only such as are propos'd for Faith This being admitted as it is universally the difficulty is plainly answered For 't is as plain as can be that here is nothing propos'd for Faith The Emperor is depos'd his deposition is that which is decreed and that is propos'd as a thing to be done not believed To depose is one thing to define they have power to depose is another Had they made such a Decree and obliged all Christians under Anathema to believe it had been to purpose to alledg it But as far as I can learn there was no thought of any such thing in the Council Now for Acting People may act and sometimes very rationally upon probable grounds and such as none are bound to believe And they may have very good grounds for acting in one case which themselves may not think sufficient in another It is very unreasonable out of a particular action to conclude a power which shall extend to all cases when from the bare action there is no necessity of believing a power even in that case The most that can be made of it is that the Council suppos'd or took for granted they had power to do what they did And it may be they had For the Emperor had sworn particularly to stand to the Judgment of the Church He pleaded in this Council by his Procurators who when they saw things go against them made no exception to the Jurisdiction of the Court but appeal'd to a future Council more general pretending all were not present who had right to sit there But why may not a Council take for granted more then every body is obliged to grant This supposition of theirs was undoubtedly one of the Reasons of their Decree And Bellarmin assures us we are not bound to believe any of their reasons So that for his particular he had no reason to expect this Decree should cause belief in any But whether he had or no this is plain without him That where there is nothing to be believ'd there can be no belief and where there is nothing in his languag propos'd for Faith there is nothing to be believ'd Here is something commanded but nothing defin'd and as sure as no Mass no hundred Mark no Definition no Article of Faith Wherefore I cannot sufficiently wonder to see learned men lay so blindly about them some with great formality citing the Council and heightning its authority by reckoning up the number and quality of those who met there others striving to diminish it by consulting Historians and carefully observing all exceptions they afford when all this while the Authority of it neither applys it self nor can be applyed to the matter in hand For t is evident they defined nothing one way or other and afford us no more then a bare matter of fact past indeed in or by a Council but whatever be true or whether the Fact were just or unjust our belief is not a jot concern'd and this even by the confession of those who most urg the Council The Fate of eager Disputers is upon us with much ado we are where we were again and must either be taught this Doctrine by Decrees which teach nothing or which neither are nor were intended for teaching Decrees or not to be taught it all as far as I perceive For this is the sum total of his ten Councils His fourth and last Argument is He says from Scripture and if you will pardon a scurvy pun t is indeed very far from it so far that one would not readily perceive what Scripture has to do with it As tedious as it is to transcribe I must submit to the pains of setting down and you to the patience of reading his whole Discourse for fear I should be suspected of wronging it by contracting Fourthly says he We prove it from the divine writings as Greg. 7 proves it in 21 Epistle of the 8 Book For we find the Ecclesiastical Primacy of the Bishop of Rome most manifestly founded on Scripture and Tradition in which Primacy is contained most ample Power of governing binding and loosing whomsoever even Kings and Emperors and this neither Barclay nor any Catholick denies But out of this principle is gathered plainly enough that there is in the Bishop of Rome a power to dispose of temporals even to the deposition of those Kings and Emperors For by that spiritual Power the Pope can bind secular Princes by the bond of excommunication by the same he can loose the people from their Oath of Fidelity and Obedience he can oblige the same People under pain of Excommunication not to obey the excommunicated King and chuse them another Besides since the end of spiritual government is the gaining eternal life which is the supream and last end to which all other ends are subordinate of necessity all secular Power must be subject and subordinate to the spiritual power of the supream Ecclesiastical Hierarch which secular power he is to direct and if it deviate correct and judge and in fine bring to pass that it hinder not the salvation of Christian people And this is the reason why both Greg. 7 and Innocent 4. when they depos'd Emperors to shew they did it justly alledg'd the words of our Lord Whatever you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever you shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Mat. 16. And feed my Sheep Jo. 21. namely to signify that their power to dispose of temporals when the salvation of souls the safety of Religion and preservation of the Church require it depends not on the uncertain opinions of men but the divine Ordination of Christ the eternal King and highest Bishop and who above all is God blessed for ever according to the Apostle Rom. 11. This is every word of what he calls proof from Scripture if you or any else think it so you shall find me reasonable But indeed it sticks with me Let us see The Ecclesiastical Primacy of the Pope says he is founded in Scripture and Tradition and this Primacy extends to Kings and Emperors and contains most ample power of governing binding and loosing and this no Catholick denies Very well and because I must acknowledg my self a Catholick I must acknowledg I think it all very true Thus far we are right Only I take this most ample Power to mean no more then most ample Ecclesiastical power for that is all which Ecclesiastical Primacy imports which Ecclesiastical Power that it extends to Kings and Emperors no King nor Emperor who acknowledges the Ecclesiastical Primacy scruples to admit For they take themselves to be part of the flock of Christ and claim their share in the benefit of the Keys as well as others But out of this Principle says he the deposing Power is plainly gathered The Controversy sure will quickly be at an end now Scripture is acknowledged on all hands and what is plainly there or may be plainly deduc'd from thence will find a ready
the Bishop of Rome in place of Christ is set as a Prince over the whole world in spirituals and temporals and that it is naturally morally and by the Law of God to be held with a right faith that the Principality of the Bishop of Rome is the true and only immediate Principality of the whole world not only as touching things spiritual but likwise temporal and the Imperial Principality is depending upon it as being mediate ministerial and instrumental ministring and serving it and that it is ordained and instituted by it and at the commandment of the Papal Principality is moveable revocable corrigible and punishable I marry Here 's a man speaks to purpose Hang this squemish faint-heartedness which serves for nothing but to cover an ugly face with a vizor as ugly We know well enough what the mincing indirect in ordine ad spiritualia power would be at and 't is a great deal better to speak plainly for Orthodox truths such as concern the Law of God and right faith should be spoken so that people may understand them and know their duty As for Kings they are likely to boggle as much at the mask as the face If they be turn'd out of their Kingdoms and reduc'd to beggery the beggery will be direct beggery whatever the power is which brought them to it and this fine distinction but uncomfortable alms One would think this fellow were not to be match't and what think you of him who says in down-right terms Alvar. Pelagius de planctu Eccl. l. 1. a 37. That the Pope hath the propriety of the Western Empire and the rest of the world in protection and tuition He bids fair this man but of all commend me to Jacobus de Terano who explicating that scurvey text Tract Monarch· Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars tells us It was spoken but for a time not for ever that it was to hold only til the Ascension of Christ and afterwards that should come to pass which was spoken when I shall be lifted up from the earth I will draw all things after me that is I will recover all the Empires and Kingdoms of the world and will take them from Caesar from Kings and Princes to give them to the Pope I have not met with any who bids fairer for the purple than this man And so I leave him and the rest of your learned Authors for though more men might be alledged and more from these men yet in truth I am weary and must pass over sundry passages of profound learning and useful knowledge as that Papa is deriv'd from the Interjection Pape Moscon p. 22. because his dignity and power is admirable to all men and is as it were the amazement of the World according to the Gloss in the Proeme of the Clementines Papa stupor mundi non Deus non homo sed utrumque That he is God best defin'd by negation Manch l. 3. c. 1. Carrer p. 132. so that if one ask whether the highest Bishop be a Duke a King an Emperor to answer warily we should by denying affirm the Pope to be quid praestantius quidve eminentius So that we may hope one day to see a mystical Theology made for the Pope and the inaccessible mystery of his power declar'd by negations Moscon p. 92. That unto the Pope as Pastor of the Church Lanc. Conrad l. 2. c. 1. S. 4. and Bishop of that holy Sea and by reason of his dominion and excellence is given Adoratio Duliae such worship as belongs to Saints and Reliques Besides I have seen cited That he is holden to be Christ's Vicar not only in respect of things in earth August Triump q. 18. a. 2. in Heaven and in Hell but even over Angels both good and bad That he is greater than Angels as touching dominion not in respect of himself merely but by Authority from God and may be superior to any Angels concerning recompence of reward art 5. and may excomunicate them That he is equal to God and can make something of nothing and wrong to be right and such pretty matters which if the ears of you Catholics were not as much hardned as the hearts of us Heretics would sound a little odly But to our purpose The method of discourse requires now that I should apply these sayings to the matter in hand but the application is so easie and obvious that to spend time in it must needs be equally tedious and needless For pray tell me can any Commonwealth be safe or subsist at all if Princes have no dominion but what they receive from the Pope If they hold their Empires and Kingdoms of him if they may absolve their subjects from allegeance and transfer their rights from one line to another If they be his Ministers his Vassals his Subjects If their power be ministerial and subservient to the Papal to be exercis'd at his beck and be at his command both corrigible and revocable If any thing be plain in the world this is that either Princes must be taken out of the world or these Maxims For without more ado he that makes a Prince be a Subject makes him no Prince speaking as I do of absolute Princes Wherefore leaving these things and their application to your consideration I turn my self to reflect on what I concieve you may reply Two things there are which I have heard alledged in your behalf with some appearance but not much substance First that notwithstanding all this Catholic Princes do live safely and govern quietly and therefore to conclude these doctrines are inconsistent with government is to conclude that cannot be done which we plainly see is done Next that while men are men there will be quot capita tot sententiae that nature is not furnisht with means to confine the fancies of private men to the limits of strict reason that these are problematical Questions which particular men dispute into probabilities but for which the Church is not responsible having never either defined or otherwise ingaged her authority for them To the first I reply that a certain King took poyson so long that it became food to him and yet I think poyson for all that a very dangerous thing and very inconsistent with health The Princes you mention have Antidotes undoubtedly with which I am not acquainted but let the Antidote be never so good poyson will be poyson still And truly I think Sir Thomas Moor did honestly when finding some passages in the book which Henry the 8th writ against Luther of which by the King's command he had the perusal and in which he thought the Pope was complemented a little too far he represented to the King that one day possibly they might fall out as afterwards they did and that then He might wish some things unsaid While those Princes and the Pope continue friends they need not much apprehend and possibly are not much accquainted with what passes amongst
their Prince qui vicem Dei agit who is the Vicar of God as to God himself S. Tho. of Aquin. If he be Author of the work attributed to him De Regim Princ. l. 2. says a King is oblig'd with all care and diligence to look after Religion not onely because he is a man but because he is a Lord and a King and Dei vices gerit is the Vicar of God on whom he chiefly depends To omit Nicolaus de Lyra Fevardentius and more then a Letter would hold or you have patience to read for I think you are furnisht with a sufficient stock of that vertue if you can forgive the folly of saying so much as I have done which seems to me not much wiser then to go about seriously to prove there is such a place as Jamaica or has been such a Man as Harry the 8th I shall onely adde the Authority of the Roman Pontifical Printed at Rome 1595. where the Prayer appointed for the Consecration of Kings ends thus That you may glory without end with our Redeemer Jesus Christ cujus nomen vicemque gestare crederis whose name you bear and whose Vicar you are This being so consider now what a pleasant Argument you have light upon by which Kings may as well absolve Penitents and confer Sacraments as the Pope dispose of Kingdoms Notwithstanding let us look a little nearer upon it Christ say you gave all the power he had He had all both Spiritual and Temporal therefore the Pope must have it too If you will not be too hasty in your censure but delay it till I have time to explain my meaning I will answer you a Catholick may be a very good Catholick and believe all a Catholick is bound to believe and yet believe never a one of those two Propositions Not that I mean to be guilty of the blasphemy of denying to the Son of God all power in Heaven and Earth but that Son of God being man too I do not know a Catholick is bound to believe that man purely as man was a temporal King But of this more by and by when your second Proposition comes into play in the mean time let us consider the first viz. That Christ gave to the Pope in St. Peter all the power he had himself Pray how does this appear 't is included say you in this that he is his Vicar I beseech you consider again for I cannot readily think of an inference which seems to me more wild and more palpably contradicted by the open course of things with which we daily converse A Judge represents the Kings Person a Constable does it all Officers both Civil and Military supply his place in their several employments Can every one of these therefore do as much as the King Can a General coyn money or a Judge call a Parliament or a Constable make War and Peace We see their several Powers are bounded by their several Commissions and the priviledge of representing his person gives them no more power then he is pleas'd to confer upon them How can it be otherwise with the Pope He indeed is the Vicar of Christ and represents his person and so the Judge does the Kings but what power he has we are to learn from his Commission not his Title Let us now consider what a good Catholick may say to this point And first I believe no man can reprove him if he say he finds no temporal power included in any Commission recorded in Scripture Tradition or the Fathers and if he refuse to believe more then he finds there I think none will reprove him for that neither In Scripture we find Saint Peter commissionated to teach to baptize to feed the Flock to confirm his Brethren we find the Keys of Heaven promis'd and given him and what those Keys signifie we find there declared to be this that what he should bind or loose on Earth should be bound or loos'd in Heaven But of deposing Kings or disposing of Kingdoms we read no word That his Commission extends only to Spirituals is a thing so notoriously known and universally receiv'd amongst Catholicks none denying it but some Canonists who meddle ultra crepidam and a few Divines who handle their crepida unskilfully and follow them that to be serious and earnest in the proof of it is a labour as little needful and perhaps less pardonable then that which I have newly ended of shewing Princes to be Vicars of God However because I am to say nothing of my self hear what others say De Anath Vinc. Gelasias speaks very clearly Fuerant haec ante adventum Christi c. Before the coming of Christ figuratively and remaining yet in carnal actions some were both Kings and Priests as the H. History delivers of Melchizedeck Which thing too the Devil striving always with a Tyrannical Pride to usurp to himself those things which belong to divine Worship has imitated amongst his Followers so that amongst Pagans the same men have been Emperours and chief Bishops but when we were once come to the true King and Bishop Christ neither has the Emperour any longer assum'd the name of a Bishop nor the Bishop the regal dignity For although his Members that is of a true King and Bishop are magnificently said according to the participation of his nature to have assum'd both in a sacred generosity that the Regality and Priesthood may subsist together yet Christ mindful of the frailty of humane nature tempering with a glorious Dispensation what might conduce to the salvation of his People has so distinguisht the Offices of both Powers by proper Actions and distinct Dignities desirous his Followers should be sav'd by wholesome Humility and not again betray'd by humane Pride both that Christian Emperours should need Bishops for eternal life and Bishops in the conduct of the temporal things should use the Imperial Laws that the spiritual action might be distant from carnal assaults and he who militat Deo is a Souldier of Gods should not embroil himself with secular business and on the other side he who is entangled in secular business should not preside over divine matters both that the modesty of both degrees might be provided for lest he who had both should be puffed up and a convenient profession be particularly fitted to the qualities of the Actions This man was a Vicar of Christ himself and you see he is so far from thinking his Commission extends to temporal things that he plainly teaches Christ distinguisht them and left the spiritual Power so alone to him that for temporal Laws he was to be beholding to the Emperour I might peradventure have run the hazard of reproof if I had said that to joyn those two Powers is an Artifice of the Devil but I suppose that saying will not be reprov'd in so antient and so holy a Pope Symmachus succeeded as to his Chair being the next Pope but one after him so to his Doctrine You says he to the
Emperour receive Baptism from the Bishop the Sacraments Penance desire their Prayers their Benediction lastly you administer humane he dispenses divine things to you Greg. the 2d Ep. 13. to the Emperour Leo As the Bishop has no power to look into the Palace and meddle with regal dignity dignitates regales deferendi so neither has the Emperour to look into the Church c. Bishops are therefore set over Churches abstaining from the business of the Comwonwealth that Princes in like manner may abstain from Ecclesiastical matters Leo 4. 2. q. 7. c. Nos si incompetenter It is to be noted that there are two Persons by which the World is governed the Royal and the Sacerdotal As Kings preside in the affairs of the World so Priests in what belongs to God It belongs to Kings to inflict corporal to Priests to inflict spiritual punishment He Judex carries the Sword for punishment of the bad and praise of the good these Preists have the Keys to exclude the excommunicate and reconcile the penitent Nicolas 3d. C. Inter haec 32. q. 2. The holy Church of God is not govern'd by worldly Laws she has no Sword but the Spiritual with which she doth not kill but quicken Adrian the first in the Council of Franckfort seems to me with one little word to explain very well the Commission given to St. Peter Peter sayd he in reward of his confession was made Porter of Heaven and had power to bind and loose so much we already know 't is recorded in Scripture but what was it he could bind and loose Souls says the Pope These Popes understood and us'd their power as well as most of their Successours and they knew nothing of Temporal power but confin'd what was given them to spiritual and divine things and care of the Soul And that this too is the sense of the Church I think will appear by the Prayer us'd on the Feast of St. Peters Chair which antiently ran thus O God who by giving the Keys of Heaven hast deliver'd to Peter the Pontifical dignity of binding and loosing Souls This last word Souls is left out of the latter Editions I suppose to render the Prayer more conformable to the expressions of Scripture and peradventure to keep more close to antiquity of which they are very tenacious at Rome for Platina in the Life of Leo 4th delivers the rude draught of this Prayer whence 't is likely the Prayer was taken without that word But the meaning with the word and without is the same Words may alter but the Churches sense alters not But let us hear some other of the Fathers Hosius Bishop of Corduba who presided in the Council of Nice and was counted in his time the Father of Bishops writes thus to the Emperour Constantius God has committed the Empire to you Vid. Athan. Ep. ad Solicitarios and entrusted us with what belongs to the Church And as he who looks upon your Empire with envious Eyes contradicts the divine Ordination so do you take heed that by drawing affairs of the Church to you you incur a great crime It is written give what is Caesars to Caesar and what is Gods to God Wherefore neither is it lawful for us to take an Empire on Earth neither does the Power of Sacrifices and holy things belong to you S. Jo. Chrysost hom 4. in verb. Isaiae Bodies are committed to Kings Souls to Priests He has material those spiritual Arms. S. Hierom. in cap. 16. Mat. The Spiritual Key extends not it self to Temporals without Arrogance Theophylac upon John 21. Our Lord makes Peter not a Prince not a King but commands him to be a Pastour Feed says he not Kill c. S. Anselm upon Mat. 26. There are secular Officers by whom Temporal things and Spiritual Officers by whom Spiritual things are managed Wherefore the material Sword is given to carnal and the Spiritual to Spiritual Officers and as what belongs to the Church is not proper for Kings so neither ought the Bishop to meddle with what belongs to Kings Which because Peter who represents spiritual men did when he us'd the material Sword and cut off our Servants Ears he deserv'd to be reprehended by our Lord. Hugo de san Victor de sacr fid l. 2. p. 3. c. 4. Earthly Power has the King for Heads Spiritual Power the Pope Earthly things and all ordained for earthly Life belong to the power of the King Spiritual things and all belonging to Spiritual life to the Pope Again l. 2. p. 2. c. 3. It is given to the faithful Christian Laity to possess Temporals to the Clergy onely Spirituals are committed St. Bernard speaks thus to the Pope De consid l. 1. c. 6. Your Power is not in Possessions but in Crimes and for these not for them you have received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven Consider Hugo's onely Spirituals and St. Bernards not for Possessions or Temporals and judge whether a Catholick is like to be reproved for not extending the Popes power beyond Spirituals And in his 2d Book speaking of Temporals Be it says he that you may some other way challenge these things but not by the right of Apostleship for he Peter could not give what he had not himself what he had that he gave the care as I said over Churches Rupertus Abbas upon these words nor a Rod Mat. 10. speaks thus But now there are two Rods one of the Kings of Gentiles another of the Disciples of Christ The Rod of of the Kings of Gentiles is the Rod of Dominion the Rod of the Disciples of Christ is the Rod of Direction the Rod of Pastoral duty solicitously watching over the cure of Souls The Rod which is of Dominion is not granted to the Ministers of the Gospel of Peace and that is forbidden here nor a Rod c. Cardinal Damianus L. 4. Ep. 9. ad Olderic Episc Firman Between the Kingdom and Priesthood the proper Offices of each are distinguisht that the King may make use of the Arms of the World and the Priest be girt with the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God If any Object that Pope Leo engaged himself often in War who nevertheless is a Saint I say what I think that neither Peter obtained the Apostolical Principality because he denied Christ nor David deserved the Oracle of Prophecy because defiled another mans Bed Schoolmen as they speak more plainly are a little more severe Almain de Authorit Eccles c. 2. puts this difference betwixt Ecclesiastical and Lay power that by this onely corporeal punishment is inflicted by other Spiritual precisely Joan. de Parisiis c. 10. de potest Reg. Pap. Granting that Christ had temporal authority and plwer yet gave it not to Peter c. 15. Answering the Objection from Quodcunque solveritis c. I answer with Chrysostom and Ravanus by this is not understood any power given but Spiritual to absolve from the bond of Sins and it were foolish
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
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
so clear of it self viz. That they belong to God in a special manner whose whole business it is to attend to his service But Bellarmin undertakes to prove out of it a total exemption of the Clergy from the Tribunals of Princes His discourse is this For those whom God chose for himself to the Ministry of the Temple and Holy things He would have Subjects to the High Priest alone who represented the place of God on Earth and by this freed them from the Jurisdiction of the Princes of the Earth To see how differently the same things will appear to different men Another in his place would have concluded quite contrary and thought it plain enough since the thing for which God chose the Levites is exprest to be the Ministry over which Aaron was appointed that the subjection of the Levites to Aaron is restrained to the Ministry leaving them in other respects as they were before However this is plain that the whole force of his discourse lies in the word Alone and 't is plain that he has put in that word purely of his own head without any manner of warrant from the Text and besides manifestly contrary to what daily passes before our eyes For nothing is more ordinary in the World than for the same man to owe subjection to several powers in several respects At School we obey our Masters at home our Parents and yet Scholars and Children Masters and Parents and all are subject to the Magistrate In what relates to our health we obey the Physician in Sea matters the Pilot in the concerns of our Fortune the Lawyer the Prince as well as others is guided by them in such things and yet all remain his Subjects The Laity as well as Clergy are subject to the Spiritual power in Spirituals without prejudicing their subjection to the Temporal in Temporals But 't is idle to dilate on a thing so known and so obvious It is enough to say that This whether Argument or Supposition of Bellarmin The Levites were subject to Aaron therefore they were subject to him alone is wholly ungrounded In what related to the Ministry They were indeed to obey Aaron in other things for ought appears they were still subject even to the Judges appointed by the advice of Jethro and much more to Moses himself Only he has set it off to the advantage by saying the High Priest represented the place of God on Earth which sounds magnificently and awfully otherwise every Prince and every Magistrate and every Superiour represent the place of God too as far as his power goes And for Aaron's it is expresly confin'd by the Text to the service of the Ministry When the Army rested the Levites were to receive orders from him about officiating in the Tabernacle and when it marched about carrying what belonged to the Tabernacle yet none I believe ever fancy'd but that the orders to rest and when and which way and how far to march were given by some body besides Aaron The other and only place out of the New Testament is Matth. 17. about the Tribute which our Saviour paid but with a declaration that the Children of Kings are free To save the trouble of turning over more Books let us e'en refer this matter to Bellarmin himself He tells us there are two interpretations of this place some understanding it of a payment made every year to the Temple others of an imposition laid by the Romans According to the first the force of the Argument he says is this The Kings of the Earth require not Tribute of their Children therefore neither will the King of Heaven require Tribute of me who am his true and natural Son This he thinks the true sence of the place but withal that the Argument holds too in the other exposition according to which it runs in this manner The Princes of the Earth are but Ministers of the King of Heaven and therefore ought not require Tribute of his Son According to both Bellarmin confesses that the force of our Saviours discourse lies in this that He was the natural Son of God and that I think is to confess that to apply it to any other is to take away its force Notwithstanding He will needs extend it to all the Clergy For says he when the Sons of Kings are exempted from Tribute not their persons alone but their Servants and Officers and Families are exempted likewise Whether this may be said or no methinks it is not for Bellarmin to say it For in his judgment what our Saviour said related to a Tribute required by God Wherefore if he apply it to Tributes imposed by Secular Princes he acts against his judgment However it is Bellarmin who speaks now not Christ Christ spoke only of himself we hear nothing from him of Servants and Families but barely of the Sons of Kings and because we do not have reason to believe he meant not they should be comprehended in his discourse for if he had he would undoubtedly have comprehended them himself and if it had been his pleasure to have his Family exempted as he was himself he would have signified it It is manifest therefore that what Bellarmin says is without any warrant from Scripture Besides which ill becomes his learning it is assuming for proof the very point to be proved For calling the Clergy the Family of Christ as he does in the following words it is all one to ask whether the Clergy or whether Christ's Family be exempted Wherefore to assume without proof as he plainly does that Christ's Family is exempt is to assume without proof that the Clergy are exempt The place then teaches the Divinity of Christ and to recede even from our right rather than scandalize our Neighbour the rest is ungrounded fancy As for what he adds that our Saviour by paying for Peter seems to intimate his Family too was free I know not what may seem to Bellarmin but am sure it does not seem so to every body If that had been our Saviours reason it seems he should have paid for the rest of the Apostles as well as Peter who were all of the Family as well as he Since they were left to the ordinary course of things it seems to be our Saviours pleasure that his Family should be left so whatever were his reason to pay for Peter I might pass over St. Hierom and St. Austin whom he alledges since they say nothing to his purpose But to dissemble nothing that which they say is this That the Clergy do not pay Tribute for the honour of God and as being Children of the King of Heaven And this is manifestly true when Princes for the honour of God have exempted them And it would be as true of the Laity under a Pagan Prince who should exempt them all as Artaxerxes did the Jewish Priests For even They are the Sons of God too and Co-heirs of Christ But that the exemption of which the Fathers speak was by the