof belonged now to the Church The word was hardly out of the Legats mouth when the King of France reply'd suddenly M. Paris ad an 1216. That England never had been nor then was nor ever should be the Patrimony of Peter And this besides what he else alledged because no King could give away his Kingdom without consent of his Barons an error which if the Pope would maintain He would give a most pernicious example to all Kingdoms The Nobility present with great heat justify'd this speech of their King and declared they would stand for that point to death viz. that it was not in the power of any King to transfer his Kingdom or make it tributary at pleasure You see I spoke not altogether out of my own head when I refus'd to yield an arbitrary right of disposing Kingdoms even to Conquerors and that I shall not want who will take my part But to let that pass it cannot be attributed to the partiality of our either Country or Times that we hold this Deed of K. John null when it was condemned for such by those who were contemporaries to it and as much abroad as at home Who desires more security is in my opinion a very scrupulous man Notwithstanding let us put it to the Judgment of the very Contrivers of the Deed. I am much mistaken if Themselves had not the same sentiments with the rest of the world If They did not understand well enough that the consent of the Barons was necessary to the validity of the Deed why did they insert that clause Communi Consilio Baronum nostrorum A thing of this consequence undoubtedly was not carelesly hudled up Great deliberation was without question us'd and they would never have put in what they themselves and every body else knew was false but that they were sensible All was to no purpose without it So that in the hard choice of framing a Draught either without Truth or without validity They had an eye to the latter and let the first shift as it could The truth is They had reason it being obvious enough that if they could carry things out at present the Charter it self as all Records are would be a strong Presumption for the truth of what it contains to Posterity But since it is as evident as that there was a Charter that this Clause was untrue it is likewise evident that Those who put it in thought it necessary Wherefore even in their Judgments the Grant was invalid as wanting what themselves thought absolutely requisite You now perceive of what importance this point is of the Consent of the Barons of which I forbore to speak while I was examining whether they consented or no. Neither do I mean to dilate upon it now it being enough to observe that the want of it absolutely invalidates the Grant and this in the Judgment not only of the Framers and of the King and Kingdom of France but of Parliament For you see They positively declare that neither K. John nor any other could bring the Kingdom into subjection without consent of the People who at that time had none but the Barons to consent for them So that not to acquiesce in this point is to refuse the highest Authority of the Nation and who does so is not fit to live in the Nation But shall I venture to joyn our Author himself to the rest of this good company and
goods of the Common-wealth as they can hardly be spared at any time without envy of the rest and grumbling at the inequality of publick burthens so the exigence may be such that They cannot be spared at all For it may require the utmost of what the Common-wealth can do and all be little enough However That what They have may be necessary to the end of the Common-wealth evidently subjects what They have to the power of the Common-wealth And this a better Master than Bellarmin St. Ambrose has long since taught us in few but very significant words If Thou wilt not be subject obnoxius to Caesar have no things of the World but if thou hast Riches Thou art subject to Caesar These Considerations are but a few of many which the subject affords Who would dissect the Notion of Common-wealth into all the parts which necessarily and indispensably concur to the whole frame would never have done There is enough said for a Letter and what is said I think is very clear 'T is plain the World which was made for the use of man cannot be used to any tolerable convenience of life without those Societies which are called Common-wealths 'T is plain a Common-wealth cannot be without a Head and Members nor they without power to command and obligation to obey for the end of the Common-wealth 'T is plain the Clergy are Members at least in a Christian Common-wealth and though they were not would be nere a whit the less subject to the Power under which they live barely by living under it For which though I contented my self with alledging the custom of Nations yet who will may find it in Nature too As a stranger cannot go into a Foreign Country with safety unless the Laws there secure him from injury so neither can that Country receive him with safety unless the same Laws may hinder him from doing any Again those Laws are Rules appointed for the common good and if the Stranger do not regulate his Actions and Traffick and whatever commerce he has with the Natives by those Rules the common good is prejudic'd and the Power to whose care it belongs is to procure reparation from the Stanger So that who Travels does upon the matter leave or rather suspend his Membership with the community to which Birth subjects him and for the time of his stay unites himself to that in which he is whereof he becomes a kind of Member with that difference betwixt him and proper Members which his case requires and the Laws whether of Nations or particular Countrys have establish'd 'T is farther plain that Security and Quiet are some of the many goods for which men live united in Society 'T is plain they cannot be attained without power to hinder disquiet and wrong and that Power is plainly no Power if it cannot act where-ever 't is needful it should for those ends Wherefore whoever brings disturbance and injury into the Common-wealth must of necessity come under the Power which is to keep them out I might have dilated farther but I thought it superfluous conceiving he must be very partial or rather very blind who needs more light to discover Bellarmin's Exemptions not only groundless and unproved but unprovable and manifestly inconsistent with the great and most natural good of man regulated Society Wherefore 't is as impossible they should be commanded by God or Nature as that either can command things harmful to man or incompatible one with another Neither can he who will obstinately persist to maintain they are avoid being driven at last to say That Bad proceeds from the Author of Good It may seem strange that Learned and Good men should be for things so false and so pernicious But whither will not mistaken Zeal transport us It shew'd them I suppose but one side of the Meddal and made them so hot upon the advantage of the Church and Church-men that they minded not the harm they did the Common wealth Which is the less to be wondred at because it hindred them from seeing that They hurt even those they think to pleasure For I am much mistaken if these Exemptions be not more prejudicial to the Clergy themselves then any body else And this not only for the dependence the Church has on the Common-wealth without which it cannot well be but on nearer and more obvious considerations Let a King say to a Clergy-man as Bellarmin would have him I have no power over you He says at the same time I am no Head in respect of you nor you a Member in respect of me or of that Body whereof I am Head Thus much even Bellarmin himself says for 't is his distinction of material and formal Members in other words though I know he elsewhere speaks otherwise Now This if I understand English is to say If any body wrong you you must not come to me for redress for I have nothing to do with you Or if good nature make me interpose 't is purely out of Charity not Justice and the obligation a Head has to the Members Pray how far is this from Out-lawry An Out-law is but one put out of the King's protection and he who cannot claim his protection of right seems not much if at all better than he who is formally put out of it For a King may protect an Out-law if he please and unless he please at this rate he need not protect a Clergy-man However barely to change the priviledge a subject has to say to his Prince I beseech you do me Justice into I beseech you do me a kindness is what the Clergy are strange men if they take for a Priviledge and they are stranger friends to them who will not be quiet without it Again will not the case be altered if those among whom They live cease to look upon them as fellow Members and whose good for the community of Society is their own The experience of strangers in all Nations instructs us sufficiently how coldly people interest themselves in their wants or afflictions or whatever concerns And what more than strangers are They who by ceasing to be under the Princes power cease to be parts of the Common-wealth save materially as Bellarmin phrases it and so are strangers Till the World be made up of courtesie and good Nature and every body be sure to be their friend whether he be obliged or no the Clergy in my opinion should for their own sakes cease even to wish for such Exemptions As men are now 't will be ill for them to have nothing but good Nature and Courtesie to trust to Besides as the Clergy are of the same nature with other men they need the same conveniences and supports of life nor did those who invented these Exemptions mean I suppose to diminish those conveniences and those supports Other men seek and find such things in Society Can the Clergy hope for them otherwise Can they get what they want or keep what they get or recover
Answers But besides that my Pitcher contrary to the case in Horace is already become a Jarr and 't would be monstrous to work it into a Tun I considered it is not our business at present We are not now upon the What 's said but the Who said it To examine who has most reason for what he says is to turn back to the merits of the Cause which if any one will do I am well content to leave him to himself For he must have either very bad eyes or much turn'd away who will not easily see through all that is said In the mean time it is enough for my purpose that 't is acknowledged and by Bellarmin himself that what he says is contradicted by Catholicks men of note as well as himself and whose No has as much authority as his I But I conceive it fitting to produce some of a higher Form and whose credit is unquestionable To begin with one against whom none can speak or be heard without impiety I vouch in the first place St. Paul Rom. 13. Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers And here I might end as well as begin For this is in truth alone decisive He must have no Soul who can pretend this command comprehends him not Yet let us hear his Interpreters Theodoret upon this place has these words Sive est Sacerdos c. whether one be a Priest or Prelate or have profest a Monastical life let him obey those ijs cedat to whom Magistracy is committed Theophylact upon the same place has almost the same words Vniversos erudit c. He instructs All whether a Priest or Monk or Apostle that they be subject to Princes St. Chrysostom Hom. 23. upon the Epistle to the Romans Sed eas Paulus c. But Paul makes use of such reasons as command obedience to the Powers by way of debt shewing those things are commanded All as well Priests as Monks not Seculars only And this he declares in the very beginning when he says Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers Though you be an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet in fine whatsoever you be For this subjection is not against Piety Let us next hear Popes themselves Gelasius writing to the Emperour Anastasius tells him that The Prelates of the Church owe him all obedience in Temporals And again Ep. 10. Antistites Religionis Bishops also themselves are to obey thy Laws and this because forasmuch as concerns the Order of Publick Discipline that is the Government of the Common-wealth We know the power is by supernal disposition given to Thee Anastasius to the same Emperour acknowledges that Bishops are subject to the Laws of the Prince in what concerns publick Discipline But Princes to Bishops in dispensing the Mysteries and Sacraments Pelagius the first Ep. 16. to Childebert King of France With how much study and labour must we endeavour for taking away the scandal of suspicion to offer the duty of our confession to Kings to whom the Holy Scriptures command us also to be subject St. Gregory the Great speaks with a submission which offends Baronius and makes him strain his wits to find a scurvy way to colour the business But no Varnish will ly That he was subject to the Emperours command That he did what he ought in obeying the Emperour on one side and speaking for God on the other That Power from Heaven is given to the Piety of his Lords as he calls Emperours over all men over Priests as well as Souldiers c. have a blunt ill natur'd clearness which no Art can practice upon I cannot but take notice by the way how Bellarmin strives to weather those Rocks He objects against himself the aforesaid place of St. Paul with the other to the same purpose out of St. Pet. 2. and what St. Chrysostome says of the matter And answers That those places are general and mean no more than that every one be subject to his own Superiour But the subjection of the Clergy to Princes cannot be proved by them till it be proved that Princes are lawful Superiours and Judges of the Clergy which cannot be proved unless it be proved that Sheep have preheminence over Pastors Children over Parents and Temporals over Spirituals And yet we do not contradict St. Chrysostome neither For though we say the Pope alone is the proper Judge of the Clergy and Monks yet we confess the King is King of them as well as the Laity For Princes fight for them and They must honour and pray for him and obey him too directively not co-actively and with his former restrictions That Prejudice should be thus powerful Is it possible Bellarmin should in earnest perswade himself the Apostles meant only in general that every one should obey whom he ought obey the Laity their Secular the Clergy their Ecclesiastical Superiour Are not the Superiours or higher Powers whom All are commanded to obey expresly named by St. Peter Kings and Dukes or Governours sent to punish evil doers and by St. Paul Magistrates who bear the Sword Can he think this Command is comply'd with by obedience to Ecclesiastical Superiours Are They Kings Do they bear the Sword Are They the Ministers of God to wrath and vengeance What better proof would he have the Kings are lawful Superiours even of the Clergy than St. Paul gives viz. that their powers are ordained by God whom to resist is to acquire Damnation In St. Peter we find the reason of his Doctrine exprest when he admonishes Christians so to converse among the Gentiles that They who speak ill of them may be moved by their good Works to glorifie God and the ignorance of the foolish be silenc'd By the Calumny which the Apostle means all Interpreters understand a suspicion crept in among the Gentiles of disobedience to Temporal powers and contempt of their Laws For such a seditious Doctrine there was among the Jews begun by Judas the Galilean and tenaciously embrac'd by the Pharisees It was too well known by the disorders it caused and being mistaken for a point of the Jews Religion Christians were asperst with it as deriving their Religion from them Both the Apostles took care to clear Christianity from the aspersion and therefore instructed the Faithful to obey Secular powers not by constraint or force Propter Iram as they phrase it but for conscience because such was the Will of God who had given them the power they had This was the matter of Fact Consider now how Bellarmin handles it There is indeed saith he express mention made of Kings because at that time it was very necessary least they should have hindred the Preaching of the Gospel but yet the Apostles meant no more than that every one should be subject to his own lawful Superiour Is not this to say that the Apostles were not men of that holy simplicity which is believed For 't is plainly to go about to over-reach Princes with fair words to seek
by making them believe They should have obedience from All to cajole them into the Church there to be taught a new lesson and find there was no such matter Is it not to say They did not dispence the Gospel with that Fidelity which they profess For they included every one within the command of obedience and yet meant a good part should not be included They taught that Kings and Magistrates were Higher powers in respect of all and that it is the Will of God that all be subject to them and know for all that it is not the Will of God and that They are not higher Powers in respect of the Clergy In short it is to make them speak plain non-sence For if this Comment pass their discourse will be this People have no reason to think any Christian disobedient to Civil Authority For we tell you some must obey it and the rest Ecclesiastical Then for St Chrysostome he contradicts not him he says The Saint says That All the Clergy as well as the rest and the highest degrees of them are subject to those Higher Powers of which St. Paul speaks Bellarmin says Princes can meddle neither with their Persons nor Goods Is not this to say They are not subject and is not subject and not-subject contradiction How can he avoid contradicting St. Chrysostome and the rest who speak as he does Why though he make the Pope alone the proper Judge yet he allows the Prince to be King of the Clergy c. What is this but a new contradiction For how can a King be a King and not a proper Judge To determine differences is one and an essential part of a Kings Office 'T is true between a Judge by Commission and a King there is a difference And yet even such a one represents the King But to be a proper Judge without Commission by an inherent right of his own is inseparable from a King The truth is 't is all contradiction from first to last Secular Princes are not lawful Superiours and yet Kings of the Clergy is contradiction They have Kingly that is Supreme Power and yet the Ecclesiastical is to be obeyed in case of contrary commands is contradiction They are Kings in respect of those who are not Subjects nor formally parts of the Common-wealth is contradiction c. And yet this happens not by Bellarmin's fault He has but one fixing on the wrong side which whoever does let him be never so learned can no more avoid contradiction than He can falling let him be never so dextrous under whom the ground founders But to return to our Road People may speculate themselves out of Common sence if they will and do more often than every body thinks The truth is whoever takes a wrong Principle and will pursue it must come thither at last Yet though he may so disguise the matter with learned subtilties that he perceive not where he is himself Nature will be too strong for Artifice and shew it self through all disguises Arguments have been made against the possibility of Motion and whiteness of Snow but the World could never be perswaded they could not go about their business or that Snow look'd like Jet We have found the point in question rooted in Nature and cultivated by the great Labourers in the field of Grace the Apostles Either way it must needs grow and appear in the hearts whether of men oâ— Faithful And so it evidently does Let a man go to a Bishop or Priest in any Country of Christendom and ask him seriously Do you belong to the Common-wealth in which you live Are you a subject of the Prince He would not be thought well in his wits Such they own such they call and write themselves for such the Prince and People and every body takes them nor is it more known that there are Clergy very where than that where-ever they are They are Subjects of the Prince of the place both in the esteem of all besides and their own constant profession Take for a curiosity For the clearness of the thing does not endure proof the Oath which the Bishops in France make to their King I swear and promise to your Majesty Sire that as long I live I will be to you a Faithful Subject and Servant that with all my power I will procure the good of your Service and Estate that I will never be present at any Council or Assembly held to the prejudice of them and that if any thing come to my knowledge I will presently give advice to your Majesty So help me God and his Holy Gospels It is so palpable a Truth that Bellarmin as contradictory as it is to his Doctrine cannot but acknowledge it For this reason he is forc'd to confess that Kings are Kings in respect of the Clergy as well as Laity that the Clergy besides their Spiritual capacity are also parts of the Common-wealth and in that quality oblig'd to obedience c. For the light of Nature however it may be obscured in particulars cannot be put out generally and we for our parts you know think as much of what is written in our hearts by the Apostles But to let that pass This is in truth the whole business To your Question whether the Clergy are Subjects or no all Christendom answers they are Now 't is evident that Subjects remaining Subjects can have nothing inconsistent with subjection And 't is as evident that the Exemptions in question in the latitude in which Bellarmin proposâ—s and you understand them are inconsistent with subjection 'T is therefore evident They belong not to the Clergy by Divine or any Right Neither can those whâ—ch they have be Exemptions from subjection but in the manner of subjection as Priviledges put a difference between Subjects requiring either different duties or the same duties in a different manner from some and others And since the difference betwixt them and the Laity as to subjection is not from their state and where the Laws put no difference all are alike subject there can be no Title nor Pretence to the difference which is but from the Laws and the pleasure of the Power which made them What Reason tells us must be unquestionable Records assure us actually was For the Laws are still extant among the rest which make up the Body of the Civil Law by which the Clergy obtained now one now another Priviledge till the whole number was compleated by many Emperours and in a long time I had once resolved to set them down but my Letter being long and that Book common I thought it not convenient to increase it with copying what who has the curiosity may as well see in the Original Besides that our Country not being subject to the Imperial Laws the priviledges of the Clergy here are to be regulated not by them but our own Yet 't is not amiss to set what Bellarmin says to them He objects them against himself as a proof that the Clergy
This Kingdom too is said to have a beginning for of this in the second Psalm Ask says he of me and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy Inheritance and to his Disciples all power is given me by my Father St. Hierom. In Hierom. c. 22. shews the prophecy concerning Jeconias was not contrary to the promise of the Angel because says he Jeremy speaks of a temporal and carnal Kingdom Gabriel of a spiritual and eternal one St. Austin Hear you Jews and Gentiles hear Circumcision Tr. 115. in Joan. Prepuce hear hear all you Earthly Kingdoms I hinder not your Dominion in this World my Kingdom is not of this World And again What would you more Come to the Kingdom which is not of this World come by believing and be not cruel by fearing The prophecy says of God the Father but I am appointed by him a King over Sion his holy hill But that Sion and that Hill is not of this World For what is his Kingdom but those who believe in him To whom he says you are not of this World as I am not of this World c. Again It is plainly said of the Kingdom of Christ not according to that in the beginning where God the Word was with God for there none ever doubted but he is King for all Ages but according to the Assumption of Humanity and Sacrament of Mediatour and Incarnation of a Virgin that it shall have no end where the Angel speaking to Mary says and he will give him the Kingdom of David his Father and he shall Reign in the House of Jacob for ever But this Kingdom in the House of Jacob and on the Throne of David can it be understood otherwise then in the Church and that People which is his Kingdom of which dlso the Apostle says when he shall have deliver'd up his Kingdom to God the Father that is brought his Saints to tne Contemplation of his Father And L. 17. de Civit. Dei C. 7. Speaking of the passage betwixt Saul and Samuel when Saul tore the Cloak of Samuel He represented figuratively the people of Israel which people were to lose their Kingdom our Lord Jesus Christ by the New Testament being to Reign not carnally but spiritually And what says he was not he a King who fear'd to be made a King plainly he was Tâ—act 25. in Joan. but not such a King as could be made by men but such a King as could give Kingdoms to men He came now not to Reign now as he will in that Kingdom of which we say let thy Kingdom come He alwaies Reigns with his Father according as he is the Son of God the Word of God the Word by which all things are made But the Prophets foretold his Kingdom also according to this that he was made Man and made those who believe Christians For there shall be a Kingdom of Christians which is now a gathering now making is now burying with the bloud of Christ This Kingdom will one day be manifest when the brightness of the Saints will be manifested after the judgment by him made which judgment he said before that the Son of Man should make Of which Kingdom also the Apostle saith when he shall have deliver'd up his Kingdom to God his Father Whence also he says himself Come you blessed of my Father possesse the Kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the World But his Disciples and the multitude believing in him thought he came now to Reign This is for them to take and make him King to prevent the time which he kept secret to himself to declare seasonably at the end of the World St. Hilary In Psal 2. This therefore is the King set over Sion the holy hill of God declaring the Command of the Lord not over that hill of the Earthly City that deplor'd and homicide and parricide Jerusalem but that Jerusalem which is in Heaven that which is our Mother the City of the great King whose Inhabitants as I conceive those at this day are who rose in the Passion of our Lord. St. Bernard That our Lord Jesus was descended from David no man doubts Hom. 4. sup Mis But I ask how God gave him the Throne of his Father David when he Reign'd not in Jerusalem nay consented not to the multitude which would have made him King besides protested to the face of Pilate my Kingdom is not of this world But we know a Jerusalem was signified different from that which is now and in which David Reign'd much more Noble and more Rich and this I conceive was meant here by a manner of speech usual in Scripture where the Sign is often put for the thing signify'd God did then give him the Seat of David his Father when he was by him made King over Sion his holy hill And he seems more plainly to declare what Kingdom it is of which he speaks by this that he says not in Sion but over Sion For peradventure it was therefore said above that David Reign'd in Sion but his Kingdom is over Sion of whom it was said to David of your seed I will place upon your Seat Of whom it was said by another Prophet He shall sit upon the Throne of David and over his Kingdom You see 't is every where over or upon Over Sion upon his Seat upon his Throne over his Kingdom Our Lord God therefore will give him not the typical but the true Seat of David not a temporal but an eternal not an earthly but an heavenly one Farther And he shall Reign in the House of Jacob for ever and of his Kingdom there shall be no end Here too if we understand the temporal House of Jacob how shall he Reign for ever in that which is not for ever We must therefore seek an eternal House of Jacob in which he may Reign for ever of whose Kingdom there shall be no end St. Anselm according to this that the Word was made Flesh he began to Reign in Believers by Faith in his Incarnation These in my Opinion for I intend here to end and think I have done pretty fair for a Letter speak much more to purpose then those alledg'd on the other side who talk of Christs power in general and at most according to his humanity but what kind of power he had they express not the extent of his power which no body denies they assert very plainly but are silent as to the quality of it which is the thing in question Whereas these positively declare it not to be carnal and temporal and earthly but Spiritual and Divine They tell us plainly besides what his Kingdom is namely the Faithful his Church and the plenitude of Saints now a gathering and to be compleated in the Resurrection when he shall deliver his Kingdom to his Father For my self though I have enough declar'd my Opinion yet I declare withal I mean not to tie you or any man to it Neither do
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
set the power of France upon him It is not possible he should take for sufficient satisfaction for faults which in his judgment deserved all this rigor a confession that his own was his own and a gift of what was his before But the Kings resignation made amends for all and cleared scores so fully that the Pope ever after was fast to him and heartily took his part in all his necessities Then and not before Popes assumed the liberty to term the Kings of England their Vassals which is a plain acknowledgment that they understood this submission and nothing else authoriz'd them so to do Agreeable to this were the outcries remembred by M. Paris Heu Anglia Ad an 1216. Anglia hactenus Princeps Provinciarum facta es sub tributo ut Terra tua ab antiquo libera ancillaret excogitasti factus de Rege liberrimo Tributarius firmarius Vassallus servitutis c. 'T is evident the novelty of the Kings submission put these complaints into the Peoples mouths and that no such thing had formerly been heard of To conclude commend me to this fiction of Baronius for an example of zeal not according to knowledge To speak without proof in a matter of this consequence is pretty well of it self But to want proof where the nature of the thing must needs afford a thousand to fancy the Tenure of a Kingdome could lie conceal'd I know not how long and at last be discovered by his either pains or luck to be quite contrary to what was apprehended by the rest of the world which could no more be ignorant of the Tenure than of the Kingdom to imagine England subject when no person can be imagined who should subject it nor time in which it should become subject to say nothing of the manifold inconsistency of his story and contradiction to palpable evidence These are strains which as I admire in him so I hope not often to find elsewhere And for Blesensis either he knew not what he said or which is more likely those two periods have by chance or fraud crept into his writings without his privity In fine he is no good Englishman who does not acknowledge that the Kingdom of England is and at all times has been free and subject to none but God A Declaration made both with particular reference to the Pope and by those who acknowledged his Authority in spirituals And so we are come at last to the point of greatest difficulty both of its own nature and by the smartness with which 't is prest the Fact of K. John Our Author not to leave the wound he makes without cure assigns us Prescription for a remedy You have not an entire confidence in this plaister and I must confess I cannot blame you not that I think it bad but I like better to be sound and need none Most points of Law and this of Prescription as well as the rest are full of learned Quibbles and I do not love to trust our security to a moot case The rights of Kingdoms are of too great consequence to depend on the Triccum de Lege For what if some fiction of Law be pretended against our Prescription What if the Pope by some Act or other of which we never had intelligence have continued a Legal or Civil possession all the time of our Natural possession and so interrupted or voided our Prescription It is not safe in my opinion to venture our whole stock in a bottom which possibly may prove leaky Wherefore though Prescription may do well enough yet while we have in my judgment a better game to play I think it best as you say to play surer Of the Considerations propos'd in this matter with great sharpness by our Author I take these to be the most material That K. John past this grant when he had undoubted right to the Crown without any Competitor his Nephew Arthur being dead before That this right of his was then unconfin'd Magna Charta not being yet framed nor any power communicated to Barons or People or Parliaments for intermedling in the succession And that however the Deed was confirmed by his Barons who were they alone that then had any thing to do in the greater affairs of State On these because they will decide the Question I shall insist more largely and endeavour to shew He is mistaken in all three First for the consent of the Barons although this clause Communi Consilio Baronum nostrorum be inserted in the Charter yet nothing can be more apparent than that in truth there was no such thing It was so far from this that there was an express dissent Cui etiam manifeste contradictum fuit ex parte universitatis Regni reclamatum quid talia nullo modo facere potuisset per os venerabilis Stephani Can. Archiepiscopi quo non erat tunc major in Regno c. M. Westm ad an 1245. M. Paris ad an 1245. For Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury protested solemnly against it and this publickly at the high Altar before all the company and in the name of the whole Kingdom This protestation of his was averred to the Popes face and that in full Council by Will. Povick or Powevick one of the Embassadors at the Council of Lyons whither he was sent to complain in behalf of the Kingdom I think it will not be denied but the Clergy in those dayes had at least as much influence on publick affairs as the rest of the Nobility and that there could be no common consent where the Head of the Clergy publickly dissented Especially considering that this protestation was not made for himself only or his Order but in the name of the whole Kingdom For it can hardly be that he should arrogate to himself to act in the name of the Kingdom without the privity of the rest and consent of so many at least as might keep his Act from appearing ridiculous But that the rest of the Nobility were as far from consenting as the Clergy is not left to guess Their sense is manifest in the next words of Povick In quod tributum nunquam Patres nostri consenserunt nec aliquo tempore consentient as Mat. Westm relates them or according to Mat. Paris In quod nunquam Patres nobilium Regni vel ipsi consenserunt nec consentiunt neque in futurum consentient c. This was said in circumstances uncapable of the suspition of falsity The man who spoke was an Embassador commissionated to speak for the Kingdom He spoke to the Pope himself in a full Council and while the memory of things was yet fresh and if he had not said true might have been convinc'd by every body perhaps in the company But neither the Pope himself who certainly knew the truth and was most concern'd in it nor any body else had anything to say against it Besides even in the daies of K. John the K. of France and his Son Lewis when Walo