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
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
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
Scholars for they are sure enough that for his own sake He will not use his power against those who maintain his interest It may be too with Princes as with other men who to compass some end upon which they are passionately set at present value not a mischief much more considerable than the loss of their present pretences which is farther of If the Pope can assist either French or Spaniard the Divines of that King whose part he takes may say any thing freely and Stasemen who have little esteem of Shoolmen will think the Pope sufficiently over-reacht when for a few pleasing words they have got peradventure a Town or Province So that your Princes seem to be alwayes playing with the Pope at Vy Politics in which game they think their steel to his quils advantage enough though I should think the advantage is cleerly on the Pope's side for as he cannot make stakes he hazards nothing but if Trump ever turn of his suit he bids fair for all Defende me gladio ego te defendam calamo peradventure was no such unequal offer Besides they may possibly have the art to turn his credit to their advantage and make use of it to keep their Subjects more obedient and more in aw It may be they have some of them no better original Title to all or part of their dominions than his Authority and then a blind man may see what reason they have to uphold it It may be these it may be other reasons sway with them but whatever they are or may be I think 't is plainly hatching a serpent in their bosoms For let us suppose the Pope and a Catholic Prince at ods a thing so far from impossible that 't is not unusual 'T is in his power you 'l say to continue Catholic whether the Pope will or no and then He 's safe for he gives the Pope no hold it being only Heresie upon which he can fasten But is this true that nothing will do it but plain Heresie Has not Zecchius taught us that the Pope may deprive Princes of their Kingdoms as oft as they do any great hurt in the Church And will not the bad example of contrasting stubbornly with the supreme Pastor be interpreted a great hurt in the Church Has not Fransciscus Bozius informed us that by reason of the supreme Monarchy in all things temporal Laws may be made by the Church and Kingdoms taken away for just causes If we ask what these just causes are Santarellus answers That Princes may be punisht and depos'd not only for Heresie but for other causes for their faults if it be expedient Ant. Sant in Her Schis Apostas c. c. 30. 31. if Princes be negligent if their persons be insufficient if unuseful How few Princes are there who fall not under some of these qualifications or at least may not be judged to do so when the Pope and He their Enemy is to be Judge As certainly it were a crime greater than the greatest of these to seek the determination of these things from any else This negligence though stumbles me a little for it seems a general and something a captious word and I think it would be to the satisfaction of those who are concern'd if it were defined as soon as might be how many hours a day a King is to give audience that he may not pass for negligent But the man for my money is Thomas Bozius who tells us plainly That the Church the Spouse of Christ De Jure Stat. l. 1. c. 6. p. 6. and Queen of the world may as often as the order of the whole doth require c. transfer the proper rights of one to another as a secular Prince may cast down private mens houses for the beautifying the City or impose tribute for the weal public That he may thus justly do although he hath not erred from whom such rights are transferred to another so the Pope gave the Indians to the Spaniards 'T is an honest fellow this Bozius and cares not for mincing matters Give me the man that speaks out But what think you is Heresie the only unkinging crime when you see any great harm negligence insufficiency unusefulness will do it When innocence it self is no security and the best King of the world may be turn'd out of his Kingdom and that justly if another be thought able to govern more handsomely What handsome work will these Maxims one day make in the world if they be suffered to take deep root For my part I cannot see but Catholic Princes as secure as you make them are no less concern'd then Protestants to beware of them and weed them up quickly and effectually But is it so easie to scape the crime even of Heresie I doubt not and am filthily mistaken if this word Heresie have not as comprehensive a sense and be not of a nature as plyable as Popery amongst us and if managed with equal dexterity may not prove equally serviceable The late King was the honour of Protestant Religion and certainly had never a Subject more unmoveably fixt in it than himself And yet malice made him pass for a Papist at least inclin'd to Popery do what he could and by that imputation principally undid both him and the Kingdom Henry the third of France was possibly as hearty a Catholic yet all his industriously affected bigotteries his great beads and Friers weeds could never clear him from the stain of Heresie maliciously fixt upon him till he fell with a fate different from that of our glorious King in this that his Kingdom suffer'd more no longer his own end was more private being execrably murthered by a private Paricide whereas the barbarous injustice done to our King was heightned by the formalities of public justice So that as far I see Heresie is as dangerous as Popery with us and as hard to be avoided But let us consider a little Sancius has told us that it is 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 c. If this be right L. 4. c. 1. p 319. the contrary sure is wrong Faith and wrong Faith I think is Heresie Thomas Bozius who never fails will tell us that Christ committed to St. Peter the Carrier of the keys of eternal life the right both of the Terrene and Celestial Empire as Pope Nicholas saith from whom we have it that he is without doubt an Heretic who taketh away the rights of the Terrene and Celestial Empire committed by Christ to the Church of Rome and saith it is lawful so to do and for that he shall be an Heretic in such his assertions P. 152. And Carrerius that the Bishop of Rome is the highest Father and Man of the world and the universal Vicar and Lord of the world and that all others depend upon him as their builder and that otherwise if one
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
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
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
depos'd for vvhat no repentance could cure Again in the Nevv Lavv he vvould make us believe Chilperick vvas depos'd for insufficiency Did the Pope admonish him to repent the grievous fault of having so little vvit and allovv him time to provide himself of better brains and better organs and vvhen he found him incorrigible and all persvvasion lost upon him and that say the Pope vvhat he could he vvould not do vvhat he could not do then at last after fruitless and long deluded patience cast him off Wherefore though Bellarmine do require such Formalities as cannot conveniently be spared yet possibly he may not think their necessity so absolute as that the Deposition should be void if they concur not But let him think vvhat he pleases vvhile vvith all his insignificant Buts he preserves this substance that a King may be deposed if instead of three be require three hundred Ceremonies the opinion is still inconsistent vvith Civil Government And for our Case in particular our Soveraign does not think fit to repent vvhat Bellarmine cals Heresie and a deposing fault for this reason because he does not think it a fault and is for that reason very like to be incorrigible in it too and vvhoever thinks he may therefore be deposed is himself pernicious and not to be endured in his Dominions And so much for the taking avvay But. For the giving But he tels us The Pope may also give the Kingdom to another yet not at pleasure to whom he thinks fit for so indeed Kings were but precarious Kings But He is ty'd to the order of Justice whether Succession or Election take place or if there be none can claim then to him whom reason profers I fear the truth of this may be questioned Sure I am that vvhen Q. Elizabeth vvas deposed and her Kingdom given to the Spaniard there vvere better Titles afoot in the vvorld then K. Philips Thanks be to God the Throne of England has not been vacant and the Popes reason never troubled to fill it When Kingdoms are expos'd to prey 't is catch that catch can I see no great order of Justice in that But suppose it vvere true vvhat signifies this order of Justice and vvhat bar to the Popes pleasure in Succession or Election If the next Heir or next Elect be a man vvho pleases not the Pope I suppose he must be pass'd by and so as many as offer till they come at last to some body who is rectus in Curiâ For the first might stand as vvell as any of these vvho I conceive are all in the number of those vvho cannot claim and then vvhat does Succession or Election hinder but the Pope still gives at pleasure since none shall succeed or be elected but vvhom he pleases Again vvhat difference betvvixt giving a Kingdom to vvhom the Pope pleases and to vvhom Reason meaning the Popes Reason prefers Preference of Reason is nothing in the vvorld but that the Pope pleases to think it fitter this man should be prefer'd then the other So that Election and Succession and Reason are nothing in truth but the Popes Pleasure and all that Bellarmine affords us is a meer sound of vvords vvhich signifie nothing and if they did vvere nothing to purpose neither For vve are all this vvhile beside the Cushion It makes nothing I think to the justification of a Robbery that the prey vvas equally shared and vvhen a King is dethroned he is as much dethroned if he be succeeded by the next heir as by a stranger neither do I believe he is much concern'd vvho comes next upon the Stage vvhen his ovvn part is ended Our Question at Present is whether Kings in Bellarmins doctrine be only precarious Kings By the way Precarious is not very currant English I think we should call it holding at will or pleasure or if you will coyn a new word Tenure by Intreaty But however let us keep our Authors word Barclay objects that Bellarmin makes Kings precarious because he allows the Pope to take away and give Kingdoms and this whenever he has a mind as being sole judge in the case Bellarmin answers that Kings were indeed Precarious if their Kingdoms could be dispos'd of at pleasure but because the Pope is ty'd to the order of Justice in that point they are not precarious As if Barclay insisted on that or thought their being Precarious depended on that disposition The Son in defence of his Father laughs at that notion of Precarious and rightly observes that Precarious is not said with relation to him that gives but him that takes away 'T is the power of revocation if that word fit him vvho never gave plac'd in the Pope the power of deposing when the Pope thinks fit which makes a King precarious let the Kingdom be dispos'd how 't will afterwards the King is still precarious purely Tenant at vvill But pray tell me truly Do you in earnest find any thing in these healing Buts of Bellarmin which makes his opinion a jot sounder then the Canonists a jot safer for Princes or more dutiful for Subjects For my part I profess seriously I find nothing unless non-sence will do the feat There is a little more non-sence in this opinion then the other and if that be a security for Princes it would do vvell if the vvorld ran mad as fast as it could While men are in their wits they vvill go near to think never a Barrel better Herring Just such work he makes vvith Barclays next Proposition which was this To judge when 't is necessary for the good of Souls that a King be depos'd belongs only to the Pope and none is to question his Judgment This he saies is like the former and if it be ill understood is false but rightly understood is true but then concludes not what Barclay would have it Now am I terribly afraid that ill understood is as much in Bellarmins language as truly understood or so as it truly signifies and rightly understood means understood otherwise then as it signifies For else I cannot for my heart see but if the Pope may depose when there is necessity and judge when this necessity happens and none must call his judgment in question and these words mean as they sound Kings are purely Tenants at will and the Pope may depose them whenever he pleases to judge it necessary which is what Barclay would conclude What is the good meaning in which vve must rightly understand it Why It does indeed belong to the Pope saies he to judge whether it be necessary a King should be depriv'd of his Kingdom Very well So Barclay understood it and so Bellarmin himself understands it Why does it not conclude then that Princes may be depos'd at pleasure Because of another But. But saies he it does not belong to the Pope to feign necessities at pleasure or serve his passions under pretence of necessity Bellarmin is as unlucky it his Buts as Distinctions Whoever said it belong'd to
so many Copies as have been made from the time in which he lived till the time his works appear'd in the world it may have been alter'd Vestrae Jurisdictiones est Reg. Angliae quantum ad Feudatarii Juris obligationem vobâ—s dumtaxat obnexius teneor Experiatur Anglia quiâ—d possit Rom. Pontifex quia materialibus armis non utitur patrimonium B. Petri spirituali gladio tucatur Pet. Bles Ep. 136. And indeed who considers what goes before and what comes after will see the two periods which concern this matter do not well fit the place The letter demands Counsel of the Pope upon the undutiful carriage of his Children whom though he could reduce by force to their duty yet the affections of nature hindring him from that course He prays the Pope to interpose to whose arbitration he promises to stand And this hangs pertinently together But then to make the King say that England is feudatory and wish it may feel what the Pope can do suits so ill with the rest that it seems no part of the original piece but patcht in by some body else and he but a botcher For what is it to purpose to mention Vassalage where He only seeks advice As if the Pope could give counsel to none but Vassals and as if it were the custom of Vassals to have recourse to their Lords for counsel It is Justice and Protection which Vassals expect from their Lords and this the King would have demanded of the Pope if he had been his Subject And then He tells him that He has no material Arms which is as much as to say that He is not supreme Lord. For Soveraignty without material Arms is no very material thing and indeed is not Soveraignty So that the King is made very wisely to say and unsay with the same breath Again while He himself abstains from Rigor to press the Pope to the utmost rigor he can use agrees very ill-favour'dly Besides Blesensis dedicates his Letters to this very King Whoever knows any thing of his humour and how positive he alwayes was in maintaining less rights of the Crown than its independency will not easily believe he would permit such a clause to pass and much less become publick He was more jealous of his Authority than so Farther had such a Letter as is now read in Blesensis been ever sent by the King Baronius sure would have met with the original somewhere or other For certainly the Vassalage of England and Patrimony of St. Peter here are things of that importance that it deserved some more than usual care to preserve an Evidence so extraordinary and not to trust to chance and the credit of an insignificant Copy for so great and so unknown an advantage of the Church For if Blesensis had never been printed the thing had never been heard of If such proofs as these may be hearkned to against Kingdoms truly their Fate is very hard and much worse than of the meanest Subject who lives in them He that in a Suit but of 40 shillings should produce no better were sure to be cast I conceive there is no great necessity of saying more because sentence will alwaies be given for the Defendant where the Proofs of the Plaintiff are insufficient but yet let us look into the matter a little farther and see whether this fancy of the Cardinals can be reconciled to Nature and History And I consider in the first place that the Tenure of Kingdoms is no private thing to be guest at by incertain testimonies pickt up and down among Authors of doubtful credit but known as much as the Kingdoms themselves and no more concealable than their forms of Government It may as well be doubted whether they be Kingdoms or Commonwealths as whether they be independent or no. At every death at every change of a King there must be in Vassals recourse to the supream Lord his consent required Homage performed Duties paid and all publickly in the face of the world it concerning the supream Lord and he alwaies taking care that these demonstrations be made with the greatest shew that can be In all Treaties in all Letters and whatever transactions the stile betwixt Independent Princes is different from that betwixt Lords and Vassals In Competitions for the Crown one part would alwaies fly to the supream Lord and he by his influence make his Superiority appear A hundred things of this nature must of necessity be registred in authentick records and read in the Histories which treat of our matters Baronius little reflected on the nature of the business when instead of producing Authentick Records whereof there must have been many at Rome as well as here if there had been any such thing he alledges Blesensis It cannot be said that the Records are lost by Time and Accidents For their number in a case so often hapning would preserve at least some of them and he has found records both more antient and of less concern Besides Histories remain still Whoever among so many as have writ ever mentioned any homage done by our Kings to the Pope or any confirmation required Many letters are still extant from the one to the other and no hint of subjection in any of them There have been many Competitions for the Crown and none of the Pretenders ever dream't of fortifying their claims by the Influence of his supreme Lordship though for the Influence He had as supreme Pastor they desired to make him their friend In fine not to insist upon the silence of Histories and Records and want of proof in Baronius it is evident that the Vassalage of a Kingdom not evidently to appear is evidently not to be because it cannot be without being notorious and known to all who know the Kingdom In the next place I would fain understand when and by whom the Kingdom could be or rather was made thus subject to the Pope For I wave at present the want of power in Kings to do such a thing if they would and only enquire which King it was who can be supposed to have done it If the suspition fall on the times of the Heptarchy which Age and want of Writers render more obscure it is apparent that no Act of any King then could be binding to the whole Nation For no King let him be never so absolute can bind more than his own Kingdom But besides that He who will recur to those times may indeed hide himself in their darkness but cannot strike out of them any light to his pretence and must speak purely out of his own head without any warrant or colour from any other Author so I think 't is a good argument that no such thing was then done because things of less moment which were done then are remembred The grant of Peter-pence by Ina of the West-Saxons and Offa of the Mercians is recorded too plainly to leave a suspicion that the grant of a Kingdom could be concealed While
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
which often consideration as it happens in other cases diminishes nothing of the surprize The more I consider the more I wonder and as wondring people do gaze and stare and hardly know what to say I have a great mind bluntly to deny the thing as I would an incredible story related without proof Nothing that ever I heard not the inchantment of O Brazile sounds more incredibly But M. Paris and the rest who record it have never been taxed of feigning and Baronius says he found it in the Vatican 'T is not for me to oppose my perswasion to their credit though all their credit cannot hinder it from sounding still incredibly There are many Islands nearer Rome Cyprus and Candia Sicily Sardignia and the rest If the Pope have a claim as I think he has to some of these surely it is not purely because they are Islands For to some I do not know that he ever pretended The Coast of America has many very considerable Hispaniola Cuba and our Jamaica to say nothing of the rest and nearer at hand the Canaries as little as they are are yet worth having It is as incredible a thing as any can be that Ireland alone should be claimed by a pretence common to innumerable others there being no continent which has not many and no claim made to any of the rest England at least Britain is an Island too How came it to scape and all this bustle made with King John to gain a litigious and unmaintainable pretence to what was clearly the Popes before Again why has this pretence never been set a foot before nor since in no case by no body Were it not for this Bull it could not be known there ever was such a conceit in the world and notwithstanding the Bull it never entred for ought I can learn Eccles E B. Apost Petri Pauli pro continuatione Luminariorum pâ—ssessionum praedâ—a contulimusâ— tam in oriente quam in occidente vel diversis Insulis c. Privileg Constan dist 96. into the head of any other man But whence should this subjection of Islands come From their receiving Christianity If this were so I percieve no difference betwixt Islands and Continents that Christianity should not work the same effects in both For certainly what Christianity does it does every where But that Christianity has no such effect that non eripit mortalia qui regna dat coelestia is known and confest and has been discourst enough formerly If such a thing were once admitted of Islands such another Bull might turn the whole world into one great Island and all were the Popes without more ado Or may the famous Donation of Constantin because it has the word Islands ground this pretence The word indeed is used once but nothing more is said of them than that some revenues are granted out of some of them as well as other places towards maintaining lights at Rome Besides the Donation it self signifies nothing and if it did cannot be stretcht to Ireland which never was in the power of Constantin to dispose of A claim to all Christian Islands can never have its origin from Constantin who was not possess 't of nor so much as acquainted with the hundredth part of them and yet before the end of the world we hope The sun of Justice will shine upon them all Truly I am utterly at a loss and which way soever I turn me can make nothing of it unless the Right of which this Bull speaks be understood of a Spiritual Right Such an one the Pope may claim and that in vertue of their receiving Christianity and if he spoke only of Islands I would think the reason was because the question being only of Ireland it was not to his purpose to speak of Continents So that I would understand the Bull in this manner You desire my favour and counsel in your design upon Ireland which you mean to undertake for the good of the Country in general and the Church in particular Islands belonging to my care as well as the rest of the world I am glad all the good be done there which can and so approve your design and wish you to go on I know not whether I shall not pass for too bold an interpreter but I will hope at least that this is the sence if it be not I should be beholding to him who could instruct me what is But be it what it will I am sure a single line inserted in an old writing no body knows why or upon what ground and never insisted on before nor since no not by the most partial Abetters of the Popes Prerogatives is a sorry evidence by which to claim a Kingdom The Kings of England have held that Country above 500 years and all that time been acknowledged absolute Lords of it by all the world and Popes as well as the rest No Homage no Tribute no Investiture no sign of subjection to the Pope has all this while appeared save in the resignation of King John nothing perform'd on our side nothing so much as demanded on the other The world would run into a fine confusion if such a Title should be questioned because some words are found in a writing 500 years ago which no body can understand Popes have not been careless in their Rights England in some of the intermediate times has been even scrupulously affected to them and a great deal more ready to add to than detract from their due It is not possible but if this Title had been any thing worth we should have heard of it at some time or other elsewhere than in the Bull. At least in the transactions with King John it must of necessity have appeared That King was not in terms to refuse any thing the Pope should demand Had he known of any right to Ireland it had been but saying so for it was upon the matter Ask and Have any pretence in that conjuncture would have served turn And this Bull was not then so old that it could be worn out of memory But it is plain that England and Ireland are both on the same terms in the grant of King John and no right pretended to either but in vertue of that grant Neither indeed can such a pretence consist with the words of it Instead of Offerimus libere concedimus it must have been said we restore or acknowledge or something equivalent by which there might have appear'd not creation of a new Right but recognition of an old For that cannot be granted which is the Grantee's before the Grant nor does a supream Lord receive a Fee from a Vassal by way of gift but obliges the Vassal to acknowledge by Homage and customary duties that it is so or if disuse have withheld his duties and weakned his Title to restore things again to their old condition This instead of granting King John should and the Pope would have made him have done had there been any knowledge of 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
was a scurvy thing to jabber words and never mind what they signifie For there is nothing in all this which Indirect power can mean but Direct Power In fine there is no way to make this Power Indirect but by saying either that the Pope when he commands Deposition does not command Deposition which for my part I would not do because I fear I should tell a lye or else that Deposition does not follow from that from which it follows and if I should say this too I fear I should tell two lies But however since Indirect sure must be some way opposite to Direct The Popes Power to be Indirect must be some way not directed to Deposition Which way this should be he must be wiser than I that can tell If Determination or Intention would do it sure it cannot be thought he is not determin'd or does not intend to do that which he commands And if the Directness be taken as it ought from the immediate influence of the power upon the effect we see he precisely commands this particular effect and 't is maintained this effect must follow in vertue of that command Now if any man can understand how a Power should be Indirect in respect of an Effect to which it is directed all the ways by which Power can be directed I would gladly be directed to that man to learn of him how nonsence may become sence But till I do meet him I must needs think that this distinction of Direct and Indirect in this case is a meer sound of words which signifie nothing and by which the Authors speculate themselves into nonsence and abuse themselves and their Readers I am not ignorant that those who maintain this Indirect Power speak otherwise of it but I think I speak as all men besides themselves speak and know not by vvhat right they force upon vvords meanings proper to their purpose and contrary to what general custom has fixt upon them To alter common and setled Notions is to perplex and embroyl things and condemn the inquiries of men to hopeless and endless confusion For Truth is discovered by seeing the connexion of Notions and Notions are known by Words and if the Notions belonging to vvords remain not steady and unchanged our search after Truth must needs end in uncertain noise and inextricable blunder He who has the liberty to alter the notion of vvords is empowred to maintain any thing If he take a fancy to defend that Jet is vvhite 't is but by vvhite meaning black and the business is done Where I see Notions changed I am mighty suspicious there is a design upon some Truth or other in the Changers And so I fear it happens in our case For if Indirect Power mean according to the apprehension of men Power to an Indirect effect Those who will maintain in the Pope an Indirect Power must to speak sence say that though he has not immediately and properly Power to Depose yet he has power to do something out of which Deposition vvill follow And this they vvould fain be at For give them their due they are no enemies to sence vvhile sence is no enemy to them They offer therefore sometimes at Excommunication and vvould make us believe that from thence must follow Deposition Excommunication is vvithout doubt a proper effect of Spiritual Power and so comes vvithin the sphere of the Popes activity and if it vvould but follow that an Excommunicated Person can have no Communication no vvay and vvith none An Excommunicated Prince vvould by that means be Deposed For he could not govern those vvith vvhom he could have no entercourse and if he could no longer govern he vvere no longer King This now is sence and intelligible but the mischief is it will not do They find Excommunication when they consider it a little better hinders indeed Communion in Spirituals but if there be any temporal tye to the Excommunicated person as of a Wife to a Husband a Servant to his Master all Subjects to their Prince Excommunication leaves this as entire and strong as it was before Any that has business with him may deal with him notwithstanding his Excommunication For it would be fine if when an Excommunicated person ows me mony I should not require my debt of him because he is Excommunicated Wherefore no Excommunication will hinder a Prince from conversing freely with his Subjects and his Subjects with him Nay they are obliged to all the acts of Duty to which they were before and not to become faulty themselves if perhaps their Prince be so Wherefore because this will not hold water they will not trust to it but think it safer to make bold with a word and give it a new notion than venture the cause upon a foundation which they are conscious will fail them 'T is a great deal better to talk a little non-sence than by obstinately sticking to sence hazard the loss of a good Cause That the Pope shall have power to depose Kings come what will they are resolv'd And because the Canonists do not thrive very well with their extravagance of making him sole and absolute Monarch of the World they think fit to be a little more modest and allay the bold heat with sprinckling this Indirect vpon it But then the notion of that word importing what they cannot make good there is no remedy but they must give it another If they could have kept the sence too it would have been so much the better but since that will not be they think it at least something if their Tenet let it signifie what it will sound not altogether so harshly as the Canonists with which they perceive the World not very well pleas'd Bellarmine therefore applies this lenitive and saies the Pope disposes of Temporals only Indirectly but whether he forgot the impertinent Circumstance or had any other reason never tells us what that word means in his Rom. Pont. where he first uses it but leaving it to shift for it self and us to guess what it means goes on to prove the power which he calls Indirect never offering to shew that 't is Indirect Neither is there any mention or use made of the word that I perceive in the whole course of his Arguments So that 't is manifest Power was the thing for which he was concern'd For the Indirect he thought it no great matter what became of it being perhaps in his own judgment but an insignificant sound without influence upon the thing Nevertheless against Barclay when he had bethought himself he kindly tells us what he means The Popes Power says he is per se and properly spiritual and therefore has reference Directly to spiritual matters as the primary object but Indirectly that is in order to Spirituals reductively and by necessary consequence to use that phrase looks upon Temporals as a secundary object to which it applys not it self but upon occasion casu or casualiter as the Canon speaks This is if you
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
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
that I conceive my breath too faint and inconsiderable However as I love not to meddle with hot men at all so I would gladly be guilty of so much policy as not to provoke hot men upon a hot subject Whether I say I or No one hot side will be apt to take offence Wherefore I thought it the best way to hold my tongue Now your fantastical curiosity is not satisfi'd with this but is as hot upon my silence as others may be upon my speaking And would perswade me you play the Friend all the while I hope you will send me the next time to stir a nest of Wasps and make me believe it a point of Friendship However I assure you the Church has nothing to do with my silence neither do I or ever did apprehend any thing from her The Church has other imployment then to look so low as I am and besides God forbid that Innocence should not be safety enough for any of her Communion All that I apprehend is the heat of private men of those with whom I am like to meet and converse and from whom I may chance hear twenty cross Questions 'T would vex me to have a man come to me and say You Sir Pray how long have you taught Divinity or in what Vniversity taken degrees who presume to handle so freely men in reverence for their learning with all Divines and all Vniversities The world is at a fine pass when a little pert confidence shall set up every pidler in learning against those who have spent their lives in nothing else Again You pass for a Catholick and acknowledge at least in words That the Pope is supream Pastor 'T is done like a dutiful Child to go about to lessen your Father The next time you write I hope you will leave him no power at all I fore see the next piece will be of Antichrist and then there is hopes you may in time proceed to the three Impostors 'T is an Heretical spirit this and beware of it I may be in a froward humor when I hear this and it may be return a froward answer and then we fall out and he tells every body he meets I am in a dangerous condition tottering upon the very brink of perdition and 't is great luck if I scape the precipice Every body who hears this said and that confidently and gravely will not hear what I can say for my self or if they did they are but few with whom the solemn outside will not carry it against a better reason then I shall be able to produce And then I pass for dangerous or busie or foolish as they please to frame my character My Friends begin to look askew at me and all the sweetness of conversation and innocent pleasure of hearty Friendship is lost This would be wonderful uneasie to me and if it should happen as 't is like enough I should whatever you do think it a great inconvenience In fine every man has his humor and mine is not to make an enemy of so much as a Cobler if I could keep him my Friend This is the reason why I so readily diclaim'd the Canonists because I meet with none who are like to give me any trouble about them And this is the reason why I was more reserv'd in the other opinion because I may meet with this trouble I hope you will not think this a reflexion upon my communion as if they were more troublesom to their Neighbours then other folks Men are men of all communions and hot men are hot men and such are impatient that any perswasion they have wedded should be contradicted This is all the disquiet I foresaw and apprehended and the great Policy with which you keep so much ado And if it be Policy to think my thought quietly to my self as I elsewhere told you and not fall out with every man who thinks otherwise nor give any man occasion to fall out with me to think I have no commission to Reform every thing I dislike but that there may and will be errours in the world let me do what I can I avow to you I would have been a Politician if you would have let me and am very sorry you did not But now we are upon Politics let me tell you one thing by the way You are a meer Mortal at Politics as well as your Neighbours What work do you make with the business of 88 and how slily do you make it pass for an effect only of Heresie If you do in earnest believe so I can tell who 's the Sir Pol. But sure you understand things better then not to know Pretence is one thing and Cause another 'T is true Heresie was pretended and it may be was a partial cause too of as much as the Pope did But do you think the King of Spain was at all that charge purely upon the account of Zeal Sure you do not think him so great a Saint Or if you do all the world knows 't was Interest of State not Religion which rais'd that Army and set out that Armada The Queen stood in the way of his great thoughts and so crost his designs upon other mens dominions that she made him unable to recover his own This obstacle to his ambition he had a mind to remove and Religion was no bad pretence among his own Subjects vvho vvere and still are exceeding Zealous but he so little valued it himself that he would not so much as own it And this a better Politician then you or I Grotius in his History of the Low Countries has observed Some saies he would have had the war proclaimed by a Herald but others thought the right of claim from the Popes sentence would make out but a lame Title And these it seems were the wiser and carried it See now what conceit the Spaniards themselves had of your Politic Cause and no better had we in England For though Mendoza had vainly boasted of I know not what affection of some principal men here towards the Spaniard in all likelyhood to ingratiate his own diligence yet whatever his thoughts were saies Grotius again it appeared true afterwards that however English Catholics might differ in Religion there was none of them so imprudent as to trust their Lives and Fortunes to the undistinguishing sword of a Forreign Conquerour And yet they were at that time as much affected to the Pope as any people in the world and thought as highly of his power And for all that they did not think he had power to dispossess their Soveraign and distinguisht rightly betwixt Pretence of Religion and Reason of Interest I can assure you we are of the same mind still and know an Invader let him be never so much a Catholic is an Invader and let him pretend vvhat he vvill means to enslave those he Invades and alwaies will He that comes vvith a Cross in his mouth and a Sword in his hand vve know vvhat he vvould
advantage to the Church as they who favour it suppose it would be the ruin of it One of our Principles is respect to the Ancient Fathers which he that would take away would do the Church very bad service Every body knows what reverence we profess to those great lights and what veneration we pay to their learning and vertues What shall we say that they were ignorant of a doctrine which is pretended was taught by Christ they who understood what Christ taught so well and defended it so zealously Can it be imagined our new Schoolmen know more then these great men who in defence of Christianity against opposers as subtle as any that have since appear'd discovered a learning which for ought I perceive After-ages have more reason to admire than think they can equal But if they knew as much as they do now it can be less suspected from their Vertue that they would conceal their knowledge and suppress a truth of this importance I cannot readily fancy any thing more incredible not to say a harsher word than that a point of no less concern than the performance of our duty to God and his Vicegerents Kings should lye dormant in breasts inspired with so much zeal and enlightned with so much knowledge for Ten whole ages and at last break out and surprize the world with a new-light Nor do I see how it can be thought possible without imputing either Ignorance or Dishonesty to those who of all men in the world are farthest from the suspicion of either I should be sorry to be or see the Catholic who should in good earnest think either imputable And yet if they knew this doctrine and did not conceal it we must of necessity have heard of it long before we did Gregory the 7th is the first unquestionable Author of it For though a little more Antiquity be sometimes pretended yet those pretences are in truth but weak and little better then meer conjecture All that I can imagin possible to be said in the case is that they had no occasion to declare their knowledge but being busied with other controversies said not all they knew in this But I fear this cannot be maintained For they do often treat of both Powers explain their natures and settle their bounds They tell us the one consists in constraint the other in freedom That one has to do with Sacrifice and Sacraments and Divine things the other with Human That one inflicts Corporal the other Spiritual punishment and the like Was there no occasion all this while to have given one touch of this Direct and Indirect Power one little hint at the distinction if they had known it Let them think so that please For my part I conclude they knew it not those who think otherwise may conclude if they please that they would not teach what they knew but conceal'd a point of Christian duty and which they knew to be so and so by seeking to justifie they knew more than we can possibly tell they did since they express it not themselves call in question their vertue which we all know But yet bare silence is not the case They teach the direct contrary They teach there are none who can punish Kings but only God that we for our parts are to obey even unjust and wicked Princes and this because God has so commanded whose secret but yet just Providence places over us as well Nero's as Constantins That the Church has no sword but the Spiritual which to extend to Temporals is Arrogance He that can reconcile these and twenty other of their express doctrines with the deposing Power may never stick at any thing or fear that Impossibility will ever stand in his way In fine They allow us no other disobedience then in case of commands contrary to what God has commanded before and no other resistance even in this case but of prayers and tears Put them to have known the efficacy of our distinction and that it was lawful while directly we are oblig'd to pray like Christians indirectly to fight like Turks and they have direly cheated the vvorld and trapan'd the Church into many a severe Persecution from which let them say what they will she had force enough to have freed her self if she had thought it lawful to use it Primitive Christians themselves had the confidence to tell their Persecutors to their faces they wanted not strength to revenge themselves if they had thought the defence of their lives a just excuse for resisting their Prince or the Sword a lawful instrument to introduce the Gospel But they knew Religion was not to be establisht by fighting but preaching and that Conquest is not the way to set up the Kingdom of Christ If their Prince bad them fight against his Enemies they did so but if he himself became their Enemy they chose as was their duty to die rather then fight against him The truth is people may say and think as their fancy guides them but Force is not the way to preserve or introduce true Religion Falshood may need it but it weâ—kens Truth Consider which way the wisdom of God went to work As rain into a fleece of wool as drops of dew distilling on the earth He who had an unresistable power would not use so much on this occasion as to break even a bruised reed 'T is evident by the choice of unerring wisdom that this is the proper way of Truth and that 't is a deceitful wisdom and takes wrong measures which goes otherwise And indeed what can be more wild then to think to force men into Heaven and make Saints of them whether they will or no We see what Christ what his followers did we know how we were taught by the great and best succeeding Masters of Christianity I shall never be perswaded that those who taught in this manner were acquainted with these indirect subtleties at least we should have been acquainted with them much sooner if they had In fine I cannot but think there is very little of a Catholick spirit in introducing a Doctrine not only unknown to the ancient Fathers but so opposite to their Maxims that it cannot well be imagined how they should contradict it more plainly then they do unless we fancy them Prophets too and that they foresaw all the subtleties which should be brought in the world after they left it Otherwise we cannot expect they should talk of Direct and Indirect who never thought of either But they plainly say There is no Power in the Church but spiritual and that this spiritual Power does not extend to Temporals Again That Princes have none to call them to account but only God and that just or unjust they must be obey'd saving only in unjust commands And if any disguise of words can hinder this from being a plain determination of the Thing I must needs profess I know not how it can be determined by them But forgetfulness of the Fathers I fear is
claim to Ireland independently of this Grant So that whatever Pope Adrian mean't it is evident his Successors never understood his meaning gave them any right to that Island Nothing is more foolish than to catch at words and interpret the meaning by the sound when we have Actions immemorial practice and custom to guide us securely and assure us the meaning whatever it be cannot be contrary to these Allow that method once and you leave no stability even in what the good of mankind requires should be most stable the settlement of Commonwealths In short if our Kings Title to Ireland be not good there is no good Title in the world At least I know none establish't on a surer foundation And were it the question believe I could make it out But we are not now enquiring what Title our Kings have but whether the Pope have any For which reason I forbear to meddle with the Book you mention which seeks to overthrow the Title of England not to establish that of the Pope Only in short I must acknowledg I never read any thing with more grief nor so much shame The best is the Curs't Cow has wondrous short horns As ill as He means in my opinion he does more good than harm For Truth is well proved when 't is perceived it cannot be disproved but weakly And nothing is weaker than his discourse What is most material is directly contrary to History but his chief business is to bring as you say hard names to prove what is not a jot to purpose when 't is proved He casts away the greatest part of his pains upon the Punctilios required to Prescription by the Civil and Canon Laws in Suits betwixt Subject and Subject and never considers that those Punctilios and those Laws have nothing to do with the case and that the Rights of Princes are establish't upon a higher and more steady Basis than local and mutable constitutions But I have discours'd of this point before and mean not to trouble you with repetitions and that in a Question which concerns me not No better answer can nor other need Hist of the Irish Remonst p. 739. 742. be given to this Book than what was given in Ireland where an 1648. the supreme Council of the Confederat Catholicks caus'd it to be burn't at Kilkenny by the common Hangman and the National Congregation too of the Irish Clergy I mean Roman Catholick at Dublin an 1666. condemn'd it to the same fate And for the rest whoever doubts of his Majesties right to all and every part of his Dominions is a Traitor without more ado and cannot complain if he be us'd like one nor any body for him This answer I conceive may serve for Scotland too with which I shall make short work believing your Jealousies in that particular are not very pressing The only stumbling block that I know in this matter is the letter you cite of Boniface VIII to Edward I. in which Mat. Westm ad an 1301. with a phrase as unintelligible as that of Adrians Bull it is said qualiter ab antiquis temporibus Regnum Scotiae pleno jure pertinuit adhuc pertinere dignoscitur ad Ecclesiam supradictam meaning the Roman And again ex quibus nulli in dubium veniat Regnum Scotiae praelibatum ad praefatam Rom. Ecclesiam pertinere While I read this Letter and the Kings answer I was inclin'd to believe the meaning of this was that the Pope as a common Father of Christendom had right to interpose in emergent differences in Scotland as well as other places I observed that he alledges Debitum Pastoralis Officii for the reason why he meddles and respect to his seat and Person for the motive why the King should yield to his request Again the Ex quibus whence he concludes this subjection are because Scotland used not to admit a Legat not particularly directed to that Kingdom That the Arch Bishop of York could not obtain sentence at Rome in favour of the Primacy claimed by him over the Scottish Churches and that the Kingdom was converted by the Relicks of Saint Andrew These have so little to do with Civil subjection to Rome and what he mentions besides has a great deal less that I could not imagine a Pope from such Premises could draw such a conclusion Besides that the King in his answer does not take the least notice of such a sence But coming to read the answer of the Nobility to whom the King purposely left that point I percieve they understood the words as they sounded I shall therefore give their answer and make an end Your letters being read say they tam sensibus nostris admiranda quam hactenus inaudita in jis audivimus contineri Scimus enim nec ullis temporibus ipsum regnum in temporalibus pertinuit vel pertinet quovis jure ad Ecclesiam vestram supradictam and again nec etiam Reges Scoterum Regnum aliis quam Regibus Angliae subfuerunt vel subjici consueverunt Pursuant hereunto They would not consent the King should send Proctors as the Pope desir'd to Rome to make out his Title there nay they declare They would not permit the King to do it although he would it being too great a prejudice to his known Rights to submit them to Trial. If this do not satisfy I know not what will At least it did satisfy the Pope who in Pol. Virgils words statim refrixit Pol. Virgil lib. 1â— in Ed. â— ut scilicet si pertinacius contenderet ne inhoneste causa caderet and never that I know touch't upon this string more And It must satisfy all Englishmen For it was a resolution of Parliament or at least of a great Council of the Nobility which in those days was equivalent I Am come to the end of your Letter and I think of writing too Unless you do something on your side besides asking questions painful to resolve and fruitless when they are resolved you have my last it may be your full wish my first too For I cannot answer it to reason to continue sowing in barren ground and believe while so much trouble is coming on us all your self would counsel me not to run into more that of breaking my brains to no purpose There has been already said what I hoped might have wrought more favourable inclinations towards us Since the Physick works not whether by your indisposition or its own inefficacy 't is peradventure to play the foolish as well as unskilful Emperick to go on administring But yet since Losers have leave to talk permit me to make use of that liberty it may be the only one which I shall long enjoy As much reason as I have to grieve yet truly I cannot but wonder as much at your proceedings Can it possibly be your interest to keep a party alwayes in fear of the Law and by that fear prompted to wish a change in it I mistake if it be not the
the time being acknowledge them Catholick Kings We have here the Cardinals word the authority of his Acts and the testimony of Petrus Blesensis For the Cardinals word it had been more for his credit if he had not engaged in it a manifest untruth People would have been more apt to believe him in other things It is not known more certainly that there have been Romans and Saxons Danes and Normans in this Island than that the supreme Government is and alwayes has been Independent on any but God Truly I grieve and am ashamed to see Zeal to the Pope carry it in such a man above Zeal to Truth For thus much of his saying That England is feudatory he does indeed bring proof such as it is but for the latter part that every new King receiv'd Confirmation from the Pope he does not so much as offer at any And yet the business is of such a nature that the proof must needs be evident and obvious if the thing were true But the contrary is notorious every body that knows any thing of our matters knowing that no King of England ever receiv'd Confirmation from Rome no not King Stephen himself There was indeed this preamble not to the Coronation Oath as Baronius mistakes but to the ratification of what King Stephen had promis'd when he was Crown'd at Westminster in an Assembly at Oxford Ego Stephanus D. G. assensu Cleri Populi in Regem Angliae electus à Willielmo Cant. Archiepiscopo S. Rom. Ecclesiae Legato consecratus ab Innocentio S. Rom. Sedis Pontifice confirmatus c. Upon this plain song the Cardinal descents in the manner before rehears'd and might as well and as truly have concluded that the Kingdom was likewise elective For 't is at least true that he was elected but it is not true that he was confirmed The Popes Letter to the King is extant in Richardus Hagulstadensis Confirmation is so far from appearing there that the word is not so much as mentioned He says only that since for avoiding the mischiefs likely to ensue upon the death of Henry I. He had by unanimous consent been chosen to succeed He the Pope was well pleas'd with what was done and with paternal affection receiv'd him for a special son of the Rom. Church and would treat him with the same honour and familiarity which he had used to his Predecessor of famous memory This is far enough from Confirmation and the language of a supream Lord No State in Christendom or out of Christendom but confirms Kings as well as the Pope if this be confirmation When any Prince has a flaw in his Title He seeks to be acknowledged by the Neighbour Princes and when they acknowledge They confirm him as much as the Pope did K. Stephen And this was plainly the case Maud the Empress daughter to Henry I. was the true Heir of the Crown King Stephen himself had by a solemn and late Oath acknowledged her right and engaged to maintain it He had reason to colour his proceedings as well as he could and provide something to say that he might not pass for a manifestly perjur'd man And so he reckons up Election and Consecration and Confirmation which yet altogether were not sufficient to make him a good Title in the judgment even of the Pope himself For when K. Stephen desirous to secure the succession to his son Eustace required the Bishops to crown him in his own life time they with the hazard of their lives constantly refus'd to do it being forbidden by the Pope to crown the son of a man who had usurped the Kingdom contrary to his Oath Had the Pope been thought supream Lord and his consent necessary K. Stephen must have had recourse to him in the first place and could not have taken the Crown till his ratification was come But 't is plain he was crowned before the Pope was made acquainted with the business and before he knew how the Pope would take it and however he had taken it I believe would have kept the Crown which he had gotten Indeed he thought it for the advantage of his affairs to call the Popes acknowledgment a Confirmation but neither is there any ground in the Letter on which to raise such a construction and besides 't is plain that 't was not dependence of the Crown but defect of Title in himself to which that Confirmation such as it was can be applied So that Baronius is quite out and the worst Commenter that ever was it being so far from true that every new King receiv'd Confirmation from Rome that no one ever did it not the very King out of whose fact he so vainly infers all the rest But that the force of Prejudice is almost inconceivable one would hardly believe so learned and judicious a man should falter in this manner However it be He must excuse us from taking his word in a case where no body that I know would take the word of the Pope himself For his Acts they are a relation of no body knows who and that me thinks is a pleasant Title to no less than a Kingdom The Author is a nameless man of whom it cannot be understood either that he was well informed of what he delivered or faithfully delivered what he was inform'd of Had the Cardinal reflected a little better on it I believe he would have been more tender in exposing such proofs to a censorious World These unauthentick Acts are plainly contradicted by such as are Authentick Roger Hoveden in his Annals has preserv'd a Copy of the agreement made by the Popes Legates with Henry II. upon the death of S. Thomas of Canterbury There the Oath is set down as it was taken which was this That They Father and Son would not recede from Pope Alexander and his Catholick Successors as long as he should treat them like their Ancestors and Catholick Kings This was sealed by the Kings and Legats for an authentick memory of what was concluded and this Baronius himself has set down at large out of Hoveden With Hoveden agree the other Historians nearest those times Bromton and Gervasins Dorobornensis for the rest mention not this particular at all and with this agrees the relation sent by the Legats themselves to the Archbishop of Ravenna extant in Hoveden Against so clear an evidence to bring a nameless Author is more to weaken the credit of his own proofs than strengthen the Popes claim People will be wary how they trust Acts produc'd by Baronius when he produces such as these and be convinc'd that if the Pope himself be infallible all who write of him are not There remains Blesensis of whom so much is known that he might possibly be emploid to write a letter for the King to the Pope But that he did write this letter and by order from the King needs some better proof than that it was found among his papers It might be a rough draught never sent In