Scholars for they are sure enough that for his own sake He will not use his power against those who maintain his interest It may be too with Princes as with other men who to compass some end upon which they are passionately set at present value not a mischief much more considerable than the loss of their present pretences which is farther of If the Pope can assist either French or Spaniard the Divines of that King whose part he takes may say any thing freely and Stasemen who have little esteem of Shoolmen will think the Pope sufficiently over-reacht when for a few pleasing words they have got peradventure a Town or Province So that your Princes seem to be alwayes playing with the Pope at Vy Politics in which game they think their steel to his quils advantage enough though I should think the advantage is cleerly on the Pope's side for as he cannot make stakes he hazards nothing but if Trump ever turn of his suit he bids fair for all Defende me gladio ego te defendam calamo peradventure was no such unequal offer Besides they may possibly have the art to turn his credit to their advantage and make use of it to keep their Subjects more obedient and more in aw It may be they have some of them no better original Title to all or part of their dominions than his Authority and then a blind man may see what reason they have to uphold it It may be these it may be other reasons sway with them but whatever they are or may be I think 't is plainly hatching a serpent in their bosoms For let us suppose the Pope and a Catholic Prince at ods a thing so far from impossible that 't is not unusual 'T is in his power you 'l say to continue Catholic whether the Pope will or no and then He 's safe for he gives the Pope no hold it being only Heresie upon which he can fasten But is this true that nothing will do it but plain Heresie Has not Zecchius taught us that the Pope may deprive Princes of their Kingdoms as oft as they do any great hurt in the Church And will not the bad example of contrasting stubbornly with the supreme Pastor be interpreted a great hurt in the Church Has not Fransciscus Bozius informed us that by reason of the supreme Monarchy in all things temporal Laws may be made by the Church and Kingdoms taken away for just causes If we ask what these just causes are Santarellus answers That Princes may be punisht and depos'd not only for Heresie but for other causes for their faults if it be expedient Ant. Sant in Her Schis Apostas c. c. 30. 31. if Princes be negligent if their persons be insufficient if unuseful How few Princes are there who fall not under some of these qualifications or at least may not be judged to do so when the Pope and He their Enemy is to be Judge As certainly it were a crime greater than the greatest of these to seek the determination of these things from any else This negligence though stumbles me a little for it seems a general and something a captious word and I think it would be to the satisfaction of those who are concern'd if it were defined as soon as might be how many hours a day a King is to give audience that he may not pass for negligent But the man for my money is Thomas Bozius who tells us plainly That the Church the Spouse of Christ De Jure Stat. l. 1. c. 6. p. 6. and Queen of the world may as often as the order of the whole doth require c. transfer the proper rights of one to another as a secular Prince may cast down private mens houses for the beautifying the City or impose tribute for the weal public That he may thus justly do although he hath not erred from whom such rights are transferred to another so the Pope gave the Indians to the Spaniards 'T is an honest fellow this Bozius and cares not for mincing matters Give me the man that speaks out But what think you is Heresie the only unkinging crime when you see any great harm negligence insufficiency unusefulness will do it When innocence it self is no security and the best King of the world may be turn'd out of his Kingdom and that justly if another be thought able to govern more handsomely What handsome work will these Maxims one day make in the world if they be suffered to take deep root For my part I cannot see but Catholic Princes as secure as you make them are no less concern'd then Protestants to beware of them and weed them up quickly and effectually But is it so easie to scape the crime even of Heresie I doubt not and am filthily mistaken if this word Heresie have not as comprehensive a sense and be not of a nature as plyable as Popery amongst us and if managed with equal dexterity may not prove equally serviceable The late King was the honour of Protestant Religion and certainly had never a Subject more unmoveably fixt in it than himself And yet malice made him pass for a Papist at least inclin'd to Popery do what he could and by that imputation principally undid both him and the Kingdom Henry the third of France was possibly as hearty a Catholic yet all his industriously affected bigotteries his great beads and Friers weeds could never clear him from the stain of Heresie maliciously fixt upon him till he fell with a fate different from that of our glorious King in this that his Kingdom suffer'd more no longer his own end was more private being execrably murthered by a private Paricide whereas the barbarous injustice done to our King was heightned by the formalities of public justice So that as far I see Heresie is as dangerous as Popery with us and as hard to be avoided But let us consider a little Sancius has told us that it is to be held with a right Faith that the Principality of the Bishop of Rome is the true and only immediate Principality of the whole World c. If this be right L. 4. c. 1. p 319. the contrary sure is wrong Faith and wrong Faith I think is Heresie Thomas Bozius who never fails will tell us that Christ committed to St. Peter the Carrier of the keys of eternal life the right both of the Terrene and Celestial Empire as Pope Nicholas saith from whom we have it that he is without doubt an Heretic who taketh away the rights of the Terrene and Celestial Empire committed by Christ to the Church of Rome and saith it is lawful so to do and for that he shall be an Heretic in such his assertions P. 152. And Carrerius that the Bishop of Rome is the highest Father and Man of the world and the universal Vicar and Lord of the world and that all others depend upon him as their builder and that otherwise if one
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
unfitly is not what the world means by Right Right to do ill sounds very like Right to do wrong and is in this case neither better nor worse For if arbitrary placing of Governors be against the good of the Commonwealth and Right or Just signify as much as Fit or Good and that as at present it must with respect to the Commonwealth there is a Right in the Commonwealth which requires their Princes should not be set over them arbitrarily and those arbitrary dispositions of the Crown were manifestly against Right And yet perhaps it is enough that they were unreasonable and unfit For unreasonable Actions are no more to be drawn into consequence than unjust ones and peradventure bind no more where collateral considerations do not give them a strength which they have not of themselves I have alledged these considerations more to hint what may be said than because I think nothing else can For after all it may with truth be maintained that the power of the first Norman Princes and of the Conqueror himself as well as the rest was actually confined and in the manner our Author would have it by voluntary Concessions long before Magna Charta and the establishment of those liberties to the subject which he supposes confine it now They all took Oaths at their Coronation and bound themselves to the observation of Justice If an Oath do not bind a Prince an Oath deliberately and solemnly made in the face of God and Man in a matter too mainly concerning the good of the Commonwealth for whose security he gives that Oath and which she accepts as full security there is no talking of Confinement upon him of security to a Commonwealth of Laws and Obligations and Compacts but all must be left to the arbitrary unconfin'd pleasure of one man a Position which is the Freedom of this part of the world I suppose will not find much entertainment However it is the strength even of Magna Charta it self which cannot confine a Prince if his Oath do not first confine him to observe it Now who swears to render Justice undoubtedly swears to render Justice to the Kingdom in the first place For the concern of the whole is the concern of all particulars every one being as much and perhaps more interested in the Rights of the Kingdom than in his private pretensions If any man doubt of this I suppose no Englishman at least will doubt but that he is to acquiesce to the Judgment of Parliament And it is positively declared by Parliament 40 Ed. 3 that the Fact of K. John was contrary to his Coronation Oath in which nevertheless for ought I can find there is nothing more than general expressions of rendring Justice However it be since it is a judged case that K. John broke his Oath in his arbitrary disposition of the Kingdom it is a judged case that his Power was confined in that particular and this independently of Magna Charta and all subsequent Compacts And if his then sure of all the rest for they all swear as much as He. But if any man will continue stiff in this opinion and believe nothing able to confine the arbitrary power of Conquerors but their own Concessions I would entreat him to direct me to that Concession which has confin'd their power in this point besides their Coronation Oath I do not find either in Mag. Charta or any where else any Article concerning the disposition of the Crown Learneder men may know more but my Ignorance perswades me that if the Norman Princes had such a Right and that Right can only be restrained by voluntary Concessions and those direct to the point their Successors have it still And 't is not easie to be perswaded otherwise till the Concession appear But this no Englishman can either say or think nothing being more notorious than that it cannot be done now Whoever will take the pains to examin how it comes to pass that this original power is now restrained will not easily be satisfi'd if nothing else will satisfie him but a direct Concession I believe he will be forc'd to confess at last that such a Concession is neither extant nor needful and acknowledg that Power is bounded as truly and as strongly by Nature as Grants Upon the whole I conceive there may in the first Norman Princes be considered the Power of Conquerors and Right of Kings That their Power was unconfin'd enough but ought not be drawn into Precedent although it be against all Reason and Justice to question now those effects of their Power which remain among us even to this day For these have strength not from their Power but from what is able to turn Unjust into Just as Titles originally bad become good in process of Time That even their Right was confined the very notion of Right implying limitation For right signifies proportion of the Action to the subject so that an unconfined Right is not Right That their Right was confined in this particular by the good of the Kingdom as has been discours'd before and though it had not Right to what they did is very far from inferring Right to what K. John did the two remarkable precedents mentioned by our Author being so remarkably different from this case that they can be no Precedents nor warrant for it William Rufus reigned after his Father and excluded his Brother in truth by the favour of the Kingdom yet claiming by his Fathers Testament That claim may be allow'd without allowing King Johns resignation For in the Conquerors fact there was no more then of two sons both fit both equal to the Kingdom to prefer whom he thought fittest The Laws and Liberties and condition of the Kingdom was the same under either so that apprehending in likelyhood no greater interest in the business than whether their King should be called William or Robert They approved the Fathers choice and willingly obey'd whom he appointed But King John's Fact was quite of another strain A Stranger and such an one who could never become a denizen one taken up with other cares and dwelling too far off to be ever able to act as was fitting for the good of England was made the supream Lord and which was worse the Tenure of the Kingdom altered and of free turn'd into subject The Kingdom was sensible of their Interest in the business and disclaim'd the fact both then and ever since I am mistaken if Reception of Laws be not generally held a very material consideration to their validity But the cases are otherwise so apparently different that a Right in the Conqueror to dispose of the Crown as he did may safely be granted without any necessity or colour of allowing in consequence a Right to King John to dispose of it as he did If Henry 1. succeeded in vertue of the same Testament his case is the same with the former But this Gentlemans information was better than mine if he had other Title than
Election at least till his Brother consented as he soon did the same title which K. Stephen and after him K. John had to the Crown I should think their Examples a very good Reason that the proceedings of those times are not to be drawn into consequence For if they may it will follow that the Kingdom of England perhaps is at least has been Elective Which I suppose no Englishman will admit if they may not I know not to what purpose they are alledged For these reasons I am perswaded nothing can be drawn from the proceedings of the first Norman Princes to justify the Resignation of King John which is so far from being binding to our times that it never had any validity at all But not to leave the matter disputable betwixt my No and the Yea of who will maintain the contrary I will fairly put it to Judgment and say whatever was done and by whatever right about the times of the Conquest that K. John in particular could not validly do what he did and that this has already been decided and in such manner that there is nothing so firmly setled in the world which may not admit of question as well as this In the reign of Ed. III. the Pope demanded the long unpaid one thousand marks granted by K. John and threatned by legal process to recover this rent A Parliament was called chiefly for this business and it was unanimously resolv'd Rot. Parl. 40 Ed. 3. That neither K. John nor any other could bring Himself his Kingdom or People into such subjection without their consent and against his Coronation Oath And that in case the Pope should by process or otherwise attempt to constrain the King or his Subjects to perform the premisses They would become Parties and resist him with all their Power This is plain and peremptory and directly to the point I cannot but muse to observe them speak doubtingly of the matter of Fact Supplication of Souls and the more because Sr. Tho. More very positively denies the Church of Rome could in his or any time produce such an Evidence When I consider He was a learned man and no Enemy to the Pope had great means of being well acquainted with Records and passages of former times unknown to others and speaks as if he had good ground for what he said I hardly know what to think of it I wish he had inform'd us what his grounds were peradventure there is more to be said than we are aware of But since he has not and the Parliament does not directly deny the Fact I for my part must be contented to take things at the worst and not deny what I cannot disprove I have this for my comfort that if the Fact were true it was in Sr. Tho. More 's words right naught worth and the Authority of Parliament to bear me out By the way our Author in alledging the consent of the Barons at that time the only representative of the Kingdom speaks against a solemn Declaration of Parliament and this undeniable proof may be joyned to what I produc'd before to make good my denial of their consent However the Question is positively decided and by an Authority irrefragable to Englishmen But lest we should be suspected of partiality in our own case let us put it to the Judgment of Forreigners When the differences betwixt this King and the Barons became irreconcileable they sought protection from France The Pope sent a Legat to disswade the French King and his Son from medling with a Kingdom the Dominion whereof belonged now to the Church The word was hardly out of the Legats mouth when the King of France reply'd suddenly M. Paris ad an 1216. That England never had been nor then was nor ever should be the Patrimony of Peter And this besides what he else alledged because no King could give away his Kingdom without consent of his Barons an error which if the Pope would maintain He would give a most pernicious example to all Kingdoms The Nobility present with great heat justify'd this speech of their King and declared they would stand for that point to death viz. that it was not in the power of any King to transfer his Kingdom or make it tributary at pleasure You see I spoke not altogether out of my own head when I refus'd to yield an arbitrary right of disposing Kingdoms even to Conquerors and that I shall not want who will take my part But to let that pass it cannot be attributed to the partiality of our either Country or Times that we hold this Deed of K. John null when it was condemned for such by those who were contemporaries to it and as much abroad as at home Who desires more security is in my opinion a very scrupulous man Notwithstanding let us put it to the Judgment of the very Contrivers of the Deed. I am much mistaken if Themselves had not the same sentiments with the rest of the world If They did not understand well enough that the consent of the Barons was necessary to the validity of the Deed why did they insert that clause Communi Consilio Baronum nostrorum A thing of this consequence undoubtedly was not carelesly hudled up Great deliberation was without question us'd and they would never have put in what they themselves and every body else knew was false but that they were sensible All was to no purpose without it So that in the hard choice of framing a Draught either without Truth or without validity They had an eye to the latter and let the first shift as it could The truth is They had reason it being obvious enough that if they could carry things out at present the Charter it self as all Records are would be a strong Presumption for the truth of what it contains to Posterity But since it is as evident as that there was a Charter that this Clause was untrue it is likewise evident that Those who put it in thought it necessary Wherefore even in their Judgments the Grant was invalid as wanting what themselves thought absolutely requisite You now perceive of what importance this point is of the Consent of the Barons of which I forbore to speak while I was examining whether they consented or no. Neither do I mean to dilate upon it now it being enough to observe that the want of it absolutely invalidates the Grant and this in the Judgment not only of the Framers and of the King and Kingdom of France but of Parliament For you see They positively declare that neither K. John nor any other could bring the Kingdom into subjection without consent of the People who at that time had none but the Barons to consent for them So that not to acquiesce in this point is to refuse the highest Authority of the Nation and who does so is not fit to live in the Nation But shall I venture to joyn our Author himself to the rest of this good company and
the Children of his elder Brother who were Heirs not to John but Richard and by John wrongfully excluded This Lady never married but liv'd to a good Age M. Paris ad an 1241. Y podig. Neustriae p. 59. one example of many of the little comfort there is in unsupported greatness She dy'd in the year 1241 and was buried among the Nuns of Amesbury to whom by permission of Henry III. She gave the Mannor of Molsham Her Right was buried with her but while she lived it cannot be said K. John had no Competitor This being so all pretence from K. Johns Fact is cut up by the roots there being not so much to be said for it as that himself had right to what he gave away And yet for my part I think if he had had a Right as unquestionable as our Author supposes it is equally unquestionable that his gift was no more valid than if he had had none Whether I have acquitted my self of what I undertook and shewn the three material points of our Authors discourse viz Consent of the Barons undoubted Right and unconfin'd power in K. John are all mistakes I am not to be my own Judge It is the readers right and to him I leave it To pass farther and examine what else is urged seems needless When the Root is dig'd up the Branches may be let alone and I am far from taking pleasure in contradicting especially a man whose Learning and Candor I esteem Yet because peradventure to neglect what he says may shew more unhandsom than to dissent from it I shall briefly deliver my opinion of the rest In the next point viz. That the Popes Title was the more confirm'd by his uninterrupted Practice I think He is mistaken too 'T is true that Henry III. did at his Coronation take an Oath of Fealty to the Pope the same which his Father had taken before And there was a very pressing necessity which oblig'd him so to do Lewis Son to the King of France was in the Bowels of the Kingdom with a strong Army and many of the Nobility took his part The King was a Child unable to do any thing for himself and forc'd to depend entirely on those who would assist him Among these the Pope was the most considerable whose Legat was with him and with unweari'd earnestness laboured for his Interest It was not for him in such a conjuncture to break with the Pope For it was evidently to ruin himself So that 't was wisely done of his Councel to provide for the greater danger first and leave the rest to time It is true also that King John made use of this subjection to annul his concession to the Barons But it does not therefore follow there was no Interruption The Archbishop of Canterbury protested at very first and in the name of the whole Kingdom the Barons refus'd to submit to the Popes sentence and stood to their obtain'd Concessions notwithstanding his Excommunications the French rejected his claim with great ardor solemn opposition was made in the Council of Lions both by King and Kingdom in the reign of Henry III. succeeding Kings positively deni'd all marks of subjection and were abetted by unanimous consent of Parliament A Practice so much opposed I think cannot be called uninterrupted Opposition sure is Interruption or at least as good For the the act of one part can never confirm a practice The Pope may do what he pleases but unless the Kingdom do something too his Title will never be confirmed It may be said that the Tribute was paid by Henry III. suppose it were what is this to the Kingdom Henry III. could not be hindred from disposing of his own and paying what and to whom he pleased But his Act cannot be thought binding to the Kingdom unless the Kingdom consented And the Kingdom was so far from consenting that it positively dissented Wherefore the practice being urged as a Title to the Kingdom it seems very plain that this Title was so far from being more confirm'd that it was not confirm'd at all nor could be by any practice of the Popes unless the Kingdom had concurred to it The next point that the Pope never solemnly devested himself I conceive not to purpose For if his Title were never good 't is no matter whether he ever disclaimed it or no. And yet if the Author of the Eulogium said to be in the Cotton Library be of any credit this too may be deny'd For he expresly says that in a Parliament at London 1214 where the Clergy cum tota laicali secta were present the obligation was by the Popes command wholy releast For my own part I must confess I know not how far this Author may be trusted not finding any mention of so remarkable a passage any where else But though his credit be obscure this is clear that if K. Johns Act were invalid of it self there needed no Act of the Popes to make it so And I take it to be no less clear that it was invalid and that we may spare the labour of inquiring whether the Pope ever gave away what he truly never had The last thing urged is that the Pope admits of no Prescription which if it be true the less reason have we to put our selves upon that trial But I think it is not true For the Canon Law allows Prescription and that against the Church of Rome as well as any other Only by way of Priviledge more time is required to bear her Plea than others But I have already declared I like not to enter into that dispute It depends on Law a study which the Interests and Passions of men have embroyl'd with so many intricate perplexities that 't is little better than a labyrinth without a Clew Nothing in my opinion is more fruitless nor perhaps more dangerous than to submit the Rights of Princes to disputes where there will be alwayes something to say and not half of what is said understood but by men of the Trade Besides there is another Consideration which to my Judgment absolutely excludes this Topick Prescription is a Plea establish't by the Civil and Canon Laws which appoint the cases the persons the times and all conditions of it Who has a Suit depending in a Court where sentence is pronounc't according to those Laws may be concern'd to study the nature of it but with us where neither Law is in force it seems wonderfully from the purpose to amuse our selves with it What have we to do to examin whether our Possession have all the conditions required to Prescription by those Laws which themselves signifie nothing If they pronounce sentence for us we are not a jot the better and if against us not a jot the worse England is a Country Independent of Forreigners and govern'd by Laws and Customs of her own What Emperours and Popes think fit to establish among their Subjects concerns us no more than what we do concerns them By our
claim to Ireland independently of this Grant So that whatever Pope Adrian mean't it is evident his Successors never understood his meaning gave them any right to that Island Nothing is more foolish than to catch at words and interpret the meaning by the sound when we have Actions immemorial practice and custom to guide us securely and assure us the meaning whatever it be cannot be contrary to these Allow that method once and you leave no stability even in what the good of mankind requires should be most stable the settlement of Commonwealths In short if our Kings Title to Ireland be not good there is no good Title in the world At least I know none establish't on a surer foundation And were it the question believe I could make it out But we are not now enquiring what Title our Kings have but whether the Pope have any For which reason I forbear to meddle with the Book you mention which seeks to overthrow the Title of England not to establish that of the Pope Only in short I must acknowledg I never read any thing with more grief nor so much shame The best is the Curs't Cow has wondrous short horns As ill as He means in my opinion he does more good than harm For Truth is well proved when 't is perceived it cannot be disproved but weakly And nothing is weaker than his discourse What is most material is directly contrary to History but his chief business is to bring as you say hard names to prove what is not a jot to purpose when 't is proved He casts away the greatest part of his pains upon the Punctilios required to Prescription by the Civil and Canon Laws in Suits betwixt Subject and Subject and never considers that those Punctilios and those Laws have nothing to do with the case and that the Rights of Princes are establish't upon a higher and more steady Basis than local and mutable constitutions But I have discours'd of this point before and mean not to trouble you with repetitions and that in a Question which concerns me not No better answer can nor other need Hist of the Irish Remonst p. 739. 742. be given to this Book than what was given in Ireland where an 1648. the supreme Council of the Confederat Catholicks caus'd it to be burn't at Kilkenny by the common Hangman and the National Congregation too of the Irish Clergy I mean Roman Catholick at Dublin an 1666. condemn'd it to the same fate And for the rest whoever doubts of his Majesties right to all and every part of his Dominions is a Traitor without more ado and cannot complain if he be us'd like one nor any body for him This answer I conceive may serve for Scotland too with which I shall make short work believing your Jealousies in that particular are not very pressing The only stumbling block that I know in this matter is the letter you cite of Boniface VIII to Edward I. in which Mat. Westm ad an 1301. with a phrase as unintelligible as that of Adrians Bull it is said qualiter ab antiquis temporibus Regnum Scotiae pleno jure pertinuit adhuc pertinere dignoscitur ad Ecclesiam supradictam meaning the Roman And again ex quibus nulli in dubium veniat Regnum Scotiae praelibatum ad praefatam Rom. Ecclesiam pertinere While I read this Letter and the Kings answer I was inclin'd to believe the meaning of this was that the Pope as a common Father of Christendom had right to interpose in emergent differences in Scotland as well as other places I observed that he alledges Debitum Pastoralis Officii for the reason why he meddles and respect to his seat and Person for the motive why the King should yield to his request Again the Ex quibus whence he concludes this subjection are because Scotland used not to admit a Legat not particularly directed to that Kingdom That the Arch Bishop of York could not obtain sentence at Rome in favour of the Primacy claimed by him over the Scottish Churches and that the Kingdom was converted by the Relicks of Saint Andrew These have so little to do with Civil subjection to Rome and what he mentions besides has a great deal less that I could not imagine a Pope from such Premises could draw such a conclusion Besides that the King in his answer does not take the least notice of such a sence But coming to read the answer of the Nobility to whom the King purposely left that point I percieve they understood the words as they sounded I shall therefore give their answer and make an end Your letters being read say they tam sensibus nostris admiranda quam hactenus inaudita in jis audivimus contineri Scimus enim nec ullis temporibus ipsum regnum in temporalibus pertinuit vel pertinet quovis jure ad Ecclesiam vestram supradictam and again nec etiam Reges Scoterum Regnum aliis quam Regibus Angliae subfuerunt vel subjici consueverunt Pursuant hereunto They would not consent the King should send Proctors as the Pope desir'd to Rome to make out his Title there nay they declare They would not permit the King to do it although he would it being too great a prejudice to his known Rights to submit them to Trial. If this do not satisfy I know not what will At least it did satisfy the Pope who in Pol. Virgils words statim refrixit Pol. Virgil lib. 1â— in Ed. â— ut scilicet si pertinacius contenderet ne inhoneste causa caderet and never that I know touch't upon this string more And It must satisfy all Englishmen For it was a resolution of Parliament or at least of a great Council of the Nobility which in those days was equivalent I Am come to the end of your Letter and I think of writing too Unless you do something on your side besides asking questions painful to resolve and fruitless when they are resolved you have my last it may be your full wish my first too For I cannot answer it to reason to continue sowing in barren ground and believe while so much trouble is coming on us all your self would counsel me not to run into more that of breaking my brains to no purpose There has been already said what I hoped might have wrought more favourable inclinations towards us Since the Physick works not whether by your indisposition or its own inefficacy 't is peradventure to play the foolish as well as unskilful Emperick to go on administring But yet since Losers have leave to talk permit me to make use of that liberty it may be the only one which I shall long enjoy As much reason as I have to grieve yet truly I cannot but wonder as much at your proceedings Can it possibly be your interest to keep a party alwayes in fear of the Law and by that fear prompted to wish a change in it I mistake if it be not the
The 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
Vicar I understand now the reason St. Peter commands Christians to be obedient to the Authority of Heathen Princes and Governours because he knew very well how they came by it For though all their power before was usurp'd and tyrannical yet after they had deriv'd it from him it became a lawful Authority If our wicked Politicians be not confounded with this I know not what will do it I am sure I am to meet with such stuff in a Church which boasts of purity of her doctrine and which cherishes the Authors not only as good Christians but learned men and Masters of Christianity Lael Zecch Tract Theol. P. 81. Laelius Zecchius tells us that the Pope by the Law of God hath power and temporal dominion over the whole world That the same is prov'd by the words Luk. 22. Behold here are two swords which signifie the power spiritual and temporal and because Christ whose Vicar the Pope is hath both powers according to the words Matt. ult All power is given me in heaven and in earth that thence it may be deduced that the Pope is absolutely Lord of all the Christian world and Kings and Christian Princes are to acknowledge that they hold of him their Empires and Kingdoms and all that are faithful ought to be subject unto him and that as oft as such Princes do any great hurt in the Church the Pope may deprive them of their Kingdoms and transfer their right to others Franciscus Bozius Fran. Boz de temp Eccle. Monarch l. 1. c. 3. p. 52. C. 7. p. 98. That the supreme temporal Jurisdiction throughout all the world doth belong to S. Peter's Successors so as one and the same is the Hierarch and Monarch in all things That Christ left the Church to be govern'd by the best form of government but the best form of government is absolute Monarchy even in all temporal things therefore Christ left his Church to be so govern'd That the Keys of Heaven were given to Peter L. 2. c. 14. L. 3. c. 1. p. 894. therefore of all the earth That the right of dominion and relation of Infidels may justly by the sentence and ordination of the Church be taken away because Infidels by reason of their infidelity deserve to lose their power over the faithful C. 14. p. 530. c. 14. p. 530. That the Church hath receiv'd that power over Nations which Christ according to his humane nature reciev'd of his Father but Christ receiv'd absolutely of his Father all power in temporalibus therefore the Church likewise receiv'd it by participation of his fulness c. 16. p. 537. That the supreme coactive power in all temporal things belongeth to Ecclesiastical persons by divine Law revealed and expressed in the Scriptures That Kings P. 676. annointed with holy Oil are called as Vassals of the Church That by reason of the supreme Monarchy in all things L. 5. p. 823. temporal laws may be made and Kingdoms taken away for just causes Henricus Gandavensis if Carrerius cite him truly Car. p. 28. That by the Law of God and nature the Priesthood doth over-top the Empire and both Jurisdiction over Spiritualties and Temporalties and the immediate execution likewise of them both depend upon the Priesthood both by the Law of God and Nature Carr. p. 130. Antoninus That they who say the Pope hath dominion over all the world in Spirituals but not in Temporals are like the Counsellors of the King of Syria who said the Gods of the Mountains are their Gods and therefore they have overcome 〈◊〉 let us fight with them in the Plains and Valleys where their Gods dwell not and we shall prevail against them Carr. p. 130. 3 Reg. 20. Augustinus Triumphus That the Son of God hath declar'd the altitude of the Ecclesiastical power being as it were founded upon a Rock to be above all principality and power that unto it all knees should bend of things in heaven in earth and under the earth or in hell 'T is come at last this infernal power 't was only long of a bad memory we had it not before P. 131. That Secular Powers were not necessary but that Princes might perform that through terror of discipline which the Priest cannot effect by power of doctrine and that therefore if the Church could punish evil men Imperial and Secular principality were not necessary the same being included potentially in the principality Apostolical And why cannot the Church punish evil men if both Jurisdictions and the immediate execution of both be in her But we understand him well enough when time serves the conclusion shall be that Princes are unnecessary because the Church by her double power can do the business of the world without them And so farewel useless Princes Aug. de Anc. de Potest Ecc. Q. 39. a. 2. Farther he tells us that Imperial or Regal power is borrowed from the Papal or Sacerdotal for as much as concerneth the formality of dignity and recieving the authority Pretty formalities those Q. 45. a. 2. That the Pope hath Jurisdiction over all things as will temporal as spiritual through the world That he may absolve Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance Q. 46. a. 3. That upon just cause he may set up a King in every Kingdom L. Conr. in templ om judic l. 2 c. 1. S 4. for he is the Overseer of all Kingdoms in Gods stead as God is the Supervisor and maker of all Kingdoms Lancecelot Conradus That He may appoint Guardians and Assistants to Kings and Emperors when they are insufficient and unfit for government That he may depose them and transfer their Empires and Dominions from one line to another Celsus Mancinus Cel. Manc l c. 1. That in the highest Bishop both the Powers and Jurisdictions are spiritual and temporal and that as he is the most eminent person of all men in spiritual power Th. Boz de jur stat l. 1. c. 6. p. 37. P. 52. so he is in temporal Thomas Bozius That Kings and principal Seculars are not immediately of God but by the Interposition of Holy Church and her chief Bishops That warlike and military compulsive power is given to the Church over Kings and Princes That if it be found sometimes that certain Emperors have given some temporalities to the highest Bishops as Constantine gave to Silvester this is not to be understood that they gave any thing which was their own but restor'd that which was unjustly and tyrannically taken from the said Bishops Ap. Carrer P. 132. Rodoricus Sancius That there is one Principlity and one supreme-Prince over all the world who is Christ's Vicar according to that of Dan. c 8. He hath given him power and honour and rule and all people and tongues shall serve him and that in him therefore is the fountain and spring of all principality and from him all other powers do flow P. 131. 132 That
the Bishop of Rome in place of Christ is set as a Prince over the whole world in spirituals and temporals and that it is naturally morally and by the Law of God to be held with a right faith that the Principality of the Bishop of Rome is the true and only immediate Principality of the whole world not only as touching things spiritual but likwise temporal and the Imperial Principality is depending upon it as being mediate ministerial and instrumental ministring and serving it and that it is ordained and instituted by it and at the commandment of the Papal Principality is moveable revocable corrigible and punishable I marry Here 's a man speaks to purpose Hang this squemish faint-heartedness which serves for nothing but to cover an ugly face with a vizor as ugly We know well enough what the mincing indirect in ordine ad spiritualia power would be at and 't is a great deal better to speak plainly for Orthodox truths such as concern the Law of God and right faith should be spoken so that people may understand them and know their duty As for Kings they are likely to boggle as much at the mask as the face If they be turn'd out of their Kingdoms and reduc'd to beggery the beggery will be direct beggery whatever the power is which brought them to it and this fine distinction but uncomfortable alms One would think this fellow were not to be match't and what think you of him who says in down-right terms Alvar. Pelagius de planctu Eccl. l. 1. a 37. That the Pope hath the propriety of the Western Empire and the rest of the world in protection and tuition He bids fair this man but of all commend me to Jacobus de Terano who explicating that scurvey text Tract Monarch· Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars tells us It was spoken but for a time not for ever that it was to hold only til the Ascension of Christ and afterwards that should come to pass which was spoken when I shall be lifted up from the earth I will draw all things after me that is I will recover all the Empires and Kingdoms of the world and will take them from Caesar from Kings and Princes to give them to the Pope I have not met with any who bids fairer for the purple than this man And so I leave him and the rest of your learned Authors for though more men might be alledged and more from these men yet in truth I am weary and must pass over sundry passages of profound learning and useful knowledge as that Papa is deriv'd from the Interjection Pape Moscon p. 22. because his dignity and power is admirable to all men and is as it were the amazement of the World according to the Gloss in the Proeme of the Clementines Papa stupor mundi non Deus non homo sed utrumque That he is God best defin'd by negation Manch l. 3. c. 1. Carrer p. 132. so that if one ask whether the highest Bishop be a Duke a King an Emperor to answer warily we should by denying affirm the Pope to be quid praestantius quidve eminentius So that we may hope one day to see a mystical Theology made for the Pope and the inaccessible mystery of his power declar'd by negations Moscon p. 92. That unto the Pope as Pastor of the Church Lanc. Conrad l. 2. c. 1. S. 4. and Bishop of that holy Sea and by reason of his dominion and excellence is given Adoratio Duliae such worship as belongs to Saints and Reliques Besides I have seen cited That he is holden to be Christ's Vicar not only in respect of things in earth August Triump q. 18. a. 2. in Heaven and in Hell but even over Angels both good and bad That he is greater than Angels as touching dominion not in respect of himself merely but by Authority from God and may be superior to any Angels concerning recompence of reward art 5. and may excomunicate them That he is equal to God and can make something of nothing and wrong to be right and such pretty matters which if the ears of you Catholics were not as much hardned as the hearts of us Heretics would sound a little odly But to our purpose The method of discourse requires now that I should apply these sayings to the matter in hand but the application is so easie and obvious that to spend time in it must needs be equally tedious and needless For pray tell me can any Commonwealth be safe or subsist at all if Princes have no dominion but what they receive from the Pope If they hold their Empires and Kingdoms of him if they may absolve their subjects from allegeance and transfer their rights from one line to another If they be his Ministers his Vassals his Subjects If their power be ministerial and subservient to the Papal to be exercis'd at his beck and be at his command both corrigible and revocable If any thing be plain in the world this is that either Princes must be taken out of the world or these Maxims For without more ado he that makes a Prince be a Subject makes him no Prince speaking as I do of absolute Princes Wherefore leaving these things and their application to your consideration I turn my self to reflect on what I concieve you may reply Two things there are which I have heard alledged in your behalf with some appearance but not much substance First that notwithstanding all this Catholic Princes do live safely and govern quietly and therefore to conclude these doctrines are inconsistent with government is to conclude that cannot be done which we plainly see is done Next that while men are men there will be quot capita tot sententiae that nature is not furnisht with means to confine the fancies of private men to the limits of strict reason that these are problematical Questions which particular men dispute into probabilities but for which the Church is not responsible having never either defined or otherwise ingaged her authority for them To the first I reply that a certain King took poyson so long that it became food to him and yet I think poyson for all that a very dangerous thing and very inconsistent with health The Princes you mention have Antidotes undoubtedly with which I am not acquainted but let the Antidote be never so good poyson will be poyson still And truly I think Sir Thomas Moor did honestly when finding some passages in the book which Henry the 8th writ against Luther of which by the King's command he had the perusal and in which he thought the Pope was complemented a little too far he represented to the King that one day possibly they might fall out as afterwards they did and that then He might wish some things unsaid While those Princes and the Pope continue friends they need not much apprehend and possibly are not much accquainted with what passes amongst
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
will the Pope looks quietly on lets them cool and take breath and too 't again and this is fair play But to depress one side and cherish the other and this vigorously and constantly is something odd for probabilities In the name of wonder are Schism and Heresie probable amongst you into which one side of your probabilities alwayes runs Or is it an approv'd custom amongst you to excommunicate for probabilities In fine say what you will I cannot think otherwise but that these probabilities of yours are as improbable as any thing in the world Then for your other pretence that the Church all this while interposes not either all words universally have conspir'd together to abuse us and make us understand nothing even of the plainest or there is no sence in it One would think that Church in Spirituals is as state in Temporals Now if two Princes fall out and the King of France for example assist the one with council and forces and the endeavours of his Ministers we say usually and I think pertinently that the State of France is engaged on that side and he who should deny it would be thought deficient either in his language or his wits For can a more pleasant paradox be invented than that an Army marching by commission of the King of France owning his orders and He their actions were all the while but a company of particular men in whose doings the King and State are unconcern'd Now for King say Pope and for State say Church and where is the difference Notwithstanding as I am not much acquainted with quirks and fear the subtle Distinguo and the triccum de schold as much as the triccum de lege I will not undertake but that amongst so many school Physitians as you have some Logical plaister may be found out which you may apply to this sore But this I see that whatever effect a distinction may have in the Schools it will do no manner of good in the world For if the men of your Church persecute other men they will be no less persecuted whether your Church do this as a Church or under some other formality The world is a material thing and formalities alter not its settled course Discredit and want and pain are materiall things and when they fall upon a man he will be ill at ease in spite of all the belief formalities can afford him And if material Subjects rebell against a material King and drive him out of his material Kingdom I think it matters not much what formalities there were in the case I suppose he will be little the better by learning his Subjects did not act as Subjects nor treat him as a King and his new acquaintance with those subtle empty forms I fear will yield him small comfort If your formalities can preserve or restore Kingdoms if they can make honest men of Traitors if they can restore the credit of private men and relieve their wants and ease their distresses I shall acknowledge they are worth hearkning after But if they can do none of these things the Schools that invented them had even best keep them to themselves and much good may they do them The world has neither need nor use of them for real mischiefs are not cur'd by verbal distinctions We complain that the material Governor of your Church arrogates to himself a power dangerous to Princes and that the material men of your Church maintain him in it and both together hotly prosecute All who are not as hot as themseves Tell not me the Church indeed does this but not as a Church for as a Church or not as a Church she does it and if the mischief be done what matter is it how Withrington ended his uncomfortable dayes in prison Walsh is in a fair way to the same preferment Thousands of people were ruin'd thousands destroy'd in Italy and Germany upon the contests betwixt the Pope and Emperor in France upon the Holy League and what happened in those places may happen every where 'T is a remedy for these mischiefs which I look after and security that they shall not one day happen here not the formality by which they were done For in fine a formal plaister to a material wound is but good words to him who is hungry We had our formalities too and our distinctions in the late war and heard enough of the politic capacity and the personal capacity but they neither abated any thing of the publick misery nor the deserv'd punishment inflicted on the witty Authors Our Pagan Juries found them guilty for all their acuteness and their sophistry had no effect with the illiterate Hangman and undistinguishing Halter We had the formalities of Justice to boot but they serv'd for nothing but to render a fact execrable in it self more barbarous and more inhumane You may have more and other formalities but after all they will be but formalities and not a jot more useful than ours You shall permit me to conclude with a Dilemma which I would recommend to your serious thoughts Either your Church it engag'd in these Positions or she is not if she be she is unexcusable for holding them if not you are unexcusable for not renouncing them when without injury to her authority or your own consciences you may I would gladly receive an answer to this Paper or rather a return for I do not think any answer can be made However I entreat you by all our friendship to let me know what you can say Having found you both rational and ingenious in other points you must needs satisfie the curiosity I have to know whether you will disclaim your Church or your reason for certainly you must make bold with one and the best I suppose will be but a bad choice As you are all brought up in a wonderful reverence to your Church I know it will be hard for you to acknowledge any thing amiss in Her and yet on the other side I think it will go against the hair of your temper to part with your reason and that you may be thought a good Son of your Church be content to be thought no good man as certainly he is not whose actions are not warranted by his reason Pray think not the worse of my friendship that I put you to so hard a choice Reason is the measure of friendship as of other virtues and we cannot sin against friendship by acting according to reason Besides Friend you live in a Communion disapprov'd by Law and unmaintainable by Reason and I think 't is the part of a friend to tell you so Wherefore once again pray think not the worse of me and be assured that whatever you think I truly am Your Faithful Friend and Servant SIR I Received your long Letter with the obligation you lay upon me to answer it and heartily wish you had made use of the power you have over me in some other occasion This subject is a kind of Candle to Flyes
his I am taught to love my neighbour as my self because I am satisfy'd the way in which I am is the way to Heavean I wish every body would chuse it But if you think me a dangerous person for this you must think Reason a dangerous thing which he that fears to be trapand let me tell you is more trapan'd by his own fears You talk pleasantly of half Catholicks and motly Religion but I think you expect no answer and need not be put in mind that Religion as sacred as it is cannot hinder men from using their weak apprehensions and disorderly fancies and irregular deductions as well upon it as every thing else and he that shall take all that for Faith which every even faithful man offers him may too truly say inopem me copia fecit and find perhaps at last that too much Religion has left him none at all For the new trouble with which you threaten me I hope the more you examine my answer the less cause of exception you will find against it Nevertheless if you do prove dissatisfy'd I will endeavour when I know why to satisfie you as well as I can The noble Person cite was unquestionably a wise man and his saying is a wise saying and I am of his mind and wish such an Authentick definition made in this matter with all my heart But Friend I am no Pope to make one and though I am perswaded an Authentick definition of truth might produce very good effects I fear an unseasonable dispute might do as much harm Those two Powers like two boundless Seas have sometimes strugled together and in their unresistable Waves buried multititudes of unhappy People We may bless God we live in a calm disputes might raise the billows again and who knows when they would be laid I could speak with Freedom to you but since you talk of communicating what I say to others consider that one will mistake ignorantly another pervert wilfully a third deduce rashly and in a matter of this consequence where our duty required by the Law of God is concern'd all interpose eagerly and the most ignorant being still the most forward and full of noise the great good you fancy by setting bounds to the two Powers would prove clamour and bustle and inextricable confusion and if any miscarriage-happen all will be imputed to the Author who as innocent as he may otherwise be can never yet acquit himself of medling with what he has nothing to do No Friend let us preserve the Majesty of Supream Powers in an awful distance and submit to them with the reverence of a quiet obedience and not make them cheap by unseasonable disputes Princes and Bishops are both sacred let what belongs to them be so too and not toucht without the excuse of necessity or obligation of duty But People should know how to behave themselves when the two Powers are at odds For my part I conceive this is a Case which may safely be left to Gods providence and that those who do amiss sin more by Passion then Ignorance Let a man truly mean to do well and bring an upright Conscience to he Action and I believe he will not want as much knowledge as is necessary for him This I see that God being Author of both Powers it is not possible they should enterfare but by an abuse of the one and that abuse will be visible enough and when the case happens those who do not want honesty will not miscarry for want of knowledge In the mean time I should be very sorry to see the case happen I will not contribute towards it so much as even to mention it Obedience is the duty which God and my condition require from me and in the performance of that I will endeavour to be found unblamable and leave disputing to those who value the praise of a witty or subtle man above that of a faithful and quiet subject Besides though I might possibly hit of something more then is usually say'd on the argument which in my Opinion uses to be treated lamely enough yet I take it much to exceed the sphere of my ability In two words it is a question which I neither could sufficiently handle if I would nor would if I could But for your second question since it trenches as you say upon Faith and we are taught to be ready to give satisfaction to any who demands an account of the hope in us I shall obey the Apostle and you to my power You tie me nevertheless to pretty severe conditions for what is there or can there be so plain which mistaking zeal will not reprove or what other remedy can I bring to settle your quietness then Reason which yet I conceive to be be the very thing which causes it The onely expedient I can find to speak as you would have me is to say nothing at all I mean of my self farther then to deliver upon occasion may sence of what others say but answer your objection in the words of such men of whom you may be secure they will run no hazard of reproof from our Church and if your Reason can as well rectifie your self as their Authority will justifie them I hope you may at last be satisfy'd Remember then if you please that I take not upon me to determine dogmatically what is true and what false but only to acquaint you what may by a Catholicek unreprovably be said Peradventure I have no reason to be displeas'd with the bargain for dogmatising being so much out of Fashion in this age it is a great deal more easie as well as more fashionable to deliver what other men say to the point then to handle and conclude the point it self But to your difficulty The Pope say you is acknowledg'd by Catholicks to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth and I acknowledge that he is so From this you frame such an Argument What power Christ had the Pope has Christ had all power therefore the Pope has so too and this by an Article of our Faith Before I answer let me intreat you to consider what work 't would make if it were apply'd to Princes instead of Popes which I think it may as well be For if the Pope be the Vicar of Christ on Earth Princes are the Vicars of God on Earth and that I think is as good and reaches as far And if his Vicarship import a power to dispose of Kingdomes why will not their Vicarship import the power of the Keys and why may not he who purely upon the score of Vicarship comes to the Pope for a Title to a Kingdom as well go to his King for Remission of his sins If the Pope must be said to have the temporal Power as well as spiritual because Vicar includes both I see not how Princes can be deny'd to have the spiritual since they have the temporal and are Vicars as well as he This Doctrine would make brave work and introduce a
Emperour receive Baptism from the Bishop the Sacraments Penance desire their Prayers their Benediction lastly you administer humane he dispenses divine things to you Greg. the 2d Ep. 13. to the Emperour Leo As the Bishop has no power to look into the Palace and meddle with regal dignity dignitates regales deferendi so neither has the Emperour to look into the Church c. Bishops are therefore set over Churches abstaining from the business of the Comwonwealth that Princes in like manner may abstain from Ecclesiastical matters Leo 4. 2. q. 7. c. Nos si incompetenter It is to be noted that there are two Persons by which the World is governed the Royal and the Sacerdotal As Kings preside in the affairs of the World so Priests in what belongs to God It belongs to Kings to inflict corporal to Priests to inflict spiritual punishment He Judex carries the Sword for punishment of the bad and praise of the good these Preists have the Keys to exclude the excommunicate and reconcile the penitent Nicolas 3d. C. Inter haec 32. q. 2. The holy Church of God is not govern'd by worldly Laws she has no Sword but the Spiritual with which she doth not kill but quicken Adrian the first in the Council of Franckfort seems to me with one little word to explain very well the Commission given to St. Peter Peter sayd he in reward of his confession was made Porter of Heaven and had power to bind and loose so much we already know 't is recorded in Scripture but what was it he could bind and loose Souls says the Pope These Popes understood and us'd their power as well as most of their Successours and they knew nothing of Temporal power but confin'd what was given them to spiritual and divine things and care of the Soul And that this too is the sense of the Church I think will appear by the Prayer us'd on the Feast of St. Peters Chair which antiently ran thus O God who by giving the Keys of Heaven hast deliver'd to Peter the Pontifical dignity of binding and loosing Souls This last word Souls is left out of the latter Editions I suppose to render the Prayer more conformable to the expressions of Scripture and peradventure to keep more close to antiquity of which they are very tenacious at Rome for Platina in the Life of Leo 4th delivers the rude draught of this Prayer whence 't is likely the Prayer was taken without that word But the meaning with the word and without is the same Words may alter but the Churches sense alters not But let us hear some other of the Fathers Hosius Bishop of Corduba who presided in the Council of Nice and was counted in his time the Father of Bishops writes thus to the Emperour Constantius God has committed the Empire to you Vid. Athan. Ep. ad Solicitarios and entrusted us with what belongs to the Church And as he who looks upon your Empire with envious Eyes contradicts the divine Ordination so do you take heed that by drawing affairs of the Church to you you incur a great crime It is written give what is Caesars to Caesar and what is Gods to God Wherefore neither is it lawful for us to take an Empire on Earth neither does the Power of Sacrifices and holy things belong to you S. Jo. Chrysost hom 4. in verb. Isaiae Bodies are committed to Kings Souls to Priests He has material those spiritual Arms. S. Hierom. in cap. 16. Mat. The Spiritual Key extends not it self to Temporals without Arrogance Theophylac upon John 21. Our Lord makes Peter not a Prince not a King but commands him to be a Pastour Feed says he not Kill c. S. Anselm upon Mat. 26. There are secular Officers by whom Temporal things and Spiritual Officers by whom Spiritual things are managed Wherefore the material Sword is given to carnal and the Spiritual to Spiritual Officers and as what belongs to the Church is not proper for Kings so neither ought the Bishop to meddle with what belongs to Kings Which because Peter who represents spiritual men did when he us'd the material Sword and cut off our Servants Ears he deserv'd to be reprehended by our Lord. Hugo de san Victor de sacr fid l. 2. p. 3. c. 4. Earthly Power has the King for Heads Spiritual Power the Pope Earthly things and all ordained for earthly Life belong to the power of the King Spiritual things and all belonging to Spiritual life to the Pope Again l. 2. p. 2. c. 3. It is given to the faithful Christian Laity to possess Temporals to the Clergy onely Spirituals are committed St. Bernard speaks thus to the Pope De consid l. 1. c. 6. Your Power is not in Possessions but in Crimes and for these not for them you have received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven Consider Hugo's onely Spirituals and St. Bernards not for Possessions or Temporals and judge whether a Catholick is like to be reproved for not extending the Popes power beyond Spirituals And in his 2d Book speaking of Temporals Be it says he that you may some other way challenge these things but not by the right of Apostleship for he Peter could not give what he had not himself what he had that he gave the care as I said over Churches Rupertus Abbas upon these words nor a Rod Mat. 10. speaks thus But now there are two Rods one of the Kings of Gentiles another of the Disciples of Christ The Rod of of the Kings of Gentiles is the Rod of Dominion the Rod of the Disciples of Christ is the Rod of Direction the Rod of Pastoral duty solicitously watching over the cure of Souls The Rod which is of Dominion is not granted to the Ministers of the Gospel of Peace and that is forbidden here nor a Rod c. Cardinal Damianus L. 4. Ep. 9. ad Olderic Episc Firman Between the Kingdom and Priesthood the proper Offices of each are distinguisht that the King may make use of the Arms of the World and the Priest be girt with the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God If any Object that Pope Leo engaged himself often in War who nevertheless is a Saint I say what I think that neither Peter obtained the Apostolical Principality because he denied Christ nor David deserved the Oracle of Prophecy because defiled another mans Bed Schoolmen as they speak more plainly are a little more severe Almain de Authorit Eccles c. 2. puts this difference betwixt Ecclesiastical and Lay power that by this onely corporeal punishment is inflicted by other Spiritual precisely Joan. de Parisiis c. 10. de potest Reg. Pap. Granting that Christ had temporal authority and plwer yet gave it not to Peter c. 15. Answering the Objection from Quodcunque solveritis c. I answer with Chrysostom and Ravanus by this is not understood any power given but Spiritual to absolve from the bond of Sins and it were foolish
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
But if they will not and become bad there is none according to S. Thomas who has power to condemn them Alex. Alensis in Psal 50. I have sinn'd to Thee alone because there is no other above me who can punish me For I am a King and none is above me but you alone And Part. 3. A King is above all and therefore to be judged by God alone since he has not any man who can judge his actions nor is to be punisht by man But if any of the People sin they sin both against God and the King Nicholaus de Lyra. I have sinn'd to Thee alone as my Judge and who has power to punish for he had sinned against Vrias and others slain upon this occasion Yet because he was a King he had no superiour Judge to punish him but God Otho Frisingens Ep. ad Frederic before his Chronic. Whilst no person is found in the world who is not subject to the Laws of the world and by that subjection kept in awe Kings alone as being above Laws and reserved to the Divine Judgment are not aw'd by the Laws of the world Witness that both King and Prophet I have sinned to Thee alone Joan. de Turrenm in Psal 50. I have sinn'd to Thee alone as my Judge and who has power to punish me because Thou alone art above me who canst judge my Crimes Dio Vega in conc Vespert super Psal 50. con 2. Wherefore leaving them we must go the common way with the Fathers of the Church Hierom Austin Ambrose Chrysostome and Cassiodorus who say that David therefore us'd these words because being a Soveraign King he was subject to none but God accountable to the Laws of none and none but God could punish his sin For a King though he be subject to the Directive power of the Law yet is not to the Coactive Joan. de Pineda upon 34. Job For if a King or Prince will not willingly obey the Law who can oblige or by force constrain him Yet let Princes understand at last that if they do not of their own will keep the Law they shall render an account to the Supream King and be punisht for the Violation of Justice I conclude with a Jesuite Lorinus upon Psal 50. I have sinn'd to Thee alone viz. as alone knowing or having power to punish his sin who was a King and had no Superior None can say Apostate to a King or call Judges wicked unless he will be thought wicked himself as Chrysostom and Nicetas and Cyril in this place note I hope by this time you will acknowledge it was a superfluous care of yours for the security of Princes if that were your reason which made you so sollicitous for the immediate power For whatever become of that this is universally fixt That Kings are accountable to none but God And I think you need not much care what people say in a question disputed amongst Learned men when that for whose sake you desire it should be resolv'd is it self so fully resolv'd to your hand To deal with sincerity I should acquaint you what shifts they make to escape the weight of this Authority who undertake to abett a Power paramount in the Pope But they are such plain shifts that in truth I have not patience to insist upon them Some say this held among the Jewish Kings who were above the Priesthood but holds not among Christians who are subject to it as if Christian Princes were less absolute than those of the Jews or Christianity took away the Right of any body much less Princes I alwaies thought that much good had come to the world by Christian Religion and the concerns of Mankind went on more sweetly and more strongly but that it should be guilty of so great a mischief as to shake the foundations of Government so beneficial and necessary to humane Nature is a scandal which methinks a Christian ear should not hear with patience And Bellarmin give him his due as much a favourer of the Pope as he is in this yet is more a friend to Truth and tells us De Rom. Pont. L. 1. c. 29. That the Gospel deprives no man of his Right and Dominion but gets him a new right to an eternal Kingdom Nor have Kings less power in the New Testament than they had in the old And yet He with his distinctions betwixt Fact and Right Power direct and indirect with one whereof he still endeavours to ward all blows makes as mad work and reduces things to as much confusion I shall say nothing to them more than to entreat you to be Judge your self and consider whether in what I have alledged there be any room for those Inventions and whether the Doctrine be not delivered too plainly to be put off with such evasions And so I come to your Second Point and for the fear you have of Bellarmin's Argument peradventure it were Answer enough to say That S. Bernard understood what was meant by the word Feed as well at least as Bellarmin and he notwithstanding all the Cardinals acuteness tells Pope Eugenius L. 4. c. 3. that to Feed is to Evangelize Perform saies he the work of an Evangelist and you have fulfilled the duty of a Pastour Again Serm. de Resurrect Feed with your Mind with your Mouth with your Actions feed with prayer of the Mind exhortation of the Word proposal of Example I suppose no good Catholic but will side with S. Bernard rather than Bellarmin for as great a Schollar as Bellarmin was he is not yet thought a match for S. Bernard But neither is he alone of this mind Petrus Blesensis saies almost in the same words Ep. 148. What is to Feed the Sheep but to Evangelize to render the People acceptable to God by Word by Work by Example And thus Innocent III. and a great many more are cited by Caron to interpret this word Feed so that all the Cardinal 's subtle speculations upon the metaphor us'd in the Gospel hinder not the Argument from being as insignificant as you and more besides you to my knowledge think it And if I have not yet said enough to it hearken a little to S. Chrysost de Sacerd. L. 2. It is not lawful for a man to cure a Man with the same Authority with which a Shepheard cures his Sheep For here it is free to bind and restrain from pasture and burn and cut There the Medicine and power of the cure is not in him who Administers but in him who is Sick But we shall hear more of him anon Mean time since the Point you have propos'd besides your recommendation deserves in it self more consideration than this Argument Let me tell you for your satisfaction That those who treat these things put many differences betwixt the Spiritual and Civil power from the manner of Institution the ends at which they aim the means they use to their several ends c. That which I conceive most to your purpose is
Iconoclast I value them not Thus then stood things in the vvorld when Hildebrand Archdeacon of the Church of Rome was chosen to the Papacy in the year 1083 and called Gregory the VIIth The Contests which in his daies began betwixt the Spiritual and Civil Power are the reason I suppose why he is so differently represented by those who vvrite of him His Enemies give him the Character of an Imperious Tyrannical and several waies Wicked Man his Friends on the other side praise him as much and affirm he was a man of great Prudence and Vertue and so far that it hath been attested by several Miracles And for my own part I must confess I incline to believe well of him For he had been the support of the Papacy during the time of several Popes his Parts and Industry having drawn upon him the greatest weight of all business and was so far from aspiring to that dignity that if Baronius say true He treated with the Emperour not to consent to his Election assuring him before hand that if he did He would be very severe against the Abuses practic'd in his Court. Besides if Sigonius may be believ'd and the passages he relates vvhich can hardly be read vvithout horrour the Emperour was a very Wicked Man but that which concerns this matter was That all Benefices were with all the Licentiousness of a depraved Court expos'd to sale and He that could Fee a Courtier was vvithout Merit or even Capacity possest of the most considerable Preferments of the Church As this vvas a mischief palpably destructive to all Goodness so 't is not incredible from the irregularity of a debauch'd Court. And if the Pope desir'd to have it remedied the end he propos'd was but what became him if the means had been so too I am the more inclin'd to believe this true because the Germans in a great measure took part with the Pope forct the Emperour to comply and after several Traverses at last took the Crown from him and plac'd it on his Son However it were the Emperour notwithstanding the Popes Remonstrances gives consent to the Election and confirms him and the Pope was as good as his word And first Excommunicates those who should receive Investitures of Benefices from Laymen afterwards the Laymen who should grant them and lastly provok'd by the Emperour who in a Synod at Wormes had forbidden Obedience to him Excommunicates and deposes the Emperour himself And this iâ— the first unquestionable Example of this kind which has appear'd in the Christian World Bellarmin indeed and his Followers would make us believe there are Examples more Ancient but in my opinion he proves them not well and you see Onuphrius counts them but Fables and those of that Age at least those vvho favoured the Emperour exclaim'd against it as a Novelty unheard of not to call it Heresie as one faies But though the thing were now done it appears not yet in vertue of what Power 't was done As that Age was not I think extraordinary subtle the distinctions of Direct and Indirect Power were not yet found out and the Pope himself speaks in common That the care of the Christian World and Authority to bind and loose was committed to him confiding in the Judgment and Mercy of God and Patronage of the B. Virgin and supported by the Authority of SS Peter and Paul c. but descends not to particulars So that it appears not whether he acted in vertue of a Spiritual or Temporal Power Directly or Indirectly and 't is likely he speculated not so far One thing is pretty remarkable in his second Sentence for he made two which ends in this manner After he had commanded all concerned to withdraw their Obedience from Henry and yield it to Rudolphus speaking as he does all along to the Apostles SS Peter and Paul You then See the words in Platina saies he most holy Princes of the Apostles confirm what I have said by your Authority that all men at last may understand if you can bind and loose in Heaven we likewise on Earth may give and take away Empires Kingdoms Principalities and whatever mortals can have Let Kings and all Princes of the World understand by his Example what you can do in Heaven and what power you have with God and hereafter fear to contemn the commands of the Holy Church And shew this Judgment upon Henry quickly that all Sons of Iniquity may perceive that he falls from his Kingdom not by chance but by your means This nevertheless I desire from you that by Repentance he may at your request find favour of our Lord at the day of Judgment For my part I cannot imagine but a man who speaks thus must needs mean uprightly and think at least he does well Notwithstanding the Apostles did not do as he desir'd them For this Rudulphus after he had fought twice upon equal terms with the Emperour was overthrown in the third Battle and so wounded in the right hand that he dy'd of it and dy'd full of Repentance and acknowledgment of his own fault and the Justice of God who had deservedly punisht him in that hand with which he had formerly sworn Fealty and Service to his Lord. So that though I believe the Pope thought himself much in the right yet the Court of Heaven thought not fit to grant his Request but ordered things quite contrary to his expectation and desire The next famous Example is of Frederic the IId a Prince of great Power and Parts who falling out with several Popes as resolute as himself after several breaches at several times made up and several Sentences publisht and recall'd and renew'd again was at last with the astonishment and horrour of all present saies M. Paris solemnly Excommunicated and depos'd in the Councel of Lions And this made both Princes and Prelates begin to look about them foreseeing that if this deposing Power should go on a slight Pretence might at last serve turn to unthrone perhaps an Innocent Man and bring the vvorld into confusion which possibly was the cause the Popes Sentence was not executed For this Frederic notwithstanding those proceedings kept the Empire till his death which happened long after But still I see not any ground to judge whether the Power were yet thought Direct or Indirect and in likelyhood People had in common a great Veneration for the Supream Pastour and his Decrees and thought them wicked men vvho submitted not to them but what kind of Power he had and hovv far it extended as far as I can perceive they little considered 'T is observable both in this Sentence and the former of Gregory VII that the Emperour is first Deposed and afterwards Excommunicated in aggravation as it were of the former Penalty The business was a little more discust in the Contests betwixt Boniface the VIIIth and Philip the Fair of France As this Pope is Recorded for a man of more mettle than Vertue his proceedings were
Violent but having to do with a Prince both Resolute and Prudent he found but bad success The Pope perswades the King to an expedition into the Holy Land to promote vvhich business He exacts the Tithes of Church Livings in France and reserves the Collation of all Benefices there to himself The King excuses the one and plainly denies the other The hot Pope sends the Bishop of Apamea to threaten him with Censures and Deposition unless he yielded to him The King calls the States and upon Consultation with them resolves the Legat deserv'd to be imprisoned but for reverence to the See Apostolic banishes him and for his Threats contemns them The Legat not content to scape scot-free falls a new to Threats which the King resenting commits him to custody to the Metropolitan The Pope complains of the breach of Ecclesiastical Immunity and commands his Legat should be immediately return'd These Letters being read in an Assembly of the States the Count of Arras as hot every jot as the Pope throws them into the fire This put the Pope quite out of patience Wherefore he Cites both King and Bishops to Rome where he had appointed a Synod and in the mean time declares the Kingdom of France for Contumacy Felony and Violating the Law of Nations devolved to the Apostolic See writing thus peremptorily to the King We would have you to know that you are subject to us both in Spirituals and Temporals and who thinks otherwise we repute Heretics The King upon the receipt of these Letters calls the States again and by their Advice frames an Answer every jot as smart and something more homely We would have your foolishness know we are subject to none in Temporals and who thinks otherwise we take for mad men And withal appeals to a future General Councel and objects several Crimes to the Pope to be made good when the Councel should sit and in the mean time forbids all intercourse vvith Rome This Answer being brought to Rome by three Bishops deputed for that purpose the Pope began to be startled and at last confesses That to usurp the Kings Jurisdiction belonged not to him nevertheless that in respect of Sin the King could not deny but he was subject to the Pope This put them to examine how far and in what manner he was subject to him and one of the Cardinals in a Consistory in which the French Embassadours were present resolves the case in this manner That Supream Dominion belong'd properly to the Pope but the Administration to Kings and therefore all Christian Kings vvere subject to the judgment of the Pope even in Temporals in regard of his Supream Dominion But this satisfi'd not the Embassadours at Rome and the States in France resuming the Debate declar'd positively the King in Temporals vvas subject to God alone and ow'd his Crown and Power only to him Nevertheless this Subjection on the account of Sin seems to be the ground of the distinction betwixt Direct and Indirect Power though I conceive it borrowed from Innocent the IVth some time before upon occasion of a Contest betwixt John King of England and Philip Augustus of France vvho prosecuting the King of England for default of Homage for some Dukedoms in France c. King John appeals to the Pope Philip maintained that being a Temporal business he had nothing to do vvith it The Pope was vvilling to favour the English and therefore assumes cognisance of the Cause upon pretence that there was an Oath in the case the violation of vvhich being Sin belong'd properly to his Tribunal And this Resolution having been put into a Decree and that Decree into the Canon-Law seems the principal foundation of Indirect Power I must confess I do not well understand how either this Canon which is in the Decretals C. Novit Ille de Judiciis or the other C. per Venerabilem Qui filii sint legitimi which are the two usually cited both of Innocent III. make to the purpose The former was made upon the occasion now mentioned and in it the Pope speaks thus We intend not to Judge of the Fee whereof the cognisance belongs to him the King but to decree of the Sin whereof the Censure without doubt pertains to us which we may and ought to exercise on every one None of sound Judgment is ignorant that it belongs to our Office to correct every Christian for any mortal Sin and if he despise Correction to constrain him by Ecclesiastical punishment c. Where the Pope saies Correct the Gloss adds Indirectly which single word and that not explicated is the main Authority for the distinction of Direct and Indirect Power now in question The other Canon per Venerabilem was made upon this occasion Philip Augustus of France had put away his Wife and taken as I remember the Countess of Anjou and had Children by her These Children at his request the Pope Legitimates while the suit yet depended of the validity of his former Marriage For the King alledged it was invalid But as the Example of Kings is apt to be follow'd Some body leaves his Wife too and has Children by another Woman and then sollicites the Pope to Legitimate them as he had done the King's The Pope refuses to yield his Request but withal owns a Power to have granted it if he had found it reasonable and proves it by several Arguments and amongst other passages has these words We exercise temporal Jurisdiction not only in the Patrimony of the Church where we have full power in Temporals but in other Countries also casually upon inspection of certain Causes These certain Causes the Gloss interprets to be when He is required Now both these Cases seem to me far enough from the inferring the Deposing Power which was not at all in question but Legitimation in the one and Cognisance of a Temporal business in the other And though the Pope assume both yet he is very sollicitous to prove they are within his Sphere as both may be and yet nothing follow in behalf of his Indirect disposing For he may Legitimate Children in order to Spiritual capacities and leave them in the same condition in which they were before as to Inheritance and other Temporal concerns Again He may Judge of Sin and punish it in his own Court with Spiritual punishments and let Temporal punishments alone to whom they belong the Temporal Magistrate And since he expresly limits himself to Ecclesiastical punishments methinks it is to strain Logic a little to far to infer out of them a right to Punish by Deposition However in my opinion this difference in the manner of Explicating this Power sometimes Casualiter sometimes Indirecte sometimes Ratione peccati which differ sufficiently though they Cite the Authorities indifferently as if they were all one is a sign they were at first not very cleer in this business in Explicating which they hit it no better Notwithstanding the Indirect Power has at last got the Vogue and most
prepared to lose an Earthly Kingdom But 't is ridiculous to say I am ready to be depriv'd of my Kingdom if I renounce my Faith but not by any Sentence of Man but will have Sentence pronounct against me by the Angels in Heaven The Church would be very imprudent to receive into her bosom a Man who would without controul afflict the Members of the Church and not suffer the Faithful to be freed from his Tyranny by any Authority on Earth Thus Bellarmin more zealously than wisely say his Adversaries Such fine discourses never vvere nor are ever likely to be made but by the King of Vtopia Kings vvho receive Christianity think not of such subtleties nor imagine they are to treat with their Spiritual Instructors vvith those nice Cautions which they use in making Leagues and Treaties of War and Peace with their fellow Kings To make Protestations and other provisions of Security against Chances they never do and none but a man cunning in Chican ever would think of as if Baptism were a bargain made in Law wherein if by misfortune the Writings be not exactly drawn a man forfeits his Title to his Purchase or a man becomes liable to Eternal damnation for the fault of a Scrivener is a conceit of a more subtle reach than is like to proceed from the simplicity with which men deal in the concerns of Eternity However if Bellarmin do put such thoughts into the head of a Pagan he may very justly protest I desire to be made a Christian and intend to live like one and submit to the Discipline of that Law which I am going to imbrace but I mean to keep my Regal dignity and Prorogatives inviolate and do not intend to be put by Baptism into a worse condition than now I am in My Subjects are now my Subjects and I intend they alwaies shall be so For my self if I deserve it I refuse not to be expell'd from that Society of which I shall have made my self unworthy But as I had my Subjects before Baptism I will not that Baptism shall take them from me I am a King while I am no Christian and if I cease to be a Christian will not therefore cease to be a King God not Baptism gave me a Crown and none but God shall take it away A Pagan say they may warrantably declare thus much and warrantably even according to Bellarmin himself who teaches that the Law of Christ deprives no man of any right and when a King becomes Christian he loses no Right or Dominion but gets a new right to the Kingdom of Heaven for else the Benefit of Christ would be a prejudice to Kings and Grace destroy Nature As for the Comparison betwixt him who pretends to the Freedom of a City and him who pretends to Baptism the Protest which Bellarmin enters in his behalf is indeed ridiculous and overthrown by his very pretence for a Member of a City must by his very being a Member be subject to the Laws and Magistrates of that City And so a King if he become a Member of the Spiritual Commonwealth becomes subject to the Laws and Magistrates and Punishments of that Commonwealth which are Spiritual and may be inflicted on a King as well as other men considering their own Natures purely and abstracting from Circumstances which in the case of Kings are generally such that if it be lawful it is seldom expedient to use them but for Temporal punishments He is himself the Head of that Commonwealth which should inflict them and must either punish himself or cannot be punisht but by God So that to say by his becoming a Member of the Spiritual Commonwealth he makes Himself liable to Temporal punishments is to say in the Case of him who pretends to be made a Citizen That by making himself a Member of that Corporation he subjects himself to the Laws of another But to leave these speculations to them who Write of New Atlantis and the Isle of Pines The Argument say they is doubly faulty for it assumes what is not true and concludes what does not follow though the Antecedent were true First they deny any such bargains are made in Baptism There is indeed an express whether Promise or Purpose to Renounce Satan and his Pomps but of Renouncing the Right of Kings there is not any expression vvhich sounds like it and for secret bargains they are so secret if there be any that they are known to none but Bellarmin They have lain hid for many Ages and do so still for any credit they give this Argument He would infer it out of the disposition which our Saviour in S. Luke requires in him who vvill be his Disciple And this disposition of preferring his Love and Service before all things they acknowledge is necessary in Baptism and that Man unfit for it vvho does not firmly purpose so to do But the Question is If the King chance to break his good Purpose is He therefore liable to this particular punishment of being Depos'd This particular Condition must enter into the bargain or nothing will come of it Otherwise our God-fathers and God-mothers have undertaken for all of us that vve shall do all that the greatest King Promises in Baptism And we all forfeit the Surety they have given and break the Promise solemnly made in our behalf and sin daily and grievously Can we therefore without injury be turn'd out of our Estates We must be prepar'd as vvell as any King to lay down our lives for the Faith of Christ if for Fear or other frailty we fall even to Idolatry is it therefore lawful to knock us on the head or if it vvere Can the Church or Priest before whom vve made this Promise which vve have broken give Sentence of bloud against us How justly soever we deserve to be punisht yet this punishment is not just because we never submitted to it in Baptism or any other way and if we did the Church of all the vvorld can the least inflict it But the truth is no such punishment vvas ever thought of either by the Givers or Receivers of Baptism If vve do not continue constant to our Renouncing of Satan Satan vvill take possession of us again to whom the Church may vvhen there is just occasion by her Power deliver us And if Satan be not punishment enough even for a King and the Wickedest King that ever was or will be I am mightily mistaken Bellarmin therefore vvas less considerative than vvould be expected when he talks every where as if Kings unless they were liable to be Depos'd would be vvithout punishment Methinks Excommunication might serve turn Excommunication vvhich as himself saies L. 3. de Laic C. 2. is a punishment greater than Temporal death It being more horrible as himself Cites S. Austin to be delivered to Satan by Excommunication than to endure the Sword or Fire or be devoured by Wild Beasts Death is the last of punishments with us of the Temporal
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
that business none was better satisfi'd then the guilty and punisht Emperor himself who more lov'd and honour'd S. Ambrose ever after And 't is likely if all spiritual Princes would imitate the zeal of that excellent Prelate and preserving the respect due to the dignity of secular powers strive only to redress the errors of their frailty that Temporal Princes would imitate the Piety of that excellent Emperor and there would be never any clashing betwixt them But this by the by I have only to do with the Argument and 't is not the least I have to do to find the force of it For 't is plain the bare words themselves without a comment will not do and Bellarmin has here forgotten to give a comment And so there remains nothing but to rove at random and hope if luck serve to hit right If Bellarmin understand this Decree in that manner in which he understood it who made it Boniface the 8 as far as can be gathered by those who writ of him was perswaded he was vested in a Power as unlimited and absolute as the wildest of Canonists ever fancied that he was the only universal Monarch and all Princes his subjects without more ado You remember how he writes to the King of France We would have you know you are subject to us both in spirituals and temporals and take for Hereticks who think otherwise Now there is one in my opinion very good reason why Bellarmin should not understand the Decree in this manner and that is because he thinks that sence not true and maintains the Pope has no such power and the Canonists are out who give it him If he will understand it as Clement 5 seems to understand it you must pardon me if I entertein you with seemings we must rove where we can do no better it will amount to no more than bare spiritual power as indeed the words themselves carry no farther We neither will nor intend says he that any prejudice be done to the King or Kingdom of France by the Decree in question nor that the King Kingdom or Inhabitants be more subject to the Church of Rome then they were formerly but that all things be in the same state in which they were before the said definition Now one point of the state in which things were before was if we believe the King of France as also Innocent 3 who had declared as much that he was subject in temporals to no man And so there remains only subjection in spirituals in which Clement 5 understood the Decree and challenged to the Church of Rome and this will freely be allow'd to Bellarmin by a great many who for all that will allow no deposition Now because neither of these Comments will fit him as far as I perceive he will hardly find one ready made but must take the pains to make one for himself if he will do any thing And yet when he has done a Comment is one thing and a Text another One is not altogether so current mony as the other Although in this particular his comment must be better mettal then the Text it self or will hardly pass The whole Canon Law the Decrees not only of particular Popes but particular Councils unless in circumstances which happen not in this case are freely and openly deny'd the power to oblige to belief But I will not meddle with this point which would draw on a new and that controversial dispute and I am no man of Controversy What I have sayd is answer enough to an Argument no better prest Yet I shall make one observation more and so take leave of it This Canon according to the declaration of Clement 5 defined nothing new says Bellarmin but only declared the ancient obligation of being subject to the Apostolick Sea Now would I fain understand how we should know by this Canon what that ancient obligation was The question is whether the ancient subjection were in temporals or spirituals And the Canon is declared to define neither the one nor the other but only the ancient obligation and if it define nothing in the question it might very well have been let alone of necessity we must know what this ancient obligation is before we can know what this Canon has defined and then 't is a clear case we can know nothing by the Canon but must depend on another knowledg and by that find out what the Canon sayes If things be left by this Canon as the Pope says they are in the state in which they were before it is not possible to know how this Canon left them but by knowing how they were before See now how well this Canon proves in the Pope a power over temporals which says no more but that he has a power he alwaies had but whether that power be temporal or spiritual is wholly silent 'T is something a new way of arguing to bring us in proof that things are as Bellarmin says they are a Canon which says only they are as they were before and force us to a new search to know how they were before of which we have no intelligence from his Canon but as far as we can have intelligence otherwise have reason to think they were quite contrary to what Bellarmin pretends For the French who took themselves particularly concern'd in this Canon did neither then nor since believe any obligation to be subject in temporals and were unsatisfied till they procur'd this Declaration from Clement 5 that things were as they were before and because this satisfied them 't is in my opinion a strong proof that it was then known there was no subjection in temporals due before However it be the proof from the Canon stands plainly thus You must in vertue of this Canon believe the Pope has power over Temporals because he has a power which by the Canon you cannot know whether it be over temporals or no Or you must know by the Canon the Pope has a temporal Power which whether it be temporal or no you must know from something else then the Canon That is I must know in vertue of the Canon what I cannot know in vertue of the Canon Which proof being that in vertue whereof I know signifies the Canon is a proof which is not a proof The third Argument is from Councils and is thus proposed by Bellarmin We prove it thirdly from the Councils before mentioned whereof the two last were general For how can that be brought into doubt or depend on the opinion of men which general Catholick and lawful Councils approve But these ten Councils and especially the two last of Lateran and Lyons do most evidently teach that temporal Princes may be depos'd by the Pope when the necessity of the Church requires it and consequently that the temporal Power of Princes is subject and subordinate to the spiritual power of Popes In my opinion he might have spared that consequently If lawful general Councils evidently teach Deposition they
teach enough of all conscience we know well enough what will follow without the help of his inferences and know that twenty worse things will follow then subordination of powers But is Bellarmin in earnest too and will he reduce the Catholick Church to the narrow compass of those who believe his Doctrine How Lawful general Concils teach and that evidently that Princes may be deposed Why what a hand has he made on 't His Friends Coton Sonran and the rest of the Jesuites who by a publick declaration disavow'd and detested this doctrine were no very honest men by his reckoning The French are all direct Hereticks without more ado and I fear it will go hard with the Pope himself who so freely and openly communicates with them As for my small acquaintance they are all in as bad a case as Falstaffs old Hosts if sack be a sin They 'l be mall'd to my knowledg If he do not make amends with the weakness of his proofs for the confidence of his assertions we are all undone But the comfort is that all Catholicks are not of his mind For this very Book had the luck to light into a certain Catholick Country where it was publickly condemn'd and the men who did it did not for all that think they contradicted any thing evidently taught by lawful general Councils But let us see what those Councils say The truth is since of ten which he cites 2 only are general 8 might have been spared For particular Councils according to his own doctrine are not so irrefragible but what they determine may be brought into doubt But we must take his Arguments as they are His first Council is 900 years old under Greg. 2. wherein he would make us believe the Emperor Leo Isaurus was excommunicated and depriv'd of the tributes which he us'd to receive out of Italy And this is one of the stories which Onuphrius takes for fables Bellarmin alledges for proof for the Council is not extant the testimony of Zonaras a Greek Historian whose words are these Gregory who at that time ruled the Church of old Rome involved them together with the Emperor in a synodical Anathema and making a league with the French forbad the tributes which till that time were paid from thence to the Empire Barclay answers that he mistook the meaning of Zonaras thinking that those 2 several things because they are joyned in one period hapned therefore at the same time 'T is true that either this Pope or his Successor Greg. 3 did in a Synod excommunicate not the Emperor particularly but Iconoclasts in general 'T is true that Greg. 3. made a league with the French or rather fled to their protection from the injuries of the Lombards from which the Emperor either could or perhaps would not defend him And therefore Writers who say that after this league Italy withheld their usual Tributes though the matter of fact be not altogether so clear but none say they withheld them by the authority of any Council As far as can be gathered the exasperated people were willing to keep their mony for their own defence and not by sending it into Greece expose themselves defenceless to those injuries which they either suffered or feared And thus far there is mention of the Pope's consent and even countenance at last for he opposed the sway of the people a good while and by his authority preserv'd them in their allegeance to the Emperor yet sided with them at long run in this keeping their mony at home But for deposing the Emperor much less in a Synod neither he nor any body else thought of it on the contrary to his dying day he acknowledged him his Emperor and Lord. Whether the People or he did well in doing so much as they did is another question which belongs not to me to determin But I suppose it is no wonderful thing that a remote Province of a great Empire should upon some dissatisfaction fail at some time in their duty and the men of greatest Authority among them joyn with them This is standing upon their terms more then becomes subjects but 't is not deposing and much less deposing by the Authority of those great men who take their part One might as well say the Prince of Orange by his Authority deposed the King of Spain from the Low Countries because he was the Principal Actor with those who fell from him But to make short work with our case there was in it I think no deposition at all But if this Tribute matter must be called deposition to that concur'd no Council and betwixt them both 't is plain there is no Argument There comes next in play the famous business of Greg. 7 which takes up 6 Councils more These because they belong all to one subject you shall give me leave to respit till I have rid my hands of his next Council which belongs to another 'T is the Council of Clerment where he says Vrban 2. excommunicated and deposed Philip. 1. of France for casting off his lawful Wife marrying an Adulteress and refusing upon admonition to make satisfaction For this he cites M. Paris and Sigebert I have not seen Sigebert but M. Paris who particularizes the Acts of the Council and among the rest this excommunication makes no mention of deposing I but sayes Bellarmin deposition must be understood to go along with excommunication Marry I thank him heartily Vnderstood quotha Is our evident teaching come to understanding and understanding those things to be the same than which the world has none more different Excommunication is a pure spiritual censure and deprives a man of none but pure spiritual goods deposition is quite contrary and takes away only temporal It passes my understanding how one of these must necessarily follow out of the other Pray why must we understand it does Because says he Historians testify the Pope forbad the Crown should be set upon the Kings head while he remain'd excommunicate and in particular Ivo Bishop of Chartres writes to the Pope that he would be threatned unless he restored the Crown and took off the excommunication that the King and Kingdom would fall off from their obedience Very well Why then according to Ivo there was a King still and that King had a Kingdom and so much credit in it that 't was not impossible but he might cause it to revolt These things do not hang together A man may as soon understand how excommunication and deposition infer one another as how a Crown can be restor'd to one who is a King and has a Kingdom or how the Pope should forbid the Crown to be set on his head who had been crowned long before the Pope was Pope 'T is hard and not very wise to forbid things that are past If this mystery had not been unridled for me I had been quite at a loss But if I may believe Barclay and Withrington it was at that time the custom of France for the King
writing and of the subject I take them out of Withrington and Barclay who being the latest writers I suppose have seen what was sayd before though the truth is I am forc'd to use them more by necessity then choice my library not affording me those former Books whom I would gladly see The first says Withrington is like that which Bellarmine makes against those who assert a direct Temporal Power in the Pope If the Pope have and that by Divine Right power to depose Princes in order to spiritual good this must appear either by Scripture or Tradition Tradition is not pretended Out of Scripture the two chief places are those now mentioned Mat. 16. and Joh. 21. both which he endeavours to shew are meant only of spiritual power To this Schulkenius for Bellarmin replys He labours in vain to prove these places are meant of spiritual power for this they freely grant him But say they this power which formally is spiritual is virtually temporal or his the vertue to extend it self to temporals in as much as is requisite to spiritual good And therefore Bellarmins Argument is good because he intended only to prove by it that the Popes power was formally spiritual which is true and acknowledged by Withrington But Withringtons naught because he does not prove that the Power is not virtually Temporal and cannot extend to deposition c. If I had a mind to answer for Withrington I should not think my self silenc'd by this reply For when he says the Arguments are unlike the one good the other bad I cannot perceive by what reason one should believe him Bellarmins Argument is good says he because his Conclusion that the Popes Power is spiritual is true as if the Argument were a jot the better because the Conclusion is true The Argument is naught if the Conclusion follow not from the premisses though it be never so great a truth otherwise But what was the Argument No direct Power in Scripture therefore no direct Power This I take is Bellarmins Argument and by the favour of Schulkenius no deposing Power in Scripture therefore no deposing Power is so like it that they must be both good or neither That the Conclusion of the one is true and the other false is voluntarily said and nothing to purpose for the question is whether they have not the same dependance on their premisses If Bellarmin conclude well against the Canonists because they cannot shew their direct Power in Scripture I see not why Withrington concludes not as well against Bellarmin unless he can shew his deposing Power in Scripture which as far as I see Schulkenius does not go about to do But I have nothing to do with Withrington he has answer'd for himself though by ill luck I have not the Book now by me I am only to observe how the case stands betwixt the two parties which in short is thus Is the deposing Power in Scripture says Withrington 'T is virtually says Schulkenius I fear this is no very direct answer and suppose VVithrington should ask again Is this vertue apparent in Scripture To which Schulk gives me no ground to judge what he would reply And so I must leave them as I find them and pass to the Second Argument Coercitive Civil and coercitive spiritual Power being different and independent Powers must have distinct Courts and distinct penalties VVherefore as the Civil Power cannot inflict a spiritual punishment so neither can the spiritual Power inflict a civil punishment And this he strengthens by two Considerations 1. That the distinction of the two Courts since in the manner of proceeding the persons and causes brought before them and all other formalities they may agree must be taken from the difference of the penalties or nothing 2. Because no Commonwealth looking only into nature can deprive a subject of other goods then such as are proper to that Commonwealth the spiritual can only take away spiritual goods as the temporal only temporal They answer The two Powers are distinct but not wholly independent when they club into one mystical Body viz. the Church in which case the temporal is subject to the spiritual and therefore though the temporal cannot meddle with the spiritual the spiritual may with the temporal And for his additional Considerations they slight the first as being nothing but the conclusion of his argument repeated yet say however that Temporal punishments are not so proper to Temporal power but they may be inflicted by the spiritual And to the second that in Commonwealths subordinate the superior may deprive the subject not only of the priviledges proper to it self but those also which belong to the inferior Commonwealth This answer relishes much better with me then the former for it plainly denies at least half of what is assumed namely that the powers are independent which is a direct and allowable answer for so much But for the other half they deal not so cleverly They allow the powers distinct even in their penalties and yet maintain that one may award the penalties of the other which looks as if they were not distinct in their penalties Again they say they are distinct but assign not in what they are distinct They deny not what Withrington assumes that they may use the same proceedings take cognizance of the same matters convene the same persons And if they may inflict the same penalties too by what shall they be distinguisht So that I think they had no such great reason to slight his first consideration For certainly distinct powers must be distinct in something But you see where it rests Withrington since they deny it is oblig'd to prove the Independence of the two Powers which whether he have done or no I cannot tell Shall I tell you my thoughts freely I suspect the old School-Proverb An Ass may deny more more than Aristotle can prove may have some place here and that the Answerer has still the better end of the staff When it was Bellarmins turn to prove the dependance and subordination of the two Powers and Withringtons to answer you may perceive by my last where you have the Argument He could deal well enough with Bellarmin Now they have changed sides and Withrington is on the proving hand how it will happen I know not The third Argument is from the multitude of inconveniences which follow from the other opinion As that the Pope may as well take the life as Kingdom of any Prince and driving it a little higher authorize any private man to turn Assassin and kill the King by treachery when he cannot be conveniently depos'd To this they say they can answer easily enough but yet as easy as it is they do it not All they reply is let this pass as nothing to purpose meer bugbears to render the Papacy odious when of so many Princes who have been depos'd so many who have perisht by violent deaths what by the treachery of their subjects what by the force of their Enemys
of Princes in short how they are not as bad as those who are direct Knaves These are the things in which alone the world is concern'd if the two opinions agree in these let them differ in inconsiderable niceties as much as they will they are the same in danger the same in inconsistency with Civil Government and that if you remember was the thing with which we began and where for ought I see we still stick Till I see such a difference I must needs think all you have said no better then pure illusion and all you can say till you say where this difference is will be but to talk learnedly from the purpose For my part I must profess I can find none But because I would be glad to learn of any body I will entreat Bellarmine to tell me what difference he finds and what provision he makes with his learned distinctions for the Security of Princes and Fidelity of Subjects The first which comes in my way is in the state of the Question That the Pope directly and immediately hath not any temporal Power but only spiritual but indirectly at least in vertue of this spiritual Power hath highest or soveraign Power over Temporals And because Directly's and Indirectly's should break no squares he leaves them out against Barclay Cap. 12. when he had a mind to speak properly When we speak properly says he we say the Pope has Power in or over Temporals but not Temporal Power as Pope Now to acknowledge my ignorance I must confess I am quite gravel'd at very first and cannot for my life imagine what kind of thing this only Spiritual and not Temporal Power should be which yet is highest or soveraign even in Temporals Without doubt vve men of the vvorld are vvonderful ignorant things and if vve but offer to understand any thing these Scholars say 't is odds vve mar all Who of our lovv form but vvould have thought that Povver over Temporals had been Temporal Povver If I mistake not I have heard from some body that had some acquaintance vvith these Scholars that Powers are specifi'd by their Acts which is indeed too high for me It may be to purpose and it may not But I had verily thought that who could do temporal things had temporal power and vvho could do spiritual things spiritual I was out it seems and perceive now that properly speaking 't is otherwise For all that I cannot but think there is such a thing as Temporal Power in the vvorld and if Power in Temporals be not It there remains nothing that I know which can be It but Power in Spirituals and for the same reason Power in Temporals must be Spiritual Power and so Kings because they have to do vvith Temporals have in truth Spiritual Power only vve speak improperly in the vvorld and call it Temporal But this does not fadge neither For then the Pope should be said to have Temporal power for this proper reason because he has power in Spirituals Now I remember me there is a certain Pope vvho says Kings have no Superior in Temporals Inno. 3. C. per Ven. Qui filii sint legit This Barclay objected to Bellarmin and he answers that by Superiour in Temporals is meant a Temporal Superior Now I consider not how vvell this answers Barclay For let the Superiour be a temporal or a spiritual Superiour so he be Superiour in Temporals The King has a Superiour in Temporals But this is not to my purpose I only observe that Bellarmin vvas of the mind vvhen he vvrote this that Superiour in Temporals was all one vvith Temporal Superiour And then I see no reason in the vvorld vvhy power in Temporals should not also be all one vvith Temporal power Certainly since Power makes the Superiour there is as much sympathy betwixt the Superiour and the Power as this comes too But in the name of vvonder vvhat does Power in Temporals signifie and vvhat Temporal Power Bellarmin means the Pope may by his power in Temporals dispose of the temporal thing call'd a Kingdom The Canonists mean some such thing by their Temporal Power By this account both signifie power to dispose of Temporals and methinks 't is no such mortal quarrel vvhether a dog must be said to be beaten vvith a stick or a staff Or are they perhaps mere sounds to vvhich belongs no sence but vvhat they give them as they find convenient for their purpose and so vvhen vve are askt vvhat Temporal or what in Temporals signifies we must answer vvith Montalto What you please Father Never believe me if I can make more of this in Temporals then an Inchanted Castle vvhich houses and entertains the Knight as long as he has use of it and as soon as he is gone vanishes into a pure Temporal Inn. Which way soever I turn me I am quite at a loss so that I think 't is best to give it over and let Bellarmin alone vvith his power over Temporals and no Temporal Power and speak to you in a language vvhich both of us understand Do you in earnest believe there is any such difference betwixt these two that the one makes a good the other a bad Subject And that a King is safe enough as long as his Subjects speak properly Marry if their language once become less exact then let him look to himself Good School-masters are the only Guards if this be true I am afraid to meddle vvith Bellarmin again for vvhether I say I or no 't is odds but I shall be out still But yet I guess he meant his Power in Temporals is truly Power If it be true Power sure there is true obedience due to it And if all Christians are bound to obey him in Temporals Kings can have no Subjects but Infidels unless to be even with the Pope they fall to commanding in Spirituals For if they can command in nothing I do not see how they are Kings But this is but shifting sides and leaves us still vvhere vve vvere Let Bellarmin say vvhat he vvill He vvho has power to command is to be obey'd if the Pope can command in Temporals I must obey him in Temporals And he vvhom I must obey in Temporals is my King and no body else So that the Pope is universal Monarch vvithout more ado and there is no King in the World besides himself For 't is not the proper name of Power but Power which does the business Call it how you vvill properly or improperly if there be a Power in the vvorld vvhich Kings themselves must acknowledge and submit their Crowns and leave their Kingdoms vvhen this Power requires them They are not Kings I mean Soveraigns of vvhom vve only speak And they vvere mightily out vvho said Princes vvere solo Deo minores that they vvere accountable only to him and had none else above them and twenty other such untrue things For Bellarmin has found one that is above them and I fear above God too
one and giving to another being not to take away Power it self but to translate it because there is no vvay by vvhich Civil Power can be taken away but only by translating nevertheless if he did as this is not the first time he has said vvhat he had no great reason to say I must tell him that this translating is every jot as unsatisfactory to us because 't is every jot as unsafe to our Soveraign as plain taking away For if it be taken away from him vvhoever has it next 't is taken away from him And vvhoever holds this may be done let Bellarmin speak never so subtly I must hold is no good Subject There is another distinction or two or explication or vvhat you vvill call them vvhich stick in my stomach To understand them the better it vvill be convenient to mention the occasion he had to make them Barclay in his 12th Chapter objected against his opinion that it makes Christian Princes Vassals to the Pope and hold their Kingdoms only at pleasure or precariously And this he proves by this Argument The Pope if it be necessary for the good of Souls may take away a Kingdom from one Prince and give it to another but to Judge and decree whether it be necessary or no belongs to the Pope and none must judge whether his Sentence be right or wrong Therefore he may at pleasure Dethrone the one and Crown the other Bellarmin Answers that Christian Princes must by no means be call'd the Popes Vassals and much less be said to hold their Kingdoms at pleasure But are true Kings and true Princes This goes well but yet if his opinion make them Vassals I hope they may without offence to it be call'd so But however Princes are to thank him for this confession that they are true Kings and Princes and may hope so much may for his sake pass for true doctrine Which if it once do there is so much true fidelity due to those true Kings that what takes it but indirectly away will be found directly false Coming then to speak to Barclay's Argument he says 't is faulty every where major and minor and all Still there is no medling with Schollers These two premises of Barclay are two Propositions which he has borrowed from Bellarmin himself and were very good Propositions as long as he had the handling of them but as soon as ever another but breaths on them they fade and wither to non-sence and yet I perceive no alteration in them but that before they came out of Bellarmins mouth and now out of Barclays However he tells us This Proposition The Pope may if it be necessary for the good of Souls take away a Kingdom from one and give it to another needs explication for it may be well and ill understood it may be true and it may be false I make no question but it may be and is false but I would fain see the Explication by which it may be true This it is The Pope indeed may if it be necessary for the good of Souls take the Kingdom from one but if he admonish him before if he give him time to repent if he find him pernicious and incorrigible May he so Why then your opinion for all your Buts and Ifs is pernicious and you incorrigible good Bellarmin What 's this to say but that he cannot steal his Kingdom in the dark but may rob him of it in broad day light This Admonition and Space of Repentance is in other words The Pope must first say to the King look you I deal fairly above-board and give you notice before hand that if you do not do as I would have you within such a time it may be a month or two it may be so many hours for this space of Bellarmin's is for ought I see at the Popes appointing too I will turn you a grazing and provide my good people another King I see no such matter of substance in these formalities but that they might be well enough spar'd if conveniently they could But they are a sort of impudent things which will thrust in whether the Pope will or no. For Kingdoms are no such inconsiderable trifles that they can be pass'd away in private and none know when or how Except King Phys and King Vsh none ever yet stept into another mans Throne without warning and I believe none ever will Does Bellarmine think it can happen in the world that there should be a King so tame that without more knowledge of the matter as soon as a sentence of Deposition is brought should quietly submit and turn private man and enquire no farther Kings are more inquisitive then so and stand more upon their terms and look to be better satisfi'd And though they did not Subjects who have sworn Fealty have a little curiosity in them and will be asking why and by what necessity they must change Lords and obey Peter who have sworn to Paul There goes time to all this for nothing will come of it till all parties be agreed Now Bellarmine requires no more to make his sentence just nor so much as nature will force upon him let it be never so unjust Of necessity there must intervene more time in the change of Kings then he requires to his admonition and space of repentance So that his Explication amounts in short to this The sentence were unjust if it requir'd things should pass in such a manner in which 't is impossible they should pass but very just if things be so done as they must be done in spite of sentence or whatever else to the contrary which is certainly a very trim Explication and alters the Proposition wonderfully for the better We cannot put so much as a Tenant out without warning and he would perswade us we are much beholding to his Explication for requiring as much Ceremony in the change of a Kingdom as a Farm And yet when all is done I cannot tell whether he be in earnest or no and think these Formalities so indispensably necessary that a King cannot be depos'd without them It is hard to say what Plenitude of Power may do and I doubt he would not be well look't on who should go about to fix its bounds But besides that a Case may happen where a King cannot repent though he would or at least make amends by repentance A Case may happen where he will not repent nor believe he hath reason so to do Bellarmine would perswade us Ozias in the Old Law was depos'd for Leprosie What! did the High Priest admonish him to repent of his Leprosie and not proceed to Deposition till after convenient patience with him he found him incorrigible in his Leprosie Ozias might and 't is likely did repent the fault for which he was struck with Leprosie but unless his repentance could make him clean again as to the matter of Deposition he had as good ne'r repented at all for he vvas according to Bellarmine
depos'd for vvhat no repentance could cure Again in the Nevv Lavv he vvould make us believe Chilperick vvas depos'd for insufficiency Did the Pope admonish him to repent the grievous fault of having so little vvit and allovv him time to provide himself of better brains and better organs and vvhen he found him incorrigible and all persvvasion lost upon him and that say the Pope vvhat he could he vvould not do vvhat he could not do then at last after fruitless and long deluded patience cast him off Wherefore though Bellarmine do require such Formalities as cannot conveniently be spared yet possibly he may not think their necessity so absolute as that the Deposition should be void if they concur not But let him think vvhat he pleases vvhile vvith all his insignificant Buts he preserves this substance that a King may be deposed if instead of three be require three hundred Ceremonies the opinion is still inconsistent vvith Civil Government And for our Case in particular our Soveraign does not think fit to repent vvhat Bellarmine cals Heresie and a deposing fault for this reason because he does not think it a fault and is for that reason very like to be incorrigible in it too and vvhoever thinks he may therefore be deposed is himself pernicious and not to be endured in his Dominions And so much for the taking avvay But. For the giving But he tels us The Pope may also give the Kingdom to another yet not at pleasure to whom he thinks fit for so indeed Kings were but precarious Kings But He is ty'd to the order of Justice whether Succession or Election take place or if there be none can claim then to him whom reason profers I fear the truth of this may be questioned Sure I am that vvhen Q. Elizabeth vvas deposed and her Kingdom given to the Spaniard there vvere better Titles afoot in the vvorld then K. Philips Thanks be to God the Throne of England has not been vacant and the Popes reason never troubled to fill it When Kingdoms are expos'd to prey 't is catch that catch can I see no great order of Justice in that But suppose it vvere true vvhat signifies this order of Justice and vvhat bar to the Popes pleasure in Succession or Election If the next Heir or next Elect be a man vvho pleases not the Pope I suppose he must be pass'd by and so as many as offer till they come at last to some body who is rectus in Curiâ For the first might stand as vvell as any of these vvho I conceive are all in the number of those vvho cannot claim and then vvhat does Succession or Election hinder but the Pope still gives at pleasure since none shall succeed or be elected but vvhom he pleases Again vvhat difference betvvixt giving a Kingdom to vvhom the Pope pleases and to vvhom Reason meaning the Popes Reason prefers Preference of Reason is nothing in the vvorld but that the Pope pleases to think it fitter this man should be prefer'd then the other So that Election and Succession and Reason are nothing in truth but the Popes Pleasure and all that Bellarmine affords us is a meer sound of vvords vvhich signifie nothing and if they did vvere nothing to purpose neither For vve are all this vvhile beside the Cushion It makes nothing I think to the justification of a Robbery that the prey vvas equally shared and vvhen a King is dethroned he is as much dethroned if he be succeeded by the next heir as by a stranger neither do I believe he is much concern'd vvho comes next upon the Stage vvhen his ovvn part is ended Our Question at Present is whether Kings in Bellarmins doctrine be only precarious Kings By the way Precarious is not very currant English I think we should call it holding at will or pleasure or if you will coyn a new word Tenure by Intreaty But however let us keep our Authors word Barclay objects that Bellarmin makes Kings precarious because he allows the Pope to take away and give Kingdoms and this whenever he has a mind as being sole judge in the case Bellarmin answers that Kings were indeed Precarious if their Kingdoms could be dispos'd of at pleasure but because the Pope is ty'd to the order of Justice in that point they are not precarious As if Barclay insisted on that or thought their being Precarious depended on that disposition The Son in defence of his Father laughs at that notion of Precarious and rightly observes that Precarious is not said with relation to him that gives but him that takes away 'T is the power of revocation if that word fit him vvho never gave plac'd in the Pope the power of deposing when the Pope thinks fit which makes a King precarious let the Kingdom be dispos'd how 't will afterwards the King is still precarious purely Tenant at vvill But pray tell me truly Do you in earnest find any thing in these healing Buts of Bellarmin which makes his opinion a jot sounder then the Canonists a jot safer for Princes or more dutiful for Subjects For my part I profess seriously I find nothing unless non-sence will do the feat There is a little more non-sence in this opinion then the other and if that be a security for Princes it would do vvell if the vvorld ran mad as fast as it could While men are in their wits they vvill go near to think never a Barrel better Herring Just such work he makes vvith Barclays next Proposition which was this To judge when 't is necessary for the good of Souls that a King be depos'd belongs only to the Pope and none is to question his Judgment This he saies is like the former and if it be ill understood is false but rightly understood is true but then concludes not what Barclay would have it Now am I terribly afraid that ill understood is as much in Bellarmins language as truly understood or so as it truly signifies and rightly understood means understood otherwise then as it signifies For else I cannot for my heart see but if the Pope may depose when there is necessity and judge when this necessity happens and none must call his judgment in question and these words mean as they sound Kings are purely Tenants at will and the Pope may depose them whenever he pleases to judge it necessary which is what Barclay would conclude What is the good meaning in which vve must rightly understand it Why It does indeed belong to the Pope saies he to judge whether it be necessary a King should be depriv'd of his Kingdom Very well So Barclay understood it and so Bellarmin himself understands it Why does it not conclude then that Princes may be depos'd at pleasure Because of another But. But saies he it does not belong to the Pope to feign necessities at pleasure or serve his passions under pretence of necessity Bellarmin is as unlucky it his Buts as Distinctions Whoever said it belong'd to
the Fire burns de Facto but only warms de Jure That Bellarmin is a great Scholler de Facto but de Jure none at all I know I speak impertinently but I meant to do so and yet think I speak as pertinently as he who saies Duty is only duty de Facto but de Jure not duty He might ee'n as well have made use of his Indirect here too and said the Pope was subject only Indirectly but was not subject Directly or contrariwise for 't is all one Young Sophisters sometimes when they are put to it and know not how to shift off an Argument find something or other which sounds like a distinction no matter what it signifies and whether any thing or nothing so it serve turn for the present And I doubt he remembred the trick a little too long But Subjection to Princes being prov'd by Examples and Commands This is the Reserve for Examples when they are ill-natur'd and will not be turn'd off otherwise For Commands there is another common place which now 't is known is nothing but he was a very subtle man lure that first discovered it It consists in distinguishing the same man into a Prince and a not-Prince and then interpreting all obedience we find commanded belongs to the Prince only the not-Prince has no share in it This distinction because it is indeed a little hard they attribute to the Omnipotent power of the Pope and say that the Prince till he be deposed is a Prince but afterwards no Prince and because it still falls short for the man governs and lives like a Prince still they etch it out with its fellow distinction and say he is no Prince de Jure though he be de Facto And now bring 'em as many and as plain places for obedience as you will 't is the easiest thing in the world to get cleer of them Bring Scripture bring Fathers that a Prince is to be obey'd True say they while he is a Prince but now he is no longer a Prince Princes in my opinion have hard luck to stand in the Popes way and become the first sad examples of his Omnipotence otherwise there is no Law of God or Man which may not be overturn'd as easily by the same engine For he may as soon and as well declare That Wife to be no Wife That Man to be no Man and make Adultery and Murther lawful as that King to be no King and make Rebellion innocent There would not want as likely pretences for the one as the other if people would but look after them For Example A Man is a rational Creature who acts unreasonably disclaims his nature and may be dispatch't without contradicting the Divine Law which forbids men to be kill'd while they are men but he by the Popes declaration is no man As much may be found out for the Wife as much for Estates as much for every thing For there neither is nor can be any stronger title to any thing then the Law of God and that the King has to his Kingdom and if that will not do nothing will This is just Montalto Sin but enough and you trapan the Devil and become vertuous even by being wicked To refuse obedience to a King is with them a crime and a crime which deserves damnation marry to Un-king him and deny there is any obedience due to him is an innocent thing As if taking his Power quite away were not a greater disobedience then to resist it A particular disobedience may have a particular and sometimes excusable cause but a general disobedience such as leaves them no longer any Power to command is of all disobedience the greatest most inexcusable in it self and most contrary to the Divine Law And yet he would perswade us we sin if we obey not a particular perhaps trifling Command but if we take away Power and all we are very honest men Whereas in truth when I disobey a Power which I acknowledge perhaps I wrong my self most for I do not my duty but when I no longer acknowledge my Princes Power I do him as well as my self the greatest wrong I can and yet this greatest wrong with Bellarmine is no wrong These are the healing Distinctions which Bellarmine applies to his Doctrine and by which the sound Deposing is to be distinguisht from the unsound Deposing If you find any such soveraign vertue in them I shall be glad to learn it But for our part we think Deposing an uncurable disease a poyson for which there is no Antidote Disguise it how you will while it remains Deposing 't is alike intolerable alike inconsistent wâ—th the safety of Princes and duty of Subjects Call the Power indirect call it in Temporals not temporal as long as 't is Power and can do the feat no honest ear can hear it Tell us of admonition and space of repentance tell us of Synods and Consistories of disposing the prey according to Justice of not feigning necessities tell us what you will while you tell us Deposing is good Doctrine we cannot believe you good Subjects Bring a thousand Schoolmen and ten thousand subtilties against them all we will stand by our honest Parliament Doctrine That the Crown of England is and alwayes has been free and subject immediately to God and none other and who refuses his Fellowship in that Doctrine I know not with what face he can pretend to a Fellowship in any thing else But the truth is I do not see that Bellarmine with all his art does so much as guild the bitter Pill or make it a jot less nauseous For what is the very worst the Canonists say Take their opinion in his own expressions and he says all they say and in terms as positive and as comprehensive Take Carerius or whoever is the highest flyer among those I sent you at first and the worst is but this That the Pope has jurisdiction over all things both spiritual and temporal throughout the world that he may absolve Subjects from the Oath of Allegeance Depose Kings and transfer their Dominions from one line to another And which of this worst does Bellarmine with his proper Distinctions and cautious Buts deny 'T is true they call his Power Direct and Bellarmine Indirect but what matter is it how they are called if one can do as much as the other And I would fain know what they can do with their Direct which be cannot with his Indirect 'T is true they make but one absolute Monarch of the world and all the rest but arbitrary Lieutenants and Bellarmine cals them true Kings but makes them as much subject as if they were but Lieutenants Were Kings perswaded once it were their duty to resign at the Popes command they would themselves make no difficulty to call and think him their supreme Lord. 'T is only in consideration of the scurvy consequence which would follow viz. that being supreme and absolute Lord he might dispose of his own as he
would have this one Spiritual Power command both in Spirituals and Temporals Which is of two to make one third Power neither wholy Spiritual be cause it extends to Temporals nor wholy Temporal because it acts in Spirituals but equivalent to both And if this be not to confound the two Powers and make one of these two which he saies Christ would have divided I would be glad to learn what is and what other way they can be confounded And yet the jest is even while he does this he presses the confusion of the Powers as a great inconvenience upon the Canonists who are not altogether so faulty as himself and can extricate their Doctrine a great deal better In two words either he confounds the Powers and then he disobeys Christ who he saies would have them kept asunder or he does not and then he disobeys him in permitting one to meddle with the rights of the other For certainly 't is the right of the Temporal power to command the Subjects to that power and require their allegiance and service And to take away these Subjects and this Allegiance is to meddle and that very far too vvith what belongs to the right of another The Truth is these Tricks turn a question of as great importance as any in the world into pure words and illusion The vvorld is in suspence about the decision of this great Question concerning the independent Soveraignty of the two Powers and how that command in the Gospel Reddite quae sunt Caesaris Caesari quae sunt Dei Deo should be obey'd All the learning of ten Ages teach the powers were distinguisht by Christ one given to the Bishop the other to the Prince The Canonists and they but some and all late men teach they were given both to the Pope This third indirect Party coming to settle a point of this importance profess at first that the Powers truly are as Christ commanded they should be distinct and the Pope for his share has the Spiritual only Would not any man think now the business decided and that we had no more to do but obey our Prince in Temporals and Bishop or if you will Pope for I will not meddle with that question in Spirituals and there 's an end Why this 't is to be illiterate says Bellarmin and not understand distinction The Popes power is only Spiritual but yet this Spiritual power indirectly and for the good of Souls virtually and by means of some other proprieties of speech extends likewise to Temporals and may dispose of Kingdoms as it sees fit Why then call it Temporal in the name of God if it can dispose of Temporals and say the Pope is Universal Monarch if he be so and stand to it Yes we do stand to it replies Bellarmin but we love to speak properly and do not call the Pope Vniversal Monarch though he can dispose of all the Kingdoms of the World because he does it not in vertue of a Temporal power but by a spiritual working and after an indirect manner Hang the manner how he does it if he can do it What has the World to do with these mannerly tricks A King is well holp up who after he is dispossest comes to understand that this came about after another fashion and in another manner then he was aware of Well! but are you for the Canonists or against them why truly I am for them and I am not for them And our Question What must be said to that Must we obey our King or the Pope This is what the world looks after Why according to one half of the resolution which says Princes are supream in Temporals and have in them no Superiour we must obey our King according to the other half which saies a power vvhich is only Spiritual can dispose of Temporals too we must obey the Pope But how must I do with this Licet and non Licet must I cut my self in two and list a Leg and an Arm under one a Thumb and a Shoulder under the other and if I happen to meet in the battle fight my King-self against my Pope-self Because this is something difficult and they are men of reason I imagine they would condescend a little in this point and let me remain entire As long as the answer is divided 't is well enough But then I must chuse the right half That 's it I would be at Pray tell me then must whole I take the Spiritual or the Temporal half Why the truth is you must take the Spiritual half Parasits and Flatterers may tell you otherwise But this is the truth of the story Why then to what purpose all this illusion of my Princes Soveraignty and Independency when after all he is neither Soveraign nor Independent To what purpose this bustle against the Canonists only to say the same thing at last but with more ado Could you not have plainly told me at first what I must trust to and spared the trapan of so many useless disguises The result of all your Spirituals and Indirects and good of Souls and whatever else is in short I must obey the Pope against my Prince only I must in spight of all sence believe my Prince is a true and Soveraign King and has no Superiour in Temporals and the Pope no power but Spiritual and so besides a Traytor and a Rebel become sensless and a block into the bargain Here 's your fine opinion of which you make such a Mystery and are so shy to discover your thoughts Come come leave dodging and deal above-board Answer me these things and shew me that Bellarmin speaks sence and sence not injurious to Government and the safety of Princes or disclaim him plainly as you have the Canonists 'T is at your choice to do what you will but do one and that effectually or take notice I tell you I will believe for the future your Church is a wicked Church absolutely inconsistent with Civil Government and has not one sound member in her no not one Put me not off with formalities and think to scape with telling me this doctrine belongs not to your Church as a Church and that only the Material men hold it 'T is the material men I only care for at present We converse not with your formal Church vve hear and see and deal with Material men These are they can do us good or harm and 't is but reason we should know vvhat to expect from them Formalities are ayry things no rope can catch them but Material men you know maye be suspended and vvhen they are found guilty and have no hopes of reprieve but in the innocence of their formalities I doubt it goes hard vvith them In two vvords clear your selves from an imputation which you have brought upon your selves or confess you cannot be cleer'd and remember that silence is a confession and so I shall take it as all Justice in the world does and believe it vvas not the wickedness
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
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
say that whatever out of the strength of his wit He alledges on the other side yet this Charter is no more valid in his judgment than in other folks And I do not mean that 't is become now invalid by the force of Prescription for this he has sufficiently declared but that it was originally and always invalid Truly I am mistaken if this may not be concluded from what he says elsewhere when dis-engaged from the desire of making good his Argument he frankly discovers his true sentiments Pag. 239. considering an observation made in a former Letter on the particular Fact of the Emperour Frederick he replies That whether supreme Princes may put it into a Forreigners power to compel them to cession by a direct deprivation of their Right of Government is a case which he thinks none will easily grant to be either Just or Secure for the Common-wealth for which they were concern'd I conceive that when K. John resign'd his Kingdom and receiv'd it again to hold of the Pope as principal Lord to whom he became a Vassal He put it into the power of a Forreigner to compel him not only by Ecclesiastical Censures but by a direct deprivation of his Right of Government And this he declares to be Unjust and Unsafe for the Commonwealth King John then even in his own opinion did unjustly and against the good of the Commonwealth that is had not Right to do what he did and his Act was invalid from the beginning I suppose therefore He will acknowledg on second thoughts that there are other ways to bound the actions of supreme Princes besides Compacts and Concessions and that Justice and the Safety of the Commonwealth are two of those ways in which other Princes were obliged to walk as well as K. John and if they did not their Actions are not to be drawn into example I will hope the Question is resolved to satisfaction For I know no fairer nor surer way to end a difference than to put it to Judgment And since 't is judged on my side by an Authority from which there lyes no appeal and by those who one would expect should be most partial on the other Those who contriv'd the Deed and Him who urges it Of the Popes Temporal Monarchy I should think there is no more to be desir'd If any mans curiosity reach further he may find wherewith to satisfie it in those who have already handled this Subject particularly the learned Crakanthrop But to touch briefly what is more largely treated elsewhere the Charter contradicts and destroys it self reserving in one place what it grants in another There is in it an express saving of the Rights given away by this clause Salvis nobis Haeredibus nostris Justitiis Libertatibus Regalibus nostris Nothing can be more manifest than that the Independency of the Crown belongs to the Regalia and again that subjection is opposite to Liberty And yet the Regalia and Liberty are expresly reserv'd at the same time when the Crown is made Dependent and Subject This is just I give you a hundred pound which hundred pound I keep to my self Which is an unvalid and self-destructive Act and passes nothing and is in truth a piece of Non-sence not a Gift Again that the Regalia Imperii are Inalienabilia without consent of the Subjects is a point setled by a consent so unanimous of all Nations that there is no Maxim more known 'T is very troublesome and more idle to fill paper with Quotations for a point better known than the Author to be quoted This too is a receiv'd Maxim that Metus cadens in virum constantem nuls the Act extorted by fear of which besides a hundred examples in all nations some even of Popes themselves who upon that ground have voided their own Acts the Pope to whom this Grant was made has left a very pregnant instance in the case of this very King The Barons a little after obtained the Magna Charta from him confirmed by all the security they could devise The Pope solemnly declares all proceedings void because extorted by fear But it is most evident that K. John had no greater cause of fear when he past the Magna Charta than he had when he signed the Charter to the Pope Pandulph brought him to it by exaggerating his imminent danger the French with a vast Army ready to land backt with the Ecclesiastical power of the Clergy and Arms of the Laity whereof many of the principal were said to have oblig'd themselves by authentick Charters to assist the French The King yielded confusus valde mente nimis perturbatus videns undique sibi periculum imminere in the words of M. Paris Could there be more fear from the Barons alone than from the same Barons and French and Pope too Or could his fear in one case make his Act void and signify nothing in the other So that there is this very good reason to believe that the Pope himself to whom the Kingdom was granted judged the Grant nul because he declared an Act of the same King nul by a less fear than that which extorted his Grant This too was understood by those who drew the Charter and inserted this other clause Non vi inducti nec Timore coacti sed nostra bona spontaneaque voluntate By which it is apparent that there was more than one clause contrary to Truth and that more was requisite to the validity of the Act even in the judgment of the Contrivers than could be had Which is that the Act was invalid as wanting what themselves thought necessary to make it valid By this and much more alledged by divers the Nullity of that Grant of K. John appears I think very undeniably supposing in him all the Right which can be supposed in any King of England But by our Authors favour what he takes for granted that K. John had undoubted Kight to the Crown at the passing of this act is very far from undoubted A Sister of Arthur's was then living and long after in whom the Right of Arthur could not but be When K. John by his success at Mirabel got Arthur into his hands he made use of the opportunity of his victory to seize likewise upon his Sister Elianor whom he brought into England and confin'd to Bristol Castle There was another and I think an elder Sister but what became of her I know not In likelyhood she died before these times But this Lady surviv'd her Uncle The Pope mentions her among those who had right to the Crown to the Embassadors of Lewis M. Paris ad an 1216. who sought to justify their Masters title to England and the French objected against her what if it have any force in their Law has none in ours For it is a plain case that the elder line takes place of the younger in the inheritance of the Crown and no act or forfeiture of K. John could bar the right of
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