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
Violent but having to do with a Prince both Resolute and Prudent he found but bad success The Pope perswades the King to an expedition into the Holy Land to promote vvhich business He exacts the Tithes of Church Livings in France and reserves the Collation of all Benefices there to himself The King excuses the one and plainly denies the other The hot Pope sends the Bishop of Apamea to threaten him with Censures and Deposition unless he yielded to him The King calls the States and upon Consultation with them resolves the Legat deserv'd to be imprisoned but for reverence to the See Apostolic banishes him and for his Threats contemns them The Legat not content to scape scot-free falls a new to Threats which the King resenting commits him to custody to the Metropolitan The Pope complains of the breach of Ecclesiastical Immunity and commands his Legat should be immediately return'd These Letters being read in an Assembly of the States the Count of Arras as hot every jot as the Pope throws them into the fire This put the Pope quite out of patience Wherefore he Cites both King and Bishops to Rome where he had appointed a Synod and in the mean time declares the Kingdom of France for Contumacy Felony and Violating the Law of Nations devolved to the Apostolic See writing thus peremptorily to the King We would have you to know that you are subject to us both in Spirituals and Temporals and who thinks otherwise we repute Heretics The King upon the receipt of these Letters calls the States again and by their Advice frames an Answer every jot as smart and something more homely We would have your foolishness know we are subject to none in Temporals and who thinks otherwise we take for mad men And withal appeals to a future General Councel and objects several Crimes to the Pope to be made good when the Councel should sit and in the mean time forbids all intercourse vvith Rome This Answer being brought to Rome by three Bishops deputed for that purpose the Pope began to be startled and at last confesses That to usurp the Kings Jurisdiction belonged not to him nevertheless that in respect of Sin the King could not deny but he was subject to the Pope This put them to examine how far and in what manner he was subject to him and one of the Cardinals in a Consistory in which the French Embassadours were present resolves the case in this manner That Supream Dominion belong'd properly to the Pope but the Administration to Kings and therefore all Christian Kings vvere subject to the judgment of the Pope even in Temporals in regard of his Supream Dominion But this satisfi'd not the Embassadours at Rome and the States in France resuming the Debate declar'd positively the King in Temporals vvas subject to God alone and ow'd his Crown and Power only to him Nevertheless this Subjection on the account of Sin seems to be the ground of the distinction betwixt Direct and Indirect Power though I conceive it borrowed from Innocent the IVth some time before upon occasion of a Contest betwixt John King of England and Philip Augustus of France vvho prosecuting the King of England for default of Homage for some Dukedoms in France c. King John appeals to the Pope Philip maintained that being a Temporal business he had nothing to do vvith it The Pope was vvilling to favour the English and therefore assumes cognisance of the Cause upon pretence that there was an Oath in the case the violation of vvhich being Sin belong'd properly to his Tribunal And this Resolution having been put into a Decree and that Decree into the Canon-Law seems the principal foundation of Indirect Power I must confess I do not well understand how either this Canon which is in the Decretals C. Novit Ille de Judiciis or the other C. per Venerabilem Qui filii sint legitimi which are the two usually cited both of Innocent III. make to the purpose The former was made upon the occasion now mentioned and in it the Pope speaks thus We intend not to Judge of the Fee whereof the cognisance belongs to him the King but to decree of the Sin whereof the Censure without doubt pertains to us which we may and ought to exercise on every one None of sound Judgment is ignorant that it belongs to our Office to correct every Christian for any mortal Sin and if he despise Correction to constrain him by Ecclesiastical punishment c. Where the Pope saies Correct the Gloss adds Indirectly which single word and that not explicated is the main Authority for the distinction of Direct and Indirect Power now in question The other Canon per Venerabilem was made upon this occasion Philip Augustus of France had put away his Wife and taken as I remember the Countess of Anjou and had Children by her These Children at his request the Pope Legitimates while the suit yet depended of the validity of his former Marriage For the King alledged it was invalid But as the Example of Kings is apt to be follow'd Some body leaves his Wife too and has Children by another Woman and then sollicites the Pope to Legitimate them as he had done the King's The Pope refuses to yield his Request but withal owns a Power to have granted it if he had found it reasonable and proves it by several Arguments and amongst other passages has these words We exercise temporal Jurisdiction not only in the Patrimony of the Church where we have full power in Temporals but in other Countries also casually upon inspection of certain Causes These certain Causes the Gloss interprets to be when He is required Now both these Cases seem to me far enough from the inferring the Deposing Power which was not at all in question but Legitimation in the one and Cognisance of a Temporal business in the other And though the Pope assume both yet he is very sollicitous to prove they are within his Sphere as both may be and yet nothing follow in behalf of his Indirect disposing For he may Legitimate Children in order to Spiritual capacities and leave them in the same condition in which they were before as to Inheritance and other Temporal concerns Again He may Judge of Sin and punish it in his own Court with Spiritual punishments and let Temporal punishments alone to whom they belong the Temporal Magistrate And since he expresly limits himself to Ecclesiastical punishments methinks it is to strain Logic a little to far to infer out of them a right to Punish by Deposition However in my opinion this difference in the manner of Explicating this Power sometimes Casualiter sometimes Indirecte sometimes Ratione peccati which differ sufficiently though they Cite the Authorities indifferently as if they were all one is a sign they were at first not very cleer in this business in Explicating which they hit it no better Notwithstanding the Indirect Power has at last got the Vogue and most
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
should place the Emperor by himself in respect of his temporalities he should grant two beginnings which were Heresie In good Faith Sir I cannot think otherwise but if these men say true your Catholic Princes let them keep as fair as they will with the Pope are all Heretics in their hearts And then what follows Hark what a Cardinal and which I grieve an English man hath publisht to the World Card. Allen against the execution of justice p. 87. The Cannon Laws says he being authentical in the lawful Tribunals of the Christian World do make all Heretics not only after they be namely and particularly denounced but by the Law it self ipso facto as soon as they be Heretics are de jure excommunicated for the same to be depriv'd of their Dominions Philopater p. 154. Another tells us The whole School of Divines and Canonists do hold and that 't is certain and of Faith that any Christian Prince whatsoever if he shall manifestly deflect from the Catholic Religion and endeavour to draw others from the same does presently fall from all power and dignity by the very force of human and divine Law and that also before any Sentence of the supreme Pastor or Judge denounced against him and that his Subjects whatsoever are free from all Obligation of that Oath which they had taken for their Allegeance to him as their lawful Prince and that they may and ought if they have forces drive out such a man as an Apostate or Heretic and a Backslider from the Lord and Christ and an enemy to the Commonwealth from all Dominion over Christians lest he infect others or by his example or command avert others from the faith and that this certain definite and undoubted opinion of the best learned men is wholly agreeable and consonant to the Apostolical doctrine Upon these grounds it was publickly maintain'd that Henry the third of France was lawfully murthered before any sentence of excommunication past against him because though in hidden crimes formalities be requir'd yet evidens notitia facti sententiae locum tenet non percipit formam publicus dolor And that he had long liv'd as an excommunicate person de facto de justa abdic Hen. 3. l 4. c. 2 though the law had not past sentence upon him for favouring Heretics for Simony for entring into league with Hereticks the Queen of England and King of Navar for seizing the goods of the Church without the Popes privity and other offences against the Bulla Caenae Upon these grounds I have seen that execrable Villain Chastel who attempted upon Henry the Fourth what Ravillac after performed defended by a public Apology and I see no attempt can be so barbarous and inhumane which may not be defended by them So that by your favour your Catholic Princes are not secure Quiet they may be but never safe and for their quietness they may thank the lucky conjuncture of those stars which have influence upon the times of their government and restrain the malignity of these Doctrines Otherwise if they be not very cunning in school subtilties they may chance forfeit their Kingdoms and all their power per triccum de lege without ever knowing when or how live all their life time in the erroneous belief that they are very Kings and those who obey them their very Subjects and be deceiv'd all the while But be it as it will this answer which would justifie the innocence of these doctrines by the security of Catholic Princes comes pitifully off when instead of securing it takes them quite away which is a fine kind of security for it is plainly a much easier task to maintain by these doctrines that there is never a true Prince in the Christian world no not in those whom you call Catholics than it is to maintain the doctrines And yet when all is done 't is nothing to purpose neither For our Prince and People are of the number of those whom your Church takes for Heretics and can expect no other treatment from you than what you maintain belongs to Heresie Wherefore however your Catholic Princes satisfie themselves I neither see how he can be satisfied of the fidelity of such of his Subjects as approve of these opinions nor with what face they can pretend security and protection from him Pray think of this while I pass to what I put for a second answer and what I have sometimes heard alledged These opinions will you say are moot-cases probably disputed amongst private men in which the Church is neither engaged nor concerned Pray God this Church be not as slippery a word as either Heresie or Popery These men who thus magnifie the Pope certainly are not of our Church and I believe Presbyterians and Fanaticks of all sorts will disown them too so that even for pitty and not to make Infidels of them you must needs take them into yours But they who speak so kindly of the Pope need not fear disowning We see they are both acknowledged and esteemed and are all Capita alta ferentes Now 't is strange your Church should be unconcern'd in men whom you account Orthodox and learned and whose books come out with the approbation of those whom your Church commissionates for that purpose Me-things the Act of her Officers acting by her Authority should be taken for the Act of the Church Unless you will have the Pope pass for one of those careless Princes who deserve to be deposed for negligence and be ignorant that his Officers abuse their trust and licence unsound doctrines and this at Rome it self where a body would think sufficient care is taken that nothing pass which is not esteemed Orthodox Bring me a Book printed at Rome wherein the contrary doctrine is maintain'd and I will acknowledge there is some sense in this answer In the mean time let me give you a few instances and those at home by which it may appear the Pope is so far from ignorant and unconcern'd in these positions that he approves and countenances them and that both â—hotly and constantly In the reign of King James upon the occasion of the execrable Powder Treason the Oath of Allegeance was enacted by the pious wisdom of the Parliament to secure his Majesty and Successors from the like attempts for the future The Superior of the Catholic Clergy at that time was one Blackwell He after much and long debate of the matter with his fellow Priests at last resolved the Oath according to the plain and common sense of the words might with a safe conscience be taken by the Catholics and afterwards both took it himself and by his admonitions to Clergy and Laity recommended it to them as a thing both lawful and fitting The greatest part of the Clergy who repair'd to London upon that occasion followed the resolution of their Superior and had the Pope been either a little more ignorant or a little more negligent I think it had been better for you
seldom running in the School Phrase of all Four The Metaphor is generally and more fitly understood so that by Wolves are meant Persecutors by Rams the Prelates of the Church and by Sheep the rest of the Faithful But allowing him to use the Similitude as he pleases and apply it after his own fashion to talk vvith him in his own language they observe many differences betwixt a figurative and real Wolf a figurative and real Sheep and many defects in the Similitude and Reasons vvhy the Argument concludes not even keeping vvithin the terms of the Metaphor But to consider the Thing Here say they the Church is compar'd to a Flock as it vvas before to a Commonwealth and may to be a City or Family or Ship or Army or twenty things more All these several Comparisons make no difference in the things compared For whether you consider the Pope as Prince of a Spiritual Commonwealth or Shepheard of a Spiritual Flock his Power as Prince is not different from his Power as Shepheard but the same and if you consider it according to all the Comparisons of which it is capable 't is still one and the same and that a Spiritual Power Wherefore all the Similitudes that are or can be will never make it other than it is and the Pope whether he be lookt upon as a Prince or a Shepheard or a Pilot or however he be considered can do no more than a Spiritual Prince and a Spiritual Shepheard c. Now when Bellarmin Argues the Pope is a Shepheard and a Shepheard may drive away or kill a Wolf and an Infidel Prince is a Wolf all this say they even allowing the Comparison is to be understood of Spiritual driving away and Spiritual killing But when he infers Therefore he may Depose him he passes from Spirituals to Temporals and leaves his Allegory and the truth too The Pope may Admonish and Command the Flock not to follow the Wolf in what he is a Wolf but in what he is not a Wolf but a Shepheard himself what ever the Pope say to the contrary they are bound to obey the Power which God has set over them It is by Divine Law that Subjects obey their Prince and Princes cease not to be Princes by turning Infidels nor Subjects to be Subjects by becoming or remaining Faithful And that all the Similitudes in the World should dispense with the Law of God Bellarmin may talk as long as he will but they will not believe him For the rest these kind of Arguments if too much credit were given to them would make mad work Every Bishop and every Curate is as truly a Shepheard as the Pope Their Flocks indeed are not so large but they are truly Flocks and suffice to denominate their Governours with propriety Shepheards If this quality enable him who has it to Depose a Prince there is no remedy but every Bishop has Power to Depose the King who is of his Diocess and every Curate him who belongs to his Parish And since Private men have something less Title to their Estates than the King to his Kingdom if Kings be subject to this Power Private men are much more and so because the Argument with a little more stretching would reach to every Sin within a little while every Sinner might be dispossest of his Estate at the pleasure of his Bishop or Curate which in time would make such work that People would go near to hate all Arguments and all Scholars for Bellarmins sake and as the Turks do Forbid all Learning that they may live in Peace and Security Besides if the fancy should take a man to apply this very Allegory to Princes for if it were said to S. Peter Feed my Sheep it was of Cyrus I say to Cyrus Thou art my Shepheard Isay 44. and of David Thou shalt feed my People Israel 1 Paral. 11. and then apply this Notion of the Wolf and furious Ram to a wicked scandalous Pope over whom he must have Power if he cannot otherwise preserve his own Flock Bellarmin must either unravel all he has weav'd here or Princes will have more Power over Bad Popes than he will think fit to allow them In the mean time of the two waies by which he saies in Rom. Pont. his Doctrine may be prov'd Reasons and Examples These are all he produces of the first kind You will judge of them while I pass to the other He brings in all Twelve Two in the Old Law and Ten in the New Those of the Old are Ozias depos'd for Leprosie by Azarias and Athalia by Joiada for Idolatry Of these two one was never Deposed and the other never a Queen but by Usurpation Ozias for his Presumption was miraculously struck with Leprosie and by the Priests according to their duty and the command of the Law put out of the Temple and separated from the People but for the rest continued King till his dying day his Son supplying his place in what his Disease permitted him not to interpose himself Athalia endeavoured to settle her self in the Kingdom by the Murther of all the Children of Ochozias but was mistaken Joas was saved by his Aunt Jeboseth and by the honesty and credit of her Husband Joiada put in Possession of the Regal Dignity whereof the Right had been in him all the while So that the Argument from this Instance stands thus The High Priest amongst the Jews was instrumental in placing his true Soveraign in his Throne therefore the High Priest among the Christians may tumble a lawful Soveraign out of his Throne which for a man of Bellarmins Vogue is something odly Argued His Third Example and First from the New Law is the dealing of S. Ambrose with the Emperour Theodosius whom after a Cruelty commanded by him in a transport of Anger he admitted not into the Church till he had Repented and make satisfaction I know not but methinks he makes the most unpromising entry into his business that may be In the former Instances one had no Deposition the other no Lawful Prince to be Depos'd and in this there is neither Deposition nor Pope to make it S. Ambrose was Bishop of Milan not of Rome and I hope he will not extend this Deposing Power to every Bishop However what he did not only every Bishop but every Ghostly Father may do both lawfully and laudably It is the Office of Churchmen to induce Sinners to Repentance if they can and perswade them to those Remedies which may hinder them from relapsing into the same faults And they have here the Zeal of an excellent Prelate successful with an excellent Emperour for their encouragement and this is all I can perceive in this passage The Fourth is a Priviledge of S. Gregory the Great to a certain Monastery in which there is this Clause If any King Bishop Judge c. violate this Decree of what Dignity or Degree soever he be let him be depriv'd of his Honour This they take to be
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
The Controversial Letters OR THE 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 The first two Letters The Second Edition LONDON Printed for Henry Brome and Benjamin Toke at the Gun and at the Ship in St. Pauls Church-Yard MDCLXXIV E. Libris Beblioth Eccles Cathedr Petribur SIR I Fear the heat of our last Encounter may have done me some prejudice in your good opinion and would justifie to you if I can both my zeal and my friendship Permit me therefore with a more settled calmness to give you the Reasons which sway'd with me then but which the promptness of my nature possibly might so disguise that they might not then appear reason to you As this is my only so I hope 't will be my full justification for though we ow much to friendship we ow more to Truth and that Friend who bars the use of reason in his Friend does in my judgment ill deserve that Name Notwithstanding let me add what I think you are already sufficiently perswaded of that I am far from the blind zeal of those who think Popery an imputation so scandalous and contagious that it destroyes all correspondence with those who own it I have met with several besides your self of your judgment in Religion accomplisht men and so qualified that I cannot but wish either that all such men were Protestants or all Protestants such men I think so well of some parts of your Religion that there are who think the worse of me I read your books alwayes without hatred and sometimes with pity at the unequal combat betwixt the Knight and the Giant though I make no doubt you are even with us in this particular and are all Knights in your own Countreys When I hear People cry out Papists and Popery I have sometimes the bluntness to ask what they mean for having heard them apply'd both to Prelatics and Fanatics they must needs be words of a strangely large size and magical comprehension if they can fit parties so different and what know I but they may be so explain'd that you may own them no more than other folks In fine I look upon my reason as one of the greatest gifts I have receiv'd from God and am perswaded 't is a duty I ow him to use it as well as I can Wherefore I as little approve the passionate zeal of our side as I understand the sublime perfection of blind obedience on yours but where I see you have reason I am content to allow you have so Yet after all Friend I must continue constant to what I maintain'd at our last meeting I love my King and my Countrey as I ought and can neither believe that can be a true Religion which teaches doctrines inconsistent with Government nor believe otherwise but that yours does teach such doctrines And though I know their pestilent influence does not alwayes work for you have in the late times of tryal approved your selves honest men yet I cannot think that Commonwealth safe in which they are either tolerated or conniv'd at Of this I will make your self Judge and in this Paper produce my evidence which shall be the very words of the most famous Authors amongst you who if they be sufficient for number and considerable for learning and plain in expression and own'd for yours I see not what more can be expected from me nor what at all can be reply'd by you or any else To begin then there are I must confess some modest men amongst you Bellarm. de Rom. Pon. l. 5. c. 2. who speak sparingly of the Pope and affirm Princes are not the Popes Vicars These exempt from his Soveraignty the greatest part of the World for they make Infidel Princes true and supreme Princes of their own Kingdoms and say the Pope is not Lord of those possessions which Infidels hold Nay they go so far as to dare say He is not JVRE DIVINO Lord so much as of the whole Christian world Id. c. 3. And that all his power to depose Princes and dispose of their Kingdoms is only indirectly and in ordine ad spiritualia which alas is a matter of nothing and he must needs be a very scrupulous man who boggles at it For this opinion are cited besides two Cardinals Bellarmine and Cajetan abundance of other famous men with hard names Henricus and Joannes Driedo Turrecremata Pighius Waldensis Petrus de Palude Franc. Victoria Dominicus Soto Sanderus Aspileveta Covarruvias and so many others that Bellarmine affirms it is communis sententia Catholicorum Theologorum though in that particular as you will presently see he was a little out But these as many and as learned as they are are but dow-bak't men and scent strongly of wicked carnal policy and heresie too as an honest Gentleman fairly insinuates by the title of his Book Alex. Carrerius adversus impios Politicos nostri temporis Haereticos design principally against this opinion And so Bellarmine scap't fairly for Sixtus Quintus if the information I had from a very good hand deceive me not had a great mind to have burnt his book Though he scap'd more narrowly at Paris for giving too much to the Pope than at Rome for giving too little His fellow Suarez had his book burnt there by the common Hangman and he was found guilty of the same fault but he was a Cardinal for which respect I suppose they dealt more mercifully and only condemn'd and forbid him But this by the by Your hearty men whom the bugbears of carnal policy cannot fright from the defence of truth tell us another story and say plainly what we must trust too Vnless says Franciscus Bozius Fr. Bozius de Temp. Eccl. Monarchia praef ad Clem. 8. there be one supreme Monarch in the Church in all things the unity of the Church cannot be preserved for seeing the Church by divine institution doth consist of a Kingdom and a Priesthood if it were otherwise there should be in the same absolutely one Monarch of the Kingdom and another of the Priesthood That if for avoiding dissentions about sacred causes one supreme Head is appointed why not in the same manner of the Kingdom that there should be one and the same Head both of the Kingdom and Priesthood lest in like sort there should happen dissention betwixt them that therefore it is the rather to be held that Peter doth supply Christs place not only in the Priesthood but in the Kingdom that he might be a King and likewise a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech who was both a King and Priest The famous Cardinal Baronius sayes the same Baron Ann. Tom. 1. An. 57. p. 432 433. That David did foretell that the Priesthood of Christ should be according to the order of
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
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
by Election or succession or Force came to be Emperors I mean till the Empire was translated to the West for as he had a great hand in that translation he has ever since appeared more but I speak of the times before And all this is evident beyond all dispute Reconcile this who can with Constantins Donation If he put the Pope in possession of the Western Provinces how could he bequeath them to his Son And if he put him not in possession how could he be said to give them It is a mockery not a gift to say these Provinces are yours which I keep to my self during life and dispose to others after my death Livery and Seisin are pretty material circumstances in such conveyances where nothing can be understood to pass without them If Constantine gave them the Pope must have had them and that he had them not is as plain as History can make any thing where it is particularly with uniform consent recorded in whose hands these Western Provinces were what changes hapned from time to time and by what means from the death of Constantine till the Arms and favour of France under Pipin and his son Charles put into the Popes possession most of what he has It is known and by Bellarmine himself confest that Popes during those times were Subjects at least de facto which is enough for our present purpose there needing no more to shew they had not those Countries which Constantine is said to have given to them Not but that both he and divers others after and before him too were extreamly munificent to the Church by which munificence much Land in several places was setled on her by way of Alms and actually in her possession But she enjoy'd the revenues only of those Lands Administration of Justice and all Regalities were reserv'd to the Temporal Lords This has deceiv'd some who finding mention of Possessions belonging to the Church in former Ages imagined they so belonged to her then as they do now with entire and independent subjection Whereas till Popes were by the liberality and power of the French rais'd to the state of Temporal Princes the Lands of the Church were in the same condition with the estates of other Subjects the immediate owners receiving the Profits and both their Lands and Themselves subject to the supreme Lord. They were given to other Churches as well as Rome for maintenance of the Clergy and Poor for the expences of buildings and reparations and Divine Service and that so plentifully that some refused offered Patrimonies others restored what they once had not willing to be burthened with more than was needful These Lands paid publick duties as other Lands did till the Laws exempted them But these things are besides the matter To return to our Argument if the successors of Constantin continued the only known Masters of those very Countries which are said to be given away if Popes acknowledg'd them for such as well as the rest of the World and never so much as put in any claim or pretended any thing to the contrary And all this be so plain that nothing can be plainer no fiction can be more palpable nor more wild than this of Constantin's Donation It is undeniably evident that neither Popes nor Emperours nor any body else in those dayes knew any thing of it And it is as evident that they must know of it if it had been at all At least if they did not none else could in after times This Donation was not heard of in the World till long after Baron ad an 1191. n. 52. Marca de Conc. Sacerd. Imp. l. 3. c. 12. Baronius thinks the pretended Charter forged by the Grecians after the tenth Age Marca by the Latins in the time of Pipin and by his consent to stop the mouths of the Grecians who made instance that the Lands recovered from the Lombards and by Him given to the Church should be restored to the Empire However it be for the Time or Author of the fiction that the Charter is a meer and late forgery is acknowledged both by Baronius and by most of the learned men even of the Popes Communion That the Donation cannot be pretended with any shew of Reason but in force of the Charter is plain For 't is next to madness to say the West was given and produce no Evidence of the Gift Any man may claim any mans Estate with as much colour and the Pope from such a claim can expect no more success than another man But there is nothing which can be alledged in proof of this Donation besides this Charter Wherefore the whole business of which you seem to be jealous is in it self a pure Chimera absolutely contradicted by the course of Nature and consent of History and the only Evidence producible for it acknowledged a forgery by our selves And if this give you much disquiet I cannot but think you wonderful fearful Let the worst come to the worst 't is not the case of England alone France and Spain and Germany were Western Provinces as well as Britain and as much concern'd as we While we have such Outworks we need not much fear our Fort. The truth is our safety depends in reality on them For let his Right be never so good till it have seiz'd on them it cannot fasten on us and when it has we cannot escape let it be never so bad Mean time I think you may sleep quietly on the noise which will be made in the World when any of these Countries leave their native Princes and become subject to a Forreigner and quit their long setled Customs and Laws and Liberties in reverence to Constantin's Donation will wake you time enough But if you sleep till then you will go near to be the 8th sleeper and alone out-slumber all the seven Thus far of our Journey we have good company with us and the best part of Christendom being of the Caravan travel with security enough But now the Road parts and we must shift for our selves Henry II. say you from Baronius acknowledged the Kingdom of England Fendatory to the Pope in a Letter extant in Petrus Blesensis You might have added the Cardinals Comment upon the Popes confirmation or rather approbation of K. Stephen's election which he says was therefore mentioned in the Coronation Oath because the Kingdom was feudatory to the Pope Baron ad an 1135. 21. so that every new King receiv'd confirmation from him Which also was acknowledged by Hen. II. in the Letter of Blesensis Ad an 1172. n. 5. Besides he produces afterwards from the Acts of Alexander III. a clause of the Oath made at the conclusion of the difference upon the death of S. Thomas of Canterbury wherein the Kings both Father and Son are made to swear That they will receive and hold the Kingdom of England from the Pope and neither they nor their successors repute themselves Kings of England till the Popes for
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
set the power of France upon him It is not possible he should take for sufficient satisfaction for faults which in his judgment deserved all this rigor a confession that his own was his own and a gift of what was his before But the Kings resignation made amends for all and cleared scores so fully that the Pope ever after was fast to him and heartily took his part in all his necessities Then and not before Popes assumed the liberty to term the Kings of England their Vassals which is a plain acknowledgment that they understood this submission and nothing else authoriz'd them so to do Agreeable to this were the outcries remembred by M. Paris Heu Anglia Ad an 1216. Anglia hactenus Princeps Provinciarum facta es sub tributo ut Terra tua ab antiquo libera ancillaret excogitasti factus de Rege liberrimo Tributarius firmarius Vassallus servitutis c. 'T is evident the novelty of the Kings submission put these complaints into the Peoples mouths and that no such thing had formerly been heard of To conclude commend me to this fiction of Baronius for an example of zeal not according to knowledge To speak without proof in a matter of this consequence is pretty well of it self But to want proof where the nature of the thing must needs afford a thousand to fancy the Tenure of a Kingdome could lie conceal'd I know not how long and at last be discovered by his either pains or luck to be quite contrary to what was apprehended by the rest of the world which could no more be ignorant of the Tenure than of the Kingdom to imagine England subject when no person can be imagined who should subject it nor time in which it should become subject to say nothing of the manifold inconsistency of his story and contradiction to palpable evidence These are strains which as I admire in him so I hope not often to find elsewhere And for Blesensis either he knew not what he said or which is more likely those two periods have by chance or fraud crept into his writings without his privity In fine he is no good Englishman who does not acknowledge that the Kingdom of England is and at all times has been free and subject to none but God A Declaration made both with particular reference to the Pope and by those who acknowledged his Authority in spirituals And so we are come at last to the point of greatest difficulty both of its own nature and by the smartness with which 't is prest the Fact of K. John Our Author not to leave the wound he makes without cure assigns us Prescription for a remedy You have not an entire confidence in this plaister and I must confess I cannot blame you not that I think it bad but I like better to be sound and need none Most points of Law and this of Prescription as well as the rest are full of learned Quibbles and I do not love to trust our security to a moot case The rights of Kingdoms are of too great consequence to depend on the Triccum de Lege For what if some fiction of Law be pretended against our Prescription What if the Pope by some Act or other of which we never had intelligence have continued a Legal or Civil possession all the time of our Natural possession and so interrupted or voided our Prescription It is not safe in my opinion to venture our whole stock in a bottom which possibly may prove leaky Wherefore though Prescription may do well enough yet while we have in my judgment a better game to play I think it best as you say to play surer Of the Considerations propos'd in this matter with great sharpness by our Author I take these to be the most material That K. John past this grant when he had undoubted right to the Crown without any Competitor his Nephew Arthur being dead before That this right of his was then unconfin'd Magna Charta not being yet framed nor any power communicated to Barons or People or Parliaments for intermedling in the succession And that however the Deed was confirmed by his Barons who were they alone that then had any thing to do in the greater affairs of State On these because they will decide the Question I shall insist more largely and endeavour to shew He is mistaken in all three First for the consent of the Barons although this clause Communi Consilio Baronum nostrorum be inserted in the Charter yet nothing can be more apparent than that in truth there was no such thing It was so far from this that there was an express dissent Cui etiam manifeste contradictum fuit ex parte universitatis Regni reclamatum quid talia nullo modo facere potuisset per os venerabilis Stephani Can. Archiepiscopi quo non erat tunc major in Regno c. M. Westm ad an 1245. M. Paris ad an 1245. For Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury protested solemnly against it and this publickly at the high Altar before all the company and in the name of the whole Kingdom This protestation of his was averred to the Popes face and that in full Council by Will. Povick or Powevick one of the Embassadors at the Council of Lyons whither he was sent to complain in behalf of the Kingdom I think it will not be denied but the Clergy in those dayes had at least as much influence on publick affairs as the rest of the Nobility and that there could be no common consent where the Head of the Clergy publickly dissented Especially considering that this protestation was not made for himself only or his Order but in the name of the whole Kingdom For it can hardly be that he should arrogate to himself to act in the name of the Kingdom without the privity of the rest and consent of so many at least as might keep his Act from appearing ridiculous But that the rest of the Nobility were as far from consenting as the Clergy is not left to guess Their sense is manifest in the next words of Povick In quod tributum nunquam Patres nostri consenserunt nec aliquo tempore consentient as Mat. Westm relates them or according to Mat. Paris In quod nunquam Patres nobilium Regni vel ipsi consenserunt nec consentiunt neque in futurum consentient c. This was said in circumstances uncapable of the suspition of falsity The man who spoke was an Embassador commissionated to speak for the Kingdom He spoke to the Pope himself in a full Council and while the memory of things was yet fresh and if he had not said true might have been convinc'd by every body perhaps in the company But neither the Pope himself who certainly knew the truth and was most concern'd in it nor any body else had anything to say against it Besides even in the daies of K. John the K. of France and his Son Lewis when Walo
the Popes Legat would have diverted them from their design on England by representing that the Kingdom held now of the Pope maintained both to his face M. Paris ad an 1216. that K. Johns grant was void and this among other things because there was no consent of the Barons It is not possible they should so confidently avouch this to one who could not but know the truth unless it had been notorious and undeniable even by Walo himself Wherefore it is manifest that the clause above mentioned was inserted for forms sake without truth it being not more known that there was a Charter than that it was made without the consent of the Nobility What the consequence of this is will fall into consideration by and by when we have discours'd of what remains The next point is that K. John had an undoubted right to the Crown when He past this Deed. Suppose he had what then Right to wear the Crown and Right to give it away are very different things and very far from inferring one another He urges that the Regal power in disposing of the Crown was the same then as at the conquest That the Conqueror both receiv'd the Crown by gift from K. Edward and dispos'd of it by Testament That although K. Edwards gift should pass for invalid yet the very title of Conquest was sufficient for an Arbitrary power of disposing it the very grant of Magna Charta from the Prince to the People being a plain Argument that at least the power of our Norman Princes was originally arbitrary and unconfined till themselves were pleas'd to restrain it by voluntary compacts and concessions which hapned not till after the fact in question Thus does our Author discourse with a Tide of smartness threaten Shipwrack to our liberties which way soever we steer To deny an arbitrary right in the Conqueror seems to question the right of his successors To grant it seems to confirm the Deed in question and expose us to the mercy of the Pope Before I answer particularly I take leave to suppose not because it cannot be prov'd but because no body will require proof of what every body acknowledges That rights questionable in their origin become unquestionable in tract of time The Goths and Vandals broke into the Roman Empire and mastered a great part of it with a known violence but unknown Justice Should ear be given to the exceptions which might be made against their Title and the right of their posterity and all who hold under them questioned till the right of the first occupants were clearly made out the world would be embroyled in inextricable confusion and suffer little less from our disputes than their Arms. Few either Princes or private men would enjoy their Estates with a safe Conscience The bonds of Obedience would be broken the security of Life and Fortunes taken away and the Ligaments of human society dissolv'd These things are so evidently contrary to the good of mankind that speculations which would infer them are evidently contrary to reason Speculate what you will of Justice it is most certain that to ruin the world is a most unjust thing or if you will criticize upon the notion at least irrational and wicked and intollerable Wherefore whatever were the origin of establish't Powers when they are establish't and by long continuance become necessary to the quiet and security of mankind they are most certainly just and to question them is madness in all and Treason in Subjects To examin by what means this comes to pass how true Right is acquired in Time and even bad Titles become good at last I conceive an Argument too high for me and besides see it needless to meddle with it For while the thing is universally acknowledged and cannot be deni'd without extream mischief to the world the labour of enquiring more particularly into it may be dispenc'd with Two things I take to my present purpose which I suppose none will deny me 1. That the Right of succeeding Kings cannot be questioned on pretence of doubt nay if you will defect of right in the proceedings of such as have reign'd so long since as the Conquest 2. That Power and Right being manifestly two very different things it follows not that because things were then done which ought not be questioned now I mean with prejudice to Posterity that they were therefore well done and according to Right To speak now particularly to what is alledged It is true that the Conqueror had or pretended a Gift from K. Edward I suppose to have something to say But 't is apparent that not K. Edward's gift but his own sword gain'd him England The Ratio ultima Regum was his only unanswerable Argument and had Harold got the Victory and preserv'd the Kingdom he would have preserved Right enough to it notwithstanding the Gift of K. Edward and as much right been acknowledg'd in his Successors as now in those of the Conqueror It is true also that the Conqueror did dispose of the Kingdom to the prejudice of his eldest Son but 't is likewise true that Duke Robert did claim and put for the Crown notwithstanding his Fathers Testament and had he prevailed had transmitted a Right to his Posterity which by this time had been unquestionable These are matters purely of Fact of which kind there are innumerable in History but from which according to the maxim that Fact does not infer Right no Argument can be drawn What the Conqueror did He did by the power which his Conquest gave him success and length of time has establish't what depends on his actions into a firmness which admits of no dispute But this concludes not that all he did was just even in him and much less that the same Actions are justifiable in his Successors As for what is next urged That Conquest sufficed for an arbitrary Power it is undoubtedly true for he did arbitrarily dispose of things as he pleased But that his Conquest gave him Right so to do or transmitted such a Right to his Posterity is not to be admitted without very good proof It is universally agreed that Conquest gives right only where the War is just which I think signifies that his Conquest gave him none at all For the War is not just unless he have a good Title who makes it and if he have Conquest only puts him into possession of what was wrongfully with-held but his Right is antecedent to and independent of his Conquest Indeed where the revenge of some collateral wrong or other cause put just Arms into the hands of any Prince there what he gains is thought justly his own by vertue of his Conquest But this is not our case The only cause of this War was because Harold with-held the Crown to which if the Conqueror had a just Title that which made it so gave him his Right if he had not the War was not just and Conquest could give him none Whether his Title were
Election at least till his Brother consented as he soon did the same title which K. Stephen and after him K. John had to the Crown I should think their Examples a very good Reason that the proceedings of those times are not to be drawn into consequence For if they may it will follow that the Kingdom of England perhaps is at least has been Elective Which I suppose no Englishman will admit if they may not I know not to what purpose they are alledged For these reasons I am perswaded nothing can be drawn from the proceedings of the first Norman Princes to justify the Resignation of King John which is so far from being binding to our times that it never had any validity at all But not to leave the matter disputable betwixt my No and the Yea of who will maintain the contrary I will fairly put it to Judgment and say whatever was done and by whatever right about the times of the Conquest that K. John in particular could not validly do what he did and that this has already been decided and in such manner that there is nothing so firmly setled in the world which may not admit of question as well as this In the reign of Ed. III. the Pope demanded the long unpaid one thousand marks granted by K. John and threatned by legal process to recover this rent A Parliament was called chiefly for this business and it was unanimously resolv'd Rot. Parl. 40 Ed. 3. That neither K. John nor any other could bring Himself his Kingdom or People into such subjection without their consent and against his Coronation Oath And that in case the Pope should by process or otherwise attempt to constrain the King or his Subjects to perform the premisses They would become Parties and resist him with all their Power This is plain and peremptory and directly to the point I cannot but muse to observe them speak doubtingly of the matter of Fact Supplication of Souls and the more because Sr. Tho. More very positively denies the Church of Rome could in his or any time produce such an Evidence When I consider He was a learned man and no Enemy to the Pope had great means of being well acquainted with Records and passages of former times unknown to others and speaks as if he had good ground for what he said I hardly know what to think of it I wish he had inform'd us what his grounds were peradventure there is more to be said than we are aware of But since he has not and the Parliament does not directly deny the Fact I for my part must be contented to take things at the worst and not deny what I cannot disprove I have this for my comfort that if the Fact were true it was in Sr. Tho. More 's words right naught worth and the Authority of Parliament to bear me out By the way our Author in alledging the consent of the Barons at that time the only representative of the Kingdom speaks against a solemn Declaration of Parliament and this undeniable proof may be joyned to what I produc'd before to make good my denial of their consent However the Question is positively decided and by an Authority irrefragable to Englishmen But lest we should be suspected of partiality in our own case let us put it to the Judgment of Forreigners When the differences betwixt this King and the Barons became irreconcileable they sought protection from France The Pope sent a Legat to disswade the French King and his Son from medling with a Kingdom the Dominion whereof belonged now to the Church The word was hardly out of the Legats mouth when the King of France reply'd suddenly M. Paris ad an 1216. That England never had been nor then was nor ever should be the Patrimony of Peter And this besides what he else alledged because no King could give away his Kingdom without consent of his Barons an error which if the Pope would maintain He would give a most pernicious example to all Kingdoms The Nobility present with great heat justify'd this speech of their King and declared they would stand for that point to death viz. that it was not in the power of any King to transfer his Kingdom or make it tributary at pleasure You see I spoke not altogether out of my own head when I refus'd to yield an arbitrary right of disposing Kingdoms even to Conquerors and that I shall not want who will take my part But to let that pass it cannot be attributed to the partiality of our either Country or Times that we hold this Deed of K. John null when it was condemned for such by those who were contemporaries to it and as much abroad as at home Who desires more security is in my opinion a very scrupulous man Notwithstanding let us put it to the Judgment of the very Contrivers of the Deed. I am much mistaken if Themselves had not the same sentiments with the rest of the world If They did not understand well enough that the consent of the Barons was necessary to the validity of the Deed why did they insert that clause Communi Consilio Baronum nostrorum A thing of this consequence undoubtedly was not carelesly hudled up Great deliberation was without question us'd and they would never have put in what they themselves and every body else knew was false but that they were sensible All was to no purpose without it So that in the hard choice of framing a Draught either without Truth or without validity They had an eye to the latter and let the first shift as it could The truth is They had reason it being obvious enough that if they could carry things out at present the Charter it self as all Records are would be a strong Presumption for the truth of what it contains to Posterity But since it is as evident as that there was a Charter that this Clause was untrue it is likewise evident that Those who put it in thought it necessary Wherefore even in their Judgments the Grant was invalid as wanting what themselves thought absolutely requisite You now perceive of what importance this point is of the Consent of the Barons of which I forbore to speak while I was examining whether they consented or no. Neither do I mean to dilate upon it now it being enough to observe that the want of it absolutely invalidates the Grant and this in the Judgment not only of the Framers and of the King and Kingdom of France but of Parliament For you see They positively declare that neither K. John nor any other could bring the Kingdom into subjection without consent of the People who at that time had none but the Barons to consent for them So that not to acquiesce in this point is to refuse the highest Authority of the Nation and who does so is not fit to live in the Nation But shall I venture to joyn our Author himself to the rest of this good company and