in his garment and on his high King of Kings and Lord of Lords Isa 33.22 The Lord is our King he will save us Psal 2.6 I am made by him a King over Sion his holy hill and a great many more of the same nature These say they and the like places are both plain in themselves and plainly expounded of a temporal regal power by the Fathers To which purpose they bring Theophylact expounding that to the Heb. whom he made Heir of all things that is made Lord of the whole World but how did he make him Lord Namely as man in the second Psalm he speaks to him Ask of me and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy Inheritance And St. Anselm upon the same place Whom the Father appointed according to the humanity the immutable Heir of all things that is possessor of all creatures And Haymo upon the same place too God the Father apointed his Son Heir of all things that is of the whole World or all creatures not onely according to the Divinity in which he is coeternal to his Father and coequal in the Omnipotence of the Deity and in which he eternally possesses all things with his Father but rather according to the humanity assum'd by the word he is appointed Lord and Heir over all creatures as God the Father promis'd him saying Ask of me c. And the Son himself rising from the dead speaks thus in the person of the humanity All power is given me in Heaven and in Earth Eusebius Emissenus He who according to his Divinity had alwayes with the Father and Holy Ghost power over all things now also according to his humanity has receiv'd power over all things as Man He who lately suffer'd let him Rule both in Heaven and in Earth and be believed the God and Lord not of the Jews onely but of all Nations L. 2. Cont. Parmen Optatus against the Donatists Why do you break such a promise and confine to a kind of Prison the vast extent of Kingdoms why do you strive to hinder so much goodness why are you against our Saviours merits Permit the Son to enjoy what was granted permit the Father to perform what he promised Why do you set bounds and fix Limits when the whole Earth was promised by the Father There is not any thing in any part of the Earth which seems exempt from his Possession The whole Earth with its Nations were given him These and the the like places are the chief supports of the affirmative opinion for I omit their Reasons not onely because a man who were strongly bent upon it may invent specious pretexts almost for any thing and they seem to me no other but because I take questions of Faith not properly to belong to the decision of meer Reason I mean in this manner that People should rashly determine by their ill grounded reasonings what is fitting or not fitting for God to do We are to learn of our Fathers and the Church what he has done and not by Airy speculations determine what he should do If this Doctrine hath been delivered to our Fore-Fathers we shall sure enough receive it from them but if we do not it will hardly belong to Faith even though it could be proved true In the mean time those who maintain the negative bring particular Answers to all these places the substance whereof devolves to this that the Kingdom and Regal power attributed to Christ in the Scripture is to be understood of his Spiritual Kingdom the Church unless where his person is spoken of as comprehending the divine as well as humane nature in which Cases Regal power and all that can be attributed to God may justly be affirmed of him 'T were to write a Book instead of a Letter to dilate them all particularly and when all is done this is the substance But then on their side they alleadge Scripture and Fathers in my opinion much more convincing And first they affirm the question is expresly and plainly decided by Christ himself Joh. 18.36 When being askt by Pilate if he were a King he denies it not but withal affirms his Kingdom is not of this World And methinks people might take his word and cease to dispute of what he so plainly determined for I cannot think otherwise but this Answer meets the difficulty in the Face and so reserves whether the right of omnipotence or spiritaal Regality as very positively to exclude Temporal power They alledge again Luke 12.14 Who has made me Judge or Divider betwixt you Our blessed Saviour was moved by one who heard him and perhaps believed in him to cause one Brother to divide an inheritance with the other And he not onely refuses the motion but says in a phrase usual in Scripture of denying by interrogation it was a matter in which he had nothing to do Now if Christ were truly a Temporal King 't is hard to imagine how rendring Justice to his Subjects who demanded it at his hands and determining emergent Controversies in which the very Office of a King does in a great measure consist should not belong to him I hove nothing to do with Possessions and I am no Temporal King to seem equivalent They alleadge besides Jo. 6.15 where Christ perceiving the multitude were resolved to make him King fled from them and hid himself Put him to have received temporal Dominion over all the World from his Father and 't will be hard to unriddle why he used it not in this occasion His Subjects more disposed to obey him they were willing they were forward to do their parts what can be said why he did not do his and govern them I said before and I cannot but repear it 'T is as much the duty of a King to govern as of Subjects to be governed and I cannot for my life imagine any other reason why he should refuse to govern then this that he was no temporal King If it may be permitted me to speak freely this position of temporal regal Power in Christ seems to me to include both nonsense and blasphemy For Nonsense it is to put a Power in him to no purpose an useless Metaphysical potentia never reduced into Act and blasphemy it is to say he was deficient in his duty and how that position will get clear of either of these absurdities I can by no means understand Other places of Scripture they bring but these are the most material Now because a Catholick cannot be a Catholick who maintains a position directly contrary to Scripture for neither he nor his position would be endured those of the other side have invented several Senses which they give to the places alledged and though those Senses seem to me full of Nonsense yet I cannot but commend in the Authors that they chuse rather to contradict common Sense then Scripture But do you Judge My Kingdom is not of this World that is say they 't is not by way of Election or Succession
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
holds them If that Argument be good this likewise of necessity must be good Learned men in the Church hold those Doctrines false and wicked therefore the Church does so too for the same authority cannot but have the same force either way and the Deniers have as much power to remove the imputation from the Church as the affirmers to fix it upon her You have cited if not all yet the most considerable of those who maintain them and they make some ten or twelve 'T is pretty odd that the judgment of ten or twelve men must needs be taken for the judgment of the Church But let that pass by the same rule the judgment of ten or twelve of the contrary must conclude the judgment of the Church for the contrary Wherefore if I produce as many and as famous men for the Negative as you have done for the affirmative 't is without more a do a drawn match and nothing being proved either way the Church is absolved by the Law of nature by which every one is innocent who is not proved nocent But what will become of your Argument if for one of your side I produce two if ten peradventure twenty on the contrary Either you must confess the Argument has no force or the Church innocence efficaciously proved by it unless peradventure you can find some subtile formalities by which you will maintain your single man is stronger than my ten or twenty Now all this is not only possible but already done to my hand by Caron the learned defender of the Irish Remonstrance who in his Loyalty asserted what betwixt Canonists and Divines Schoolmen and Fathers Popes Councils Universities Kingdoms c ' has made a Catalogue of more than two hundred and fifty Defenders of the contrary Doctrine You see then I had no necessity of flying to Formalities to answer your Argument For by your own Rule and Method the Church is proved not to hold the Doctrines you mention and not only so but plainly to hold the contrary nothing being more unreasonable in the world than to give it with the ten against the two hundred or to think that ten is a sufficient number to engage the Church one way and two hundred not sufficient to engage her the other But looking a little nearer unto it me thinks it is of kin to Boccalin's Age pargeted four fingers thick with appearances Strip off the gay Jacket of pretty smartness in which you have drest it and there will remain as little substance and less soundness Learned men say you say such things therefore the Chureh says them What if you be as much mistaken in your Antecedent as Inference and that they prove not learned who say them Words you know are slippery things and you have well exemplified in divers I fear this term Learned men and Learning is no less slippery nor less abused than those which are most so But not to be too severe a Divine is a Learned Man can he therefore prescribe Physic The Metaphysician the Natural the Moral Philosopher the Mathematician the Physician the Lawyer are all esteemed learned men but their learning is confin'd every one to his proper profession out of that their authority is of no moment and they may with all their learning be very ignorant in matters which belong not to them Now consider a little The men whom you have cited are excepting one or two all Canonists and esteemed able men in that profession but every one knows their profession consists in declaring what the meaning of the law is and what the intention of the Law-maker and if they go beyond this they exceed the bounds of their profession Our Question now whether the Pope have or have not such a power to what skill does it belong To the Law Plainly nothing less What the Pope has Commanded and what he meant by the words in which he has exprest his commands is as far as the Lawyer can go but what power he has to command and how far that reaches is quite out of his Sphere If I mistake not for 't is a study in which I have no skill the power of the Lawmaker is a Principle supposed not proved in the Law for if a Lawyer go about to prove it keeping without the limits of his own Art he argues a posteriori thus He has commanded such and such things therefore he has power to command them And this is a proper and good law proof where the first Maxim is that the Law is just and the power of the Law-maker still supposed If the Lawyer venture upon other proof he intrenches upon anothers skill in which possibly he may be very ignorant And he that will not be satisfied with this nor admit his other Maxim Lex non facit injuriam but excepts against Law and Power and all has no remedy but to seek satisfaction elsewhere In fine what the Pope claims from Christ belongs to the Divine what from Reason and the force of Nature to the Philosopher only what he claims to the agreement of men belongs to the Lawyer and in this he ought to be heard in other things he is Sutor ultra crepidam Your discourse therefore which appears so trim and gay in the dress you have given it has no more strength than the authority of a few men in a matter wherein they have no authority and if they had is overpowred by a greater and this methinks you needed not have thought so unanswerable Were you now an Adversary with whom I should think fit to use the Right establisht by the Laws of disputation I should say no more for an Answerer has fully discharged his part who has shewn his Opponents Argument concluding But since we are Friends and write not to convince but inform one another I shall return to my old way which I take to be the way of Nature and endeavour to shew you more minutely how unreasonable it is the Church should be charged with those errors Church signifies a Congregation of Faithful and Faithful Men who have Faith And since Men cannot be without Reason nor Reason without working in them 't is unavoidable that besides the perswasions lodg'd in them by Faith men will have others which proceed from their Reasons to say nothing of Passion and the Animal Nature which has its efficacie upon the Faithful as well as all the rest of mankind Now as in the rest of the actions of men Nature forces us to look into the Principles from whence they proceed and attribute every one to his proper cause which if we did not all would presently turn into confusion So we must here and consider in the actions of the Faithful Whether they act as Faithful or as Men. And those Actions which proceed not from Faith but Reason or Passion are no more to be charg'd upon the Church than the Covetise or Cruelty or whatever faults of men in office upon their Offices And in all this there is
very pleasant Reformation into the World But I forget that I am to say nothing of my self I must therefore undertake a needless labour and shew from other men that Princes are the Vicars of God and though the unanimous consent of every body might well excuse me for none that I ever heard of either doubts they are so or boggles to call them so when the phrase comes in their way yet I must not break my bargain Let us then consider what this word Vicar signifies and in such plenty or rather such a multitude for I wish the plenty were as great as the number as we have amongst us we cannot sure be ignorant what a Vicar is We see he is one who supplys the place of another who not able for other respects to attend to his proper employment delivers it over to be executed by him whom we call his Vicar Kings we see govern the World and the Government of the World being the proper work of Providence they do the business which properly belongs to God But the nature of God being of that unsociable excellence that we are not able to bear the immediate Rays of divine brightness and converse with him whose Face none can see and live our nature requires he should do this by such substitutes to whom we may address our selves and have recourse for what we need Since Kings then supply the place of God or do that which he should do and which he truly does by them they want nothing to the perfect notion of his Vicars but this that they be appointed and impowr'd by God for that end With this difference notwithstanding that Vicars are necessary for other men from the imperfection of their natures who make them because they cannot attend to two employments at once but are necessary for God from the superexcelling perfection of his nature and imperfection of ours which cannot bear an immediate converse with him Now that they are immediately substituted by God to govern the World under him or in his place since t is not likewise to be deny'd I hope a few Authorities will serve to prove And yet I cannot tell whether that hasty word Immediately will down with all For some Divines put this difference betwixt the Spiritual and Temporal Power that the first is immediately from God the second by mediation of the People subjecting themselves by way of Election Succession or such other means by which Governments are either introduc'd or establisht And for my part though I were not ty'd from dogmatizing irritare crabrones is a thing from which I have much aversion especially in a question which I conceive of an extraordinary importance For whether the power be from God immediately or mediately so it be from God I conceive it extends as far and is as much to be obey'd Saul and David were immediately appointed by God and yet I think as much obedience was due to Solomon as either of them and that St. Peters Successour whether Clemens or whoever else was as much Pope as he And if election made the power mediate we see Popes are not Popes till they be elected There are indeed who by this mediation understand a reserve in the people to reassume in certain cases the power which they have given But this I must needs think very abominable and shall not stick to say whoever reproves me for it is himself more reprovable St. Paul has taught there is no power but from God so I believe and if any think they have found better Masters of Faith I for my part mean to stick to those which Christ has given me But let us see what is said by those whom no Catholick I suppose will reprove The Council of Paris speaks methinks to purpose when it says L. 2. c. 5. No King must think his Kingdom left him by his Progenitors but truly and humbly believe 't was given him by God And that earthly Kingdoms are not given by men but God the Prophet Daniel testifies Dan. 4.14 5.25 Hierom. 27.5 But to them who think their Kingdoms given them by Succession from their Ancestors and not rather by God agrees that which God reproves by the Prophet They have reigned but not by me Osee 8.4 they have been Princes and I knew them not Wherefore whoever Reigns temporally over other men L. 5. l. 21. let him believe his Kingdom was given him not by men but by God St. Austin de Civit. Dei Let us not attribute the power of giving Kingdoms and Empires to any but the true God Tertullian They Empeperours know who gave them the Empire Apoleget adv Gent. c. 30. They know 't was he who made them men and gave them souls They are sensible 't was God alone under whose power alone they are second to him and after him first before all men Again From thence is the Emperour from whence the man before he was Emperour from thence the power from whence the spirit or breath I am not good at subtletys but methinks 't is hard to make that power mediate which is not from Ancestors and Succession not from men but from God alone More refin'd wits perhaps may make it hang together that Kings have their power from God alone and from something else too and that their power is mediate in which none interposes but himself and prove a gift from the people of that which God himself gives as if his power were under Age and could not make a valid donation without them and when they have done such fine things we are still just where we were for 't is acknowledg'd of all hands even by those who least favour the temporal power that it is from God and if it be so those who have it from him are his Vicars But yet you shall not take my word even for so much He was a Vicar of Christ himself who speaks thus to the Emperour Anast 2. Ep. un The brest of your clemency is Sacrarium the sacred depository of publick felicity that by you whom God has commanded to preside as his Vicar on Earth And before him Eleutherius in an Epistle to King Lucius our and I think the Worlds first Christian King preserved in our Antiquities tells him 't was needless to send him the Roman Laws which the King desir'd but wishes him to take the Law of God and the advice of his own Nation and frame such as were proper for his Country as being himself the Vicar of God After him another uses these terms to the Emperour Steph. 6. ap Baron an 885. n. 11. Although you similitudinem geras which I know not how otherwise to English then represent the person or are the Vicar of the Emperour Christ himself The same phrase is found in Pope Hermisda In Ep. ad Rom. c. 13. St. Ambrose speaks plainly Let them know they are not free but under the power which is from God for they are subject to
to understand a power given to absolve from the Bond of Debt Again c. 14. To Peter was given spiritual power onely to remit sins nor can be do any thing in temporals but in foro conscientiae Aegid Rom. Q. de utraque potestat art 3. It is to be understood that Christ had a threefold power over bodies souls and temporal goods The first he us'd by curing infirmities c. The second viz. Spiritual he both us'd and delegated as much as is necessary and expedient for the good of Souls The third He neither us'd nor gave but rather forbad both to Peter and the other Apostles as is said And concludes In the Commission given to Peter his Vicar we read not temporal but onely spiritual power committed to him I will give Thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven he said not and Dominion over worldly things Wherefore he presently adds as explicating himself to mean onely spiritual power Whatever you shall bind c. Ambros Catharin upon Rom. 13. That the pope is Vicar of Christ is nothing to purpose to make us believe he has power given him to rule all the World in temporals It rather perswades us such power was not given him because Christ refus'd it and as he was man had it not in the World for after the Resurrection 't was said all power is given me c. But in this World he was subject to secular powers Wherefore he left the Pope Vicar of that Kingdom which was given him by his Father while he liv'd on Earth namely the spiritual Kingdom over his Sheep c. Otherwise if he be the Vicar of Christ absolutely according to all the power which Christ had he should have power over Angels and the Blessed which is ridiculous And again These powers are different from one another and no man can usurp either at his pleasure and to think and teach otherwise is most seditious and most horrible Anton. de Rosell de Protestat Imp. Pap. p. 1. c. 38. Whence I conclude 't is Heresie and Madness to say that the universal Administration of Temporals is or can be in the Pope Greg. Haimbarg de prim Pap. Whence it appears 't is a fable and invention that is writ in the Decretals that Popes have the plenitude of power givem them and such a Dominion that they are over Kings and Princes in Temporals They are smart fellowes these Schoolmen and speak home and yet are good Catholicks for all that and acknowledg'd to be so neither are they otherwise reprov'd or reprovable then as Scholars take the freedom to censure one another Mean time since a Catholick may unreprovably hold that the two powers were distinguisht by Christ and joyn'd by the Devil the temporal committed to Princes and the spiritual to Bishops who if they be Souldiers of God are not to meddle with secular business that while Bishops dispense divine Princes are to administer humane things that to the Clergy belong onely spirituals and the Popes power has nothing to do with possessions that dominion is forbidden him and onely the Rod of direction granted c. I hope you may quiet your fears and not suspect I shall either be disown'd or reprov'd by my Church if upon the security of so much Authority I deny your first Proposition and affirm the Popes Vicarship is confin'd to spirituals and that it hinders not Princes from being Gods Vicars as well as himself who if they manage all their trust are accountable onely to him second to whom they are and except whom they have none above them I mean in their own kind Onely I would not have you boggle at this that the Pope is not every where expresly nam'd For though the Order of Government require that the Head should have more power then an inferior Member as the Commission of a General must be larger then that of a private Captain yet I think none will doubt but the power of the Pope and the rest of the Clergy is all of the same kind and the more which belongs to him as Head of the Church signifies more of the same sort of actions not power of another nature But because I am to say nothing of my self let St. Leo tell you this and more in a Sermon inserted into the Churches Office on the Feast of St. Peters Chair at Antioch where speaking of the Confession of St. Peter and the promise made him upon it The force indeed says he of this power past into the other Apostles and the Constitution of this Decree of the keys descended to all the Princes of the Church but 't is not without cause that what is intimated to all is commanded to one For this is therefore particularly entrusted to Peter because the example of Peter is propos'd to all the Governors of the Church And so much to the first Proposition which though I have abstained from treating dogmatially yet I have said or rather shew'd you that others say what may abundantly quiet your fears and that a Catholick who confines the Popes power onely to spirituals is so far from contradicting my principle receiv'd amongst Catholicks that he has the warrant of great I had almost said all Authority on this side at least so much that is not well consistent with Catholick principles to oppose it But I pray mistake me not for though I have said nothing of my self yet I would not be misinterpreted so much as to have alledg'd ought which might be thought to question any not onely spiritual but even temporal power which may justly belong to the Church and which when it does she may without doubt justly use But 't is one thing to have power by agreement of men and another by Commission from Christ and I would say no more then St. Bernard has said before me that however such things may belong to the Church yet not by right of Apostleship Your Argument assum'd that a Vicar had the same power with him whose Vicar he is what I have alledg'd was only to answer that and as I am not oblig'd so I meant not to go farther What I shall adde in examination of your second Proposition you will perceive is more to satisfie your Friendship then your Argument for whether Christ had temporal Dominion or no if he gave it not to the Pope the Pope is never the near and your Argument sufficiently cleer'd Notwithstanding since I would not give you cause to complain I neglect any thing you propos'd let us consider how far this is true that Christ had all temporal as well as spiritual power But Friend I hope your feud to formalities is abated for I must tell you beforehand there is no discoursing on this subject without distinguishing the God from the Man Yow know in Christ the distinct properties of both Natures were so united that they both made but one Sacred Person to which person nothing can be deny'd which can with truth be affirm'd of God and none
I think will be so madly blasphemous to question the absolute Soveraignty and Omnipotent power of God over all things But the same person was man too and 't is from that formality the Pope claims for suppose 't is no less impiety to affirm that what belongs to the Divine Nature is not communicable to any to whom that Nature is not communicated then 't is to deny of the Divine Nature that which truly belongs to it And this Bellarmin well understood when he argues thus De Rom. Pont. l. 5. l. 4. Christ as man while he liv'd on Earth neither had nor would have Dominion meerly temporal over any Province or Town But the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and represents Christ to us as he was while he liv'd amongst men Wherefore the Pope as Christ's Vicar and consequently as Pope has not Dominion meerly temporal over any Province or Town Speaking now of Christ precisely as Man those who attribute temporal power to him and make him a secular King go one of these two ways They either alledge right of Succession by descent from David or a particular grant from God the Father in whose power it being to dispose of all Kingdoms they affirm he has transfer'd this Right upon his Son as Man Of these two the first is hard to prove and in my opinion signifies nothing when 't is prov'd The descent indeed of Christ from and that by two several beanches is recorded in the Gospel but descent gives a tittle to none but the nearest of the descent and that Christ was the nearest is so far from appearing that I know not how it possibly should 'T is true that Solomon and his Posterity Reigned to Jeconias but of him the Prophet Hier. 22.30 Foretold there should not be of his seed a man who should sit upon the Throne of David and have power longer in Juda So that the Succession of that Regal Line of David seems ended in him 'T is true Zedechias or Mathanias Reigned 11 years after him who was not of his seed for he was his Uncle but from him to Aristobulus of the Race of the Machabees who first reassum'd the Regal Diadem there was not any King at all amongst the Jews That Nathan or any of his Posterity either Reign'd or had right to Reign nothing appears and much less that Christ was the nearest of the descendents from either that or the other branch In so much darkness I think 't is evident there can be no clear title However I conceive another thing is clear which even supposing that Christ were next in descent to David would quite take away all Title to his Kingdom and that is that in his time the Kindom was legally and justly translated from the Family of David to the Asmoneans For certainly to affirm that the Machabees and their Successors who with excellent vertue recover'd the lost Scepter and setled it in their own Family were all Intruders and Usurpers and Tyrants would be a wild and preposterous assertion and such an one as would unsettle all the translations of Empires which concur in the course of History whereof few perhaps have been made with greater virtue or more justice What King can be secure of his Title if the Asmoneans were no Rightful King And if they were descent from David gives Christ no more title to the Throne of David then Signior Paleologo far be all irreverence from the comparison has to the Empire of Greece or Goodman Plantagenet to the Crown of England A title therefore by descent seems very hard to prove but though it were prov'd I think there is so little got by the bargain that it might have been e'en as well let alone For right to the Kingdom of David is but right to the Kingdom of David and I suppose the Pope will not agree to have his Authority confin'd to the Guetto at Rome and be put to the trouble of Assembling the dispers'd Jews that he may have over whom to Reign and wringing out the ancient Kingdom of David from the present Possessors that he may have where to Reign He knows well enough the strength and stability of long possession and I dare say will not change his spiritual title at Rome for the best and fairest temporal title which can be made him to Hierusalem and where else the right of David can give him any interest 't is hard to imagine The other Plea is a Grant from his Father who may undoubtedly dispose of Kingdoms and every thing else as he pleases But his usual way of giving Kingdoms is to put those to whom he gives them into actual possession by Election Succession the Sword or other secondary means To give bare titles without other fruit is a course not suitable to the method of his proceeding Lawyers indeed have invented a distinction betwixt the Dominion and usus fructus of a thing and the distinction is useful here below but I suspect distinctions are strangers in Heaven and that plain dealing providence deals little in Chican However it be being resolv'd not to penerrate into the depth of the question my self I shall onely observe to you what people say on both sides and leave you to judge This short reflexion by the way I suppose I may irreprovably make that if the Father made any such grant the Son was not ignorant of it And if he knew such power was given him and yet refused to use it I perceive not how he will be excus'd from the blame of not doing what belong'd to him to do A King certainly is as much oblig'd to govern as a Subject to obey and since 't is manifest blasphemy to say Christ was deficient in any point of duty this in reference to my dulness is unavoidable Christ did not perform the duty of a temporal King therefore he was no temporal King But these are onely my thoughts by the by what people say on both sides is this Those who would have Christ a temporal King alledge in proof these places of Scripture which speak of his power in general and expresly apply the name of King to him in particular Such as Heb. 1.2 Whom he made Heir of all things by whom also he made the Worlds Heb. 2.7 Thou hast Crowned him with honour and glory and set him over all the works of thy hands For in that he subjected all things he left nothing not subject to him 1 Cor. 5.24 When he shall have evacuated all Principality and Power and Vertue Mat. 28.18 All power is given me in Heaven and in Earth Jo. 23.3 Knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands Jo. 5.22 For the Father judges no man but has given all judgment to the Son he has given him power to judge because he is the son of man Apoc. 17.14 They shall fight with the Lamb and the Lamb shall overcome them because he is Lord of Lords and King of Kings And again 19.16 And he has written
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
know not where to fix my jealousie I cannot say but the cause you assign may have had some influence upon me for to hear men spoken against perpetually and universally and not to think there is some fire to all that smoke is hardly possible Yet let me tell you I think you have no great reason to complain for if I mistake not you owe a good number of your Proselites to this very cause and believe that of those who come over to you far the greatest part have been wrought upon by this perswasion That you are ill represented When you truly are so as I cannot deny but sometimes you are 't is no hard matter for you to shew it to candid people whom nature has so disposed to favour persons wrongfully traduc'd that this bad Idea where of you complain makes you at last sufficient amends There is such a charm in injur'd Innocence that I am very confident it brings you in more Converts than all your Arguments If some be hardned others are gain'd and peradventure fair play were more for the Interest of both sides However it be I acknowledge I was my self something mistaken in you and not so well acquainted as I thought with your Religion where things I perceive go otherwise than I apprehended I thought there had been an Oraculous kind of lustre in this power of the Popes which had either dazled you into a blindness of not seeing ought against it or aw'd you into a fear of saying what you saw if you saw any thing and for ought I perceive you are as cleer sighted as other men and speak bold truths as freely I must confess we are a little out when we impute blindness to you at least I 'm sure you saw more in this particular than I. But hark you Friend while you discourse of one thing my thoughts insensibly carry me to another I begin to conceit this Tradition of yours which makes such a noise and passes for such a bugbear may prove less frightful than our apprehensions make it And I cannot tell whether the Pope has not as much reason to be jealous of it as Protestants For methinks if that be made the Test of Doctrines and nothing impos'd upon our belief but upon the warrant of the constantly conspiring attestation of all Ages This deposing power of the Popes which from its inconsistency with Civil government I so much abhorr'd must needs be excluded from the Articles of belief and Protestans eas'd of a great deal of pains in pulling down that which your own beloved Principle pulls down to their hands For ought I know it may do as good service upon other occasions however I avow to you I am more friends with it than ever I was and think Protestants have no reason to look unkindly upon a Principle which takes their part so much in a question of such importance I wish with all my heart it were lookt into more throughly for I mistake extreamly if it would not cut off a number of those things of which we complain and though peradventure it be no discretion to speak so freely to you reduce things to that pass that while you labour to bring us over to you That very instrument which you use to that purpose may force you over to us But rather than such a thing should happen I presume the Pope would disown it and after he has us'd it as long as it would serve his turn turn enemy to It as soon as he finds It turn enemy to him But to tell you truly I am something in a better humour for Tradition because you speak of Scripture with that reverence which is fit and which pleases me so much the more by how much the less I expected it from you For you know how ill you hear pardon the pedantry of the phrase for failing in the respect due to that sacred pledge of the Divine Love which the fear or rather consciousness how cleerly those undimmable lights would discover the abundance of tares you have sown amongst the wheat of the Gospel makes you shut up from the Vulgar and exclude from the Test and Judge of Controversies And after this to profess they are divinely inspir'd and that no other writings can be compar'd to them is a thing which pleases indeed but surprizes me too Do you forget or have you a mind to condemn your self For the Spirit of God must certainly be Gods best Interpreter and where that is to be had as in books divinely inspir'd the Divine Spirit must certaiâ—ly be to seek another Judge is to refuse him now by whom we must one day be judg'd whether we will or no and should do well not to provoke in the mean time by contempt To tell you my thoughts freely If you would give a little more to Scripture than you do and we to Tradition I think things might be better betwixt us For you pretend to hate Novelties as I am sure we do All our whole Reformation being nothing else but the rejecting what you have introduc'd Let us have but Gods Law pure as he gave it and free from the mixture of erroneous additions or diminutions and we have no more to desire And if I understand Tradition rightly and that it signifie what Vincentius Lirinensis has long since delivered for the test of Sound doctrine viz. what has been held ever and every where and by all methinks you should like Novelties no more than We for novelty and this cannot consist together and there needs no farther confutation of novelty but only to shew that 't is a Novelty Which if it be so in the name of God how fell we out We all know that Christ was our only Lawgiver and that upon the observation of the Law he gave us all our hopes of Salvation depend that since him there has been no new Law-maker and whoever teaches any doctrine contrary to what was taught by him is long since declar'd Anathema by the Apostle that profane Novelties are to be avoided and those who broach or abett them are in the words of the Psalmist wicked men who tell us stories but not as thy Law O God And while we both agree in this how is it possible we should disagree in ought and what magick is it which thus sets up Altar against Altar and divides the seamless coat of Christ In the darkness of Barbarism and Ignorance things might more easily be obtruded upon us but in an age shining with so much wit and learning and so cleer sighted in Antiquity methinks it is no such hard matter to find out at least which is the Novelty and then if Vincentius say true we know without more ado which is the Truth Seriously Friend I am at a strange loss and cannot possibly unriddle this Mystery But my zeal transports me and I have almost forgot what we were talking of To return to your Letter It is I must confess long enough yet I wish it had been
Transporting Corn c. by private Capricios and publick and obligatory commands tell me whether Bellarmin were not in a pleasant humour and had great care of the Commonwealth when he made a little inconvenience reason enough to oblige the Clergy to keep the Civil Laws and permits and makes it their duty to break them with twenty times a greater I say nothing of the greatest inconvenience of all the acknowledging a Forreign Authority which can oblige so great a number of persons living within the bounds and taken for members of the Common-wealth as belong to the Clergy to break all Laws even in Temporal things because at present I mind only how pat the reason is which he gives for his Directive obligation of the Clergy Otherwise that Doctrine brings not only confusion and trouble but ruin to the common-wealth and is absolutely intolerable But this is not a place for it To return into our Road Bellarmin tells us at last that the Clergy and Laity have even in Temporals different Laws a different Prince and different Tribunals and that the Common-wealth which holds them is in truth and formally two Common-wealths though because they all live in the same place and under protection of the same Prince it be materially one Also that in respect of the Clergy Princes are not superiour Powers and therefore the Clergy are not bound to obey them neither by Divine nor so much as Human right unless Directively in certain cases as was said before This is full and home for Bellarmin can speak plain enough when he has a mind to it But the Question and my Curiosity are now at an end For I do not mean to be laught at by persisting to enquire whether the Clergy be subject to him who is not their Prince nor in respect of them a superiour power It is something strange though By this account the Clergy are no more subjects to the Prince in whose Dominions they live than Aliens who live in his Country under his protection They are as much a new and strange kind of Aliens bred and born and unmoveably setled in a Common-wealth and yet Aliens still However it be I have no more to say to the Holland Deputys Bellarmin has acquitted them It remains that he acquit himself for as great a man as he is so unexpected and so important a Doctrine will hardly pass upon his bare word He proves it both from Human and Divine Right And I commend him for leaving nothing out but think nevertheless I may deduct the one half and confine my inquiry to Divine Right For Human Right being either by Civil or Ecclesiastical Laws what the Clergy have by Civil Laws is so far from prejudicing their subjection that it rather confirms it For Receiving is an acknowledgment of the power from which they receive Besides Princes whether they can or no yet use not to grant any thing derogatory from their own Soveraignty or if they do recal it on better consideration What in particular it is which the Clergy have this way we must enquire of those who know the Laws whatever it be much good may it do them Were all men of my mind peradventure it should be more than it is for I am of opinion they cannot be respected too much and whatever serves whether to preserve or increase that respect is the Laitys good as much as theirs and perhaps more As for Ecclesiastical Laws I conceive they need no place of their own at present but may come in either with Civil or Divine For if the stress be put only there so that before the Ecclesiastical Laws were made the Clergy were Subjects and had been so still if those Laws had not exempted them from subjection Princes I suppose will expect their consent should be askt Ecclesiastical Laws of this nature not binding without the concurrence of the Civil Power And then the Question will be to what and how far the Civil power is engaged which plainly belongs to Civil Right But if the Ecclesiastical Law be supposed not originally to give but declare and press that exemption as due to the Clergy by an antecedent Law of God or nature the exemption is then refunded into that antecedent Law and there as I conceive it only pinches Wherefore leaving Bellarmin's proofs from Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws to those who are skil'd and concern'd in them I am only curious to know what kind of proofs he will bring from the Divine Law which if it do command such things as he affirms of the Clergy truly I have hitherto been very ill instructed in it He divides them into the two branches of Positive and Natural Divine Law either of which would have serv'd his turn but he will needs undertake for both Beginning with the Positive he desires us first to observe That by the Positive Law of God he means not any command of God properly so called which expresly appears in Holy Writ but what may by some similitude be deduced from the Examples or Testimonys of the Old or New Testament Now this seems to me a very inauspicious beginning and as much as to say that by the Positive Law of God he means the not-Positive Law of God For pray what does Positive signifie It is used in contradistinction to Natural and Natural signifies the Law or Rule of Actions imprinted in us by Reason which inasmuch as it is our nature gives it the Title of Natural inasmuch as that nature proceeds from God the Title of Divine But because it happens from the shortness or corruption of nature that what appears reasonable to one appears unreasonable to another this Rule becomes a kind of Lesbian Rule bent by our passions several waies To remedy which mischief and not leave us altogether to the uncertain conduct of our erring Judgements God in his mercy has expresly declared his pleasure about what we are to do or avoid in the matters so declared This express declaration is called his Positive Law which supplys the defects of nature and freeing us from groping blindly in the dark and wrangling fruitlesly and endlesly about what is or is not our duty sets it in a clear light before us and leaves us nothing to do but perform it This being so I would fain learn of Bellarmin what pretence there can be for the Positive Law of God where there is no express command of his and we are left to our uncertain Deductions What difference betwixt this and the case of pure nature and what shall hinder us from wrangling as long and to as little purpose as if there were no such thing as his Positive Law in the World Nay though we could come to an end since this end is to be made at last by the force of prevailing Reason which can satisfie us of the Truth of the deductions it makes why is not that end to be refunded rather into Reason than the Law of God We may possibly have some assistance from it towards
the direction of our Reason But Positive Law is one thing the operations even of assisted Reason another And I cannot imagine how the operations of Reason should by one that loves to speak properly as Bellarmin does be called the Law of God Though it be the Law of God on which Reason works yet it 's Reason still that works and unless we have good security that our Reason is particularly directed in these operations I know not why it may not fail us as well here as elsewhere A body would think the sad distractions which perplex the World in matters that concern the Law of God are too good an Argument that our Reason fails us no where more But that the World is a confident World and the Cry alwaies great whatever the Wooll be I should wonder people should not fear to make so bold at every turn with God and his Law For whoever is mistaken in his reasoning plainly pins his own mistakes upon unerring Truth and who is not has at most but hit upon a true conclusion in Divinity which if he will call the Positive Law of God he must have a language by himself Nevertheless if Bellarmin once in his life be infallible in his Logick and have rightly deduc'd his conclusion from his Premises whether it may be called the Positive Law of God or no I acknowledge it is to be embrac'd as all Truth is whatever name it have and however we come by it But I must needs avow his credit is not great enough with me to engage my laziness into the trouble of examining his Arguments I see he cites Classical Authors men of great names even among your selves who know as little of the positive Law he talks of as my self and who positively deny there is any such thing in the case By the way one may perceive it was not Lightness but Necessity which drew Bellarmin to intitle his reasonings to the Law of God He had a mind to establish the exemptions of the Clergy on that Basis which he was sure was firm and unmoveable But because there was no such Law to be found to put his own deductions in its stead was a forc'd put And if a second reason may be thought of why he should leave undone what was impossible to be done I suppose he might have some consideration of the Gentlemen his Adversarys For it would have been a troublesome business to have made out how there should be a positive Law of God of which Masters in Israel as well as himself were ignorant had he understood by it what others do But to let this pass till he and his Friends are agreed I have no temptation to thrust my self into their quarrels I do not think but they have something still to say for themselves for all he has urged against them Till he have stopt their mouths and left them without reply I think I may take the liberty to think them as likely to be in the right as he and unblameably dissent from him as well as those of his own party Again People in this Age use not to perform altogether so much as they Promise and Bellarmin does not promise more than some similitude between the cases he finds in the Scripture and that of the Clergy now adaies Though he should perform to the uttermost I suspect the result would be little more than to make hard shift to bring an Argument against himself He mentions in all four places of Scripture whereof three according to his own reckoning amount but to this The Levites were exempted by the Positive Law and therefore Priests who are as good men as they ought to be so too I fear Bellarmin will hardly be contented though a man should allow him all the exemptions which can be proved due to the Levites by the old Law But I will not meddle with that matter It is plain that God did expresly give the Levites the exemptions mentioned in the old Law it is confessed by Bellarmin that there is no express mention in the new Law of those exemptions to the Clergy for which he contends I see not why this does not evidently conclude that God was not of Bellarmin's mind and intended not that the Clergy should owe their exemptions to his Law For otherwise why did he not exempt them expresly as he did the Levites Unless we could swallow the Blasphemy of imagining God was less careful of Priests than Levites or when he came to deliver us a new Law forgot to insert all he intended and left it to be supplied by our whimsys These places I think prove the just contrary of what Bellarmin would have and that which follows is that as the exemptions of the Levites were by the positive Law of God because they are expresly mentioned in it so the Clergys exemptions are not by the positive Law of God because there is no mention of them in it However it be when I reflect that the Topick which for want of a better Bellarmin is fain to chuse is à Simili and that Like or Vnlike is to be found or made every where when I reflect that even this too dwindles into a quandam similitudinem a thing which may be found in the most contrary things that are for there is some kind of likeness even betwixt Fire and Water I cannot see but that to meddle with it is to begin an Inquiry which never will have end For I believe Dooms-day will sooner come than he shall have made his cases so like that no difference can be found between them and till he do the Topick concludes not I turn me therefore to observe what work he will make with his Divine natural Law which he first distinguishes into three degrees In the first he places those commands of nature which are so clearly imprinted in mens hearts that they need no Discipline or Art but by the bare light of Reason even without the help of new discourse are by all esteemed Just As that Good is to be desired Evil avoided c. The second degree is of those which follow from those first principles as immediate conclusions naturally flowing by an easie evident and necessary consequence and which as the former need not Discipline or Art but only simple discourse such as all men may have Of this kind he reckons the commands of the Decalogue Now the Exemptions of the Clergy belong not to either of these two but to a third Degree of natural commands which he says are indeed deduced from the Law of nature but by a consequence neither absolutely necessary nor altogether evident and which therefore stand in need of Humane Constitution I should be beholding to him who would tell me what this means For I can make nothing of it and am mightily afraid this unnecessary and unevident consequence of his has a third quality and will prove unintelligible too Deducing I think signifies discovering the connexion of two Terms between themselves because
they are both connected with one third If that connexion be not seen I should think 't is all one as if it were not and if it be seen then to him who sees it 't is evident I should think again that where there is no necessary consequence or connexion of Terms in the conclusion there is no connexion of them with a Third in the Premises For if there be their connexion is as necessary as the connexion of that Third with it self or its being what it is so that the consequence plainly is either necessary or none If this be so a consequence neither evident nor necessary is evidently and necessarily no consequence and so far from communicating the force of the Law of nature to the conclusion that it communicates none at all Wherefore take away the learned Terms and that which Bellarmin says is in plain English this I would have you believe that the Law of Nature commands the exemptions of the Clergy which it may do for ought I know though I neither see it does nor any necessity why it should But yet I would have you believe it because I find it would be very convenient it should be so Though this found not altogether so amusingly as in his language yet I fancy it might be as efficacious For plain dealing is a taking thing and might perhaps work with many but when you set upon them with dint of Argument people stand upon their guard and to attempt them with unnecessary and unseen consequences is a desperate business when the most evident necessary in the World often fails of success The truth is Bellarmin himself does not trust his Deductions at this time For he says they stand in need of Humane Constitution And I pray for what is this Humane Constitution needful Is it to make the not evident and not necessary conclusion evident and necessary and make that follow from natural Principles which does not follow from natural Principles This indeed is what needs but 't is more than Humane Constitution can do For Conclusions follow from the seen Identity of Premises and all the Authority of all mankind put together can never make that be seen which is not to be seen or an Identity where there is a difference Or does he mean that Humane Constitution is needful to make the Conclusion which cannot prevail by its own strength be accepted in vertue of the constitutive Authority This indeed Humane constitution can do for it matters not whether the conclusion be well or ill deduced if those who can command will have it obey'd But then what is established this way stands wholly upon Humane and not at all on Natural Right farther than as Nature or Reason is the ground of all Laws For take away the Humane constitution nature is so far from obliging any body to a consequence confessedly unconcluding that on the contrary it obliges him not to accept it he being not true to his Reason which is his nature who does This being plain to what purpose does Bellarmin keep such ado with the Law of nature when he meant to resolve all into the pure Law of man at last I should guess by the hint he gives presently after that he had a mind to make his Exemptions unalterable for he infers that what depends on the Law of Nations which he makes equivalent to his third branch cannot be abrogated or changed by Princes because it is in some sort natural This would have founded something like if he had not told us what he meant But the mischeif is we know before-hand that his in some sort natural means deduc'd from Nature neither evidently nor necessarily and that signifying not deduc'd the sort which he calls natural signifies a sort of standing upon nature so as not to stand upon nature but upon the needful humane Authority that is a not natural sort And then because his Exemptions can be no otherwise unchangeable than as they are natural there is neither evidence nor necessity of their unchangeableness and so the most that can be said of them is that they are unchangeable in some sort likewise namely in such sort as they are natural that is in a not unchangeable or changeable sort Wherefore when we come to cast up accounts with Bellarmin and see what his Divine Right amounts to we find that what he calls Divine Positive Law is even by his confession no Law of God but deductions from the worst and most hopeless of Topicks Which who will go about to examine had need be a man of great leisure and who can promise himself a great age otherwise his attempt will be desperate and what he calls Divine Natural Law is likewise no Law of Nature but Deductions like the former as weak and as endless and which to save us the fruitless trouble of examining he fairly gives us warning are unconcluding And this is Divine Right in Bellarmin's language Notwithstanding because Truth has influence on the actions of men not as it is in it self but as it appears to them it imports not so much what is as what is apprehended wherefore let Bellarmin's proofs be never so bad if you apprehend them good 't is all one as if they were perfect Demonstrations Tell me then what you think of the matter what you believe and what you do in this point whether Bellarmin and the Church be of the same mind and all the immunities attributed by him to the Clergy pass among you for unquestionably Divine and Unalterable Right And remember our Question is not whether they have exemptions or no. Every body sees they are and ought be free from divers burthens of the Common-wealth since otherwise they could not live a Clerical life as 't is necessary even for the good of the Laity they should But the question is what those Exemptions are and how They come by them For my part I should think that if any Exemption claimed or enjoy'd by them be discovered harmful to the Common-wealth such an exemption is neither necessary to a Clerical life nor commanded by God In particular I see no necessity of their exemption from Secular Tribunals and conceive they might be very good Clergy men without it What prejudice can it be to the Dignity and perfection of their state to be aw'd from doing ill by fear of punishment To do ill is the greatest prejudice to both how being restrained from prejudicing their state should be a prejudice to their state is beyond my understanding They are but men as much the best men as They ought to be and to have their frailty expos'd to one Temptation more than the rest of mankind and that the strongest of Temptations Impunity is in my opinion far from a Benefit I think he is not their Friend who exempts them from fear of punishment unless he exempt them too from the possibility of deserving it Again would They do any thing misbecoming their condition if They paid their shares in Publick
Laws says the objection By the way this can mean nothing but that as to the matters indulged them by Priviledges They were subject in the same manner as the Laity till those priviledges put a difference between them Otherwise that notwithstanding their priviledges They always were and still are truly subjects is the sence of all the World To this what says Bellarmin That those Laws proceeded de Facto not de Jure This is to say that de Facto They were subject as well as the Laity heretofore and that this appears by these Laws which proceeded de Facto to favour them in some things And this is the very thing which the objection says That they did not proceed de Jure he perhaps may be allowed to say because he would otherwise have nothing to say but reason will not allow any man to believe him unless he could prove it which when he went about to do we see how ill he succeeded In the mean time I see these priviledges were granted at several and long distant times I see that the Clergy when they had the former had not the later and before They had the first had none at all Wherefore I must needs think that as They were de Facto subject before the Laws so they would be de Facto still but for the Laws This way They have a clear undoubted right to their priviledges as much and as strong as any body has to any worldly thing No other Right was ever thought of in those Ages and yet in those Ages lived all the Doctors of the Church both Greek and Latin men who had at least as much insight into the Laws of God and Nature as Bellarmin and as much Zeal for the good and honour of the Church He does not make out so much as plausibly the Right which he pretends from those Laws I conceive therefore I may conclude upon the whole the Exemptions or priviledges which the Clergy have are all from Human not Divine Law which though it alwaies guided the Church and was peradventure better understood and more reverenc'd in former times was never pretended till lately That They neither have nor can have any Exemptions which free them absolutely from subjection that being a thing which neither a Prince can grant nor Nature bear And that whatever Bellarmin says this is acknowledg'd both by the Clergy themselves and all the World besides by the universal consent of all people and places that notwithstanding all their Exemptions They are still truly Subjects and by being so obliged to all that subjection obliges with that difference betwixt them and others in the performance of their subjection which their priviledges import Possibly out of this universality may be excepted some of those who live as Bellarmin did in the Popes Territories and so have but one Prince both in Spirituals and Temporals These are too apt to think it is or ought to be with the rest of the World as it is with them And who knows whether that conceit be not the original source of the whole stream But elsewhere I think the General Rule has no exception And so I had done but that I remember we live in times in which notice is publickly taken of the contempt of the Clergy and Reasons given for it They indeed miss the mark nor do I think it fit to give the true ones But I would not have the bad humour of the Age fed by any thing of mine As Bellarmin has gone too far on the one side ill will may go much farther on the other and possibly take occasion from what I have said against him to do so I conceive it therefore fit before I close my Letter to resume some considerations which I forbore to mention when they occurred for fear of straying from the matter in hand Bellarmin tells us the Clergy and their Goods are Sacred things and the pceuliar Lot of God This if rightly understood is a great and even to the Laity beneficial Truth Yet 't is to be suspected He did not penetrate it enough because he concludes wrong that they are therefore both quite out of the reach of Secular power One might take a fancy to argue them out of the reach of the Ecclesiastical too For what has any man to do with what properly belongs to God If you say the Ecclesiastical power is from God so likewise is the Secular And so people might with fruitless Conceits and Repartee's go on in endless wrangling Let us therefore reflect a little on what every body knows that God neither stands in need of any created good nor is capable of receiving either good or harm from Creatures For that essential and overflowing fulness of his own perfection can neither get nor lose That overflow of goodness has created man for the good of man not God and all material nature besides not for its self or for God but purely for the use of man Likewise what he commands or requires of man is only for the benefit of man who by obeying or disobeying does himself good or harm but none to God Those Phrases therefore of serving God being his and the like are expressions introduc'd by his mercy in condescendence to our weakness to raise us up by the aw of his interposing more steadily to perform those actions which in truth are profitable only to our selves We have the whole benefit of the service we are said to do him and in reality serve our selves when we are said to serve him So likewise the things which are called his are neither taken from us nor spent in any use of his to whom nothing can be useful but ordered by him to be employed in a way most beneficial to us in which they would either not at all or not so well and readily be employ'd if we were not assisted by an apprehension of a particular concern or propriety of his in them Applying this to the Clergy when They or their Goods are called the Lot of God given or consecrated to him peculiarly his and what else is said of this kind 't is not that He is subject to the Meum and Tuum found in the World nor can his property have the same Notion which ours has in respect of our Goods or Servants who are wrong'd when they are taken away or disposed of without our consent But the meaning is that They are establisht in a way of life in which by actions proper to it they are to employ Themselves and their Goods to the greatest advantage of themselves and their Neighbour From which that they be not diverted by humour or interest or violence to ends less beneficial to mankind He is intitled to them that who neither cares nor fears to wrong another man may be checkt by the fear of wronging God against whose Anger there is no Shelter And very requisite it is it should be so A Christian Common-wealth can no more be without Clergy than Christianity Because they are
men They cannot be without such things as the nature of men requires Meat to feed and Cloaths to cover them and this not only what is barely sufficient to preserve them from Hunger and Cold but as the temper of the World is where Poverty is alwaies accompanied with abjection and scorn in a proportion which may keep them in reputation with those among whom They live and with whom in a condition of Contempt They would want credit to do them the good they ought Besides there must be Churches for people to Assemble in The service there must not be slovenly and sordid and apt to tempt those who come to irreverence or abstain from coming again for scorn You I know blame our Church for excessive Pomp in the Sacred Service I for my part think no Pomp can be too much Had you reflected as much as I have done on the nature of man and how strong the Animal part is yet in the best of us peradventure you would be of my mind But letting that pass there goes expence to all this and who will be most thrifty in the Service of God will find it cannot be performed in any tolerable way for a little Christianity would quickly be in a lamentable case if the Clergy had not wherewith to maintain themselves as 't is fit They should be maintained or their maintenance depended on the Capricio's of often froward and sometimes malicious men They must of necessity either diminish into a number too small or languish in a contempt unable to benefit the World If there were no money to build Churches no provision to keep them in repair no allotments for the expences of the Service in them within a while there would be either no Churches or no Service in them If They were debar'd the exercise of their Functions or transplanted into other Callings or so taken up with other employments that they could not attend their own whether by the humorous pleasure of other men or their own irregular passions mankind must needs lose the benefit it receives by them and that is no less than the hopes because the means of a happy Eternity That both the men therefore and the Goods appropriated to these ends be look'd upon as Sacred and appropriated in a peculiar manner to God and wicked or inconsiderate men be aw'd by the fear of Sacriledge from prejudicing Christianity by medling with either is a great mercy of God and great benefit to Man But it follows not therefore They may on no occasion be touch'd A Clergy-man may become wicked and hardned and obstinate in wickedness The good of the Common-wealth may require that the incorrigible offender be cut off whether for Example or to avoid perpetual Injuries and disturbances to particulars or sometimes hazard to the whole Can any man think if this be a requisite and necessary good that God would hinder it and that He who neither has nor can have other end in all he commands then good to man should command what is harmful to man The injury to him if any could be done him would be to harbour so preposterous a conceit of him and his commands as if he would be displeased when we did our selves good But if the Temporal Sword must be used 't is evident it must be used by the Temporal Power for the Spiritual has it not to use And because it must not strike blindly the Temporal Power must also take cognizance of the matter and see why and when and how far it is fit to strike For the rest here is great reason They should be exempted from Magistracy and Souldiery from Trades Offices and whatever Services of the Common-wealth For their own Function plainly requires a whole man whether you look upon the qualities necessary for it neither to be gained nor preserved without long and constant pains or the perpetual and those necessary occasions of exercising it Between both They have employment for every minute of time they have and for more if they had it and must of necessity neglect their own duty if any considerable part of their time be taken with any other Again as a man of no esteem shall be but ill heard of whatsoever he speaks there will be small efficacy in their Exhortations to vertue and good life if They be not in good reputation Wherefore if at any time They yield to the temptations of human frailty it is but fit their faults be kept as much as may be from the eyes of the Vulgar and rectified among themselves And if they have Judges of their own quality to end their differences and correct their misdemeanours and preserve their reputation unsoyl'd with the Laity the benefit is not less perhaps more to the Laity than to Them In fine 't is for the advantage of the Common-wealth that They have whatever is useful to perform in the best manner a Function which is more advantagious to the Common-wealth than any other is or can be And if the Common-wealth grant Them not all such Exemptions or Priviledges or however you will call them it plainly wrongs it self But yet it is the Common-wealth which grants them For as for Judges unless they Act in the nature of Arbitrators by voluntary consent and submission of the partys They cannot proceed to force but by vertue of the Temporal Sword and however Ecclesiastical the Persons be the Judges are pure Secular Judges when they proceed in that manner Again since no person nor his Service can be taken from the Common-wealth without its good will and consent the other Exemptions are also from the Common-wealth though peradventure in things apparently inconsistent with the Function to allow the Function may be to grant the Exemption without more ado That of particular Judges is more subject to the circumstances of Time and Place and therefore more depends on the pleasure of Common-wealths which also proceed differently as every one finds most convenient for itself As for their Goods to note this briefly by the way The Clergy were at first rather Trustees or Stewards than Proprietors Being look'd upon as men free from affections to the things of this World the piety of rich men gave largely to them to maintain Themselves and the Poor whence their Revenues got the name of the Patrimony of the Poor besides to keep the Churches in repair and furnish the expences of the Service in it The money thus given was put into the Bishops hands and by his appointment distributed to the several uses by the Deacons who gave account of their distribution to the Bishop Afterwards the passions of men giving occasion to complain of inequality in the distributions this Arbitrary management was altered by Canons and the Whole divided into four parts One for the Poor another for the Clergy a third for Repairs the fourth for the Bishop and his Family to exercise Hospitality In process of time this too was changed What became of the share of the Poor and