Bellarmin or Calvin or if there be any of a more glorious sound is no more to me then his reason and at the hazard of being thought blunt or rash or over-weening I must needs avow to you I am for the what 's said and care little for who said it If every body were of my humor I mainly suspect this Indirect Power which makes so much ado would have long since appeared neither better nor worse then direct non-sense Pray let us consider it a little The Question is Whether there be in the Pope an Indirect Power to depose Kings He that would know whether this be true or no should do well in my opinion to take along with him what it means 'T is a Circumstance I must confess which is oft forgot and that forgetfulness I believe is the cause we find so much blind mans Buff in Books But yet for once it will not be amiss to remember it And because every body knows what Pope and Power means likewise what 't is to Depose and what a King is there is only this Indirect which needs unridling Now we often hear of Indirect dealing and Indirect courses in the world and 't is hard if people do not know what they mean Indeed we are apt when we hear these words to apprehend something shameful or bad because there is generally something shameful joyned with them fair ends being ordinarily fairly pursued But yet shameful is not the notion of Indirect For a good and commendable thing may be brought to pass Indirectly and if it be bad the badness is one thing and Indirectness another The Merchant who met with Pirats in the dusk of the evening when they could not discover his weakness and frighted them off by a counterfeit confidence hanging out his lights all night sav'd his Ship indirectly or by indirect means when direct fighting or flying had lost it And the Owner I suppose did not think this Indirectness blameable A Nuncio of a certain place is reported to have publisht an Excommunication thought unjust by the persons concern'd they had no power to take off this Excommunication themselves or command the Nuncio to do it Wherefore they took an indirect course and set Guards upon the Nuncio's House and suffered no Victuals to be brought in till he thought it better to recal his Excommunication then starve These men too compast their end indirectly yet commendably supposing the Excommunication was indeed unjust When David caused Vriah to be slain the action was both indirect and wicked but yet for several respects 'T was wicked because it was the death of an innocent man but indirect because he did not himself kill him or command him to be kill'd but ordered that out of which his death followed Wherefore when we say a thing is done indirectly we mean as I conceive that something is done which we would or could not do by immediately endeavouring the thing it self but which follows from some other thing we do And Indirect signifies not directed immediately to that thing in respect whereof 't is called Indirect but to some other out of which what happens whether by design or chance we say happens indirectly Now if this be the meaning of Indirect I am something at a loss how it can with propriety be apply'd to Power For Power seems as direct to every effect as to any Neither do I perceive how it can be directed otherwise than by being determined When a man of the many things he can do resolves upon one the power he has becomes by that resolution determined or directed to that one which he chuses what other direction there can be of power occurs not to me at present But if Indirect apply'd to Power signifie undetermin'd there is plainly no room for the distinction of Direct and Indirect For every Power is undetermin'd till it become determined and when it is determined it is direct or directed to that thing to which it is determined neither can there be such a thing as Indirect Power from which any thing can follow for nothing can follow from a power undetermined and Power from which nothing can follow is not Power And the truth is we do not give the name of Power to that which goes indirectly to work Not but that the intended effect may follow but we call it not Power in relation to such an effect We do not nor can with truth say a King has power to take away the lives of innocent Subjects although he may as David did Vriah command them something by which their Death may happen The Merchant ow'd his safety not to power but stratagem and luck And those who starv'd the Nuncio had no power to take off the Excommunication on the contrary 't was their want of power which made them act as they did So that I suspect those who first joyn'd these two words Indirect and Power together did not much amuse themselves with considering the import of them Indirect seeming a kind of Destroying or as they call it Alienating Term and making the Power to be not-Power Wherefore I believe 't is Action or Effect which is with propriety call'd Indirect not Power But yet because it matters not so we understand one another what words we use Power to an Indirect effect may with sence be called Indirect power So a Prince who to recover or preserve his right has direct power to make war may be said to have indirect power over his Subjects lives which must be hazarded in the war In this manner Indirect Power is intelligible and signifies Power to something out of which follows another thing which would not follow immediately from the Power it self This other thing may either be intended as the Death of Vriah or not intended as when one is slain in war whom the Prince is sorry to loose And from this Intention comes Wickedness or Innocence not Indirectness which proceeds only from this that the effect flows not immediately from the power but is joyn'd to something which does But now Indirect Power is become intelligible let him make it intelligible that can how the Deposing Power said to be in the Pope should be Indirect If he can command Deposition and must be obey'd when he commands and the Prince depos'd by force of that command his Power is as direct as Power can be For when the Pope says I Depose I pray what is it which he commands I understand he commands Deposition it self and not another thing out of which he expects Deposition should follow Again when his command as the luck on 't is it seldom does proves effectual and a King is deposed pray in vertue of what is he Deposed I understand 't is in vertue of that command Now because that Power is direct which immediately commands an effect which follows from that Command or Power there neither is nor can be any Indirectness found here but in the very notion of Direct So that I told you 't
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
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
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
longer and that you had insisted a little more upon some Points there Particularly that of the Princes power Whether it be immediately from God or only mediately 'T is true you say what those who hold it mediate I conceive will have much ado to answer but yet you say it shortly and determine not the point I confess it was not necessary you should mediate or immediate was enough for your design but not for my curiosity And because I judge the point of importance enough to deserve a little more pains I beseech you resume it and shew me a little more at large that the Tenet of immediate power is unreprovable amongst you if it be so Another is the Spiritual power which you say was only committed to the Pope but what that Spiritual power is you say not and by that forgetfulness or reservedness or haste of yours leave me much at a loss This Spiritual power of yours for ought I know may do all that Temporal power can do and then we are never the near and Princes as unsafe as ever If their work be taken out of their hands and they peradventure out of their kingdoms by this which you call Spiritual power you might ev'n as well have kept the Temporal power too for any kindness you have done us For 't is the Power of which we complain and whether you call it temporal or spiritual if it be a power to do mischief 't is alike grievous to us I am the more sollicitous of this for Bellarmin's sake and the strange descant he runs upon that plain ground Feed my sheep a place he handles almost as odly as he that on the word Confirmavit made this gloss i.e. Abrogavit This Feeding as he orders matters amounting to little less than Destroying A Shepheard saies he has to do with Wolves and Rams and Sheep and Princes as he contrives it are all Three If they leave your Communion or in his language turn Hereticks they are Wolves and to prevent the mischief they may do the flock your Shepheard at Rome is impowr'd to drive them away by excommunication and command the flock not to follow them for sheep you know naturally run after wolves but yet I perceive no great necessity of excommunicating those who have refus'd communion before Then if retaining your Communion They govern wickedly and wrong the Church by unjust Laws or actions they are Rams and your Shepheard is again impowr'd to shut them up and reduce them to the condition of Sheep Weathers methinks he should have said for Rams seem to be a kind of Sheep and Deposing is his way of Gelding Lastly all Christians being Sheep and Princes amongst the rest your Shepheard may command and force them to do their duty and the duty of Kings being to defend the Church and punish Hereticks if they fail in this he may punish and force them by excommunication and other convenient means which convenient means is to depose them and turn the Commonwealth topsy turvy and fill the Country with rapine and bloud and such conveniences as War and the worst of wars the Civil useth to produce And all this is to feed the sheep still In truth Friend a little more would incline me to believe too that the Bible is of too keen an edge for every body to manage but I am not for all that of your Churches mind for methinks 't were better to keep it shut from the learned and leave it to the simple who at worst would but cut their own fingers and not their Neighbours throats A plain man would never have found out that feeding should signifie putting folks into a condition of starving Fighting certainly is a new way of feeding and sure Christ did not mean his Sheep should be fed with knocks But to leave Bellarmin to his speculations if this be what you understand by your Spiritual power your Doctrine is inexcusable Carerius or whoever flies highest can give the Pope no more than all and I see not that Bellarmin goes less For if the Pope can command and force Princes to obedience and take them away and set up others by his Spiritual power I understand not what all the Temporal power in the world can do more Wherefore either shew me a real difference betwixt these two Powers and such an one as leaves them at peace one with another and each quiet in his own sphere or confess your Church teaches Doctrine incompatible with the security of Princes and quiet of the world and that all you can do for her credit is to raise a mist of words which may serve to hide her shame a while and steal your self from the difficulty but when it breaks up every body sees plain enough how things go Your very humble Servant FRIEND THIS is and ever will be the fate of Disputers While they are intent upon one thing some casual expression which they heed not occasions a new difficulty and that many times diverts sometimes loses the former inquiry You have now started new game by your reflections upon Scripture and Tradition which though the Quarry peradventure be as good as that we had before us yet is not the same And as they require as much labour and diligence twenty to one we shall meet with fresh game in the pursuit of them and tire our selves with variety of change and catch nothing Permit me therefore to refer you for those points to those Writers of ours who have handled them professedly and exactly The Objections are so ordinary and so often answered that truly I expected them not from you and doubt while you so much lay to heart what is said against us you consider little what we reply which methinks is not so agreeable to your candour Otherwise 't is easie to meet with information of what we say to those things But for your fears the Pope will not suffer us to stand to Tradition let me briefly assure you they are vain The Church has stood almost seventeen ages by it and we shall not leave it till we have a mind to leave the Church Popes are not the men you take them to be 'T is true they are men and that a mixture of worldly considerations should not sometimes enter into their counsels cannot be expected but for all that they are good men and so good that you will not often find Princes more vertuous It is so far from entring into their thoughts to assume to themselves things prejudicial to the Church that on the contrary 't is the good of the Church which has been pretended to gain admittance for these things which indeed are prejudicial but which if they had not been thought otherwise had never gain'd admittance And if you think He who owns himself Father of the Church will not rather cast off these pleasing flatteries when he discerns them to be so than hazard the good of the Church allow him yet to understand Policy and have wit enough to perceive that
Holy Books can mean nothing that I knovv but to knovv and beleive the Truth contained there And then consider vvhat vvork your zeal makes of it This Meaning is the thing about vvhich vve differ you understand it one vvay and vve another That then vvhich is to be Interpreted is the Meaning of Scripture that vvhich you assign for Interpreter is the Spirit and this Spirit is the very Meaning Is it possible you should not see that this is to make the Interpreter and the thing Interpreted all one That it supposes the same thing both understood and not understood at once Understood as Interpreter not understood as Interpreted Nay that it makes one thing the same and not the same vvith it self For to Interpret is to declare another thing and yet this which to be Interpreted must be another you make the Interpreter it self Pray persist not vvith your fine Language to perswade us that is to be the Interpreter vvhich vvhen vve once have there is nothing to be Interpreted for vvhen vve once have the Meaning vvhich you call to have the Spirit there needs no more any to tell us what we know already Again make us not despair of an end of our differences by assigning such a method to end them as supposes them first ended before it can be apply'd For the meaning being once known there is no difference for your Interpreter to end Besides since while we differ one of us has not the true meaning of Scripture 't is a strange method to reconcile us to refer us to what one of us has not nor can have while we differ I examine not with what propriety you speak though to be the Spirit and to be dictated by the Spirit seem different enough But this is plain that since the Spirit in the Books is to be interpreted the Spirit interpreting must be out of the Books And this our Controvertists will tell you is to be sought for in the Church to whom was promis'd the assistance of the same Spirit with which the Books were written And to them I refer you if you desire to dispute the Point farther for I intend not to meddle with Controversie For the rest of what you say of the mystery of our disagreement who both agree in what we would be at both condemn novelties and desire the Doctrine taught by Christ and his Apostles 't is a thing I must confess I wonder at as much as you and can as little unriddle Inimicus homo hoc fecit is all I can say to it and think our best remedy is to fall heartily to our prayers and sollicit the powerfull goodness of God to throw down at last that wall of division whose foundation we are so far from being able to overthrow that we cannot find where 't is laid nor upon what ground so mischievous a building stands To come then at last to our purpose I did I confess speak but little of the first point the Power of Princes immediately from God and the little I said I thought was more then needed and must think so still it seeming to me a question of so little importance either way that what I shall add is only in obedience to your commands which in my opinion might have imploy'd me in something more usefull But since your curiosity will not otherwise be satisfi'd let me tell you there are in this matter several opinions of learned men and all opinions only and only of learned men for the Church has not at all interpos'd and I believe either the same or at least as great variety is to be found amongst you Some hold that the Civil Power is given by God to the Community first which afterwards chooses the form of Government most pleasing or most proper and the persons to manage it So that they make it deriv'd from God immediately to the whole and by their mediation to the Magistrates There are who affirm as much of the Church and say that as God and Nature intend first and more immediately the whole then any part thereof as sight is given principally to the man and to the eye as the instrument by which the man exercises it so Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is given principally and properly to the Church to the Pope and Bishops as instruments and those who are to execute it Again When a Prince is said to have his Power immediately from God some distinguish this word immediately and granting that the Power to command their Subjects is immediately from God which they say none denies they affirm that to have these and these Subjects for example the King of France the French of Spain the Spaniards c. is not immediately from God but by one of the four humane wayes by which Governments are introduc'd Election Inheritance Gift or just Conquest In which say they the case of the Pope and Secular Princes is different for to St. Peter and in him to his Successors all Christians of whatever Nation or quality were immediately subjected by Christ but for other Princes obedience to them when they are Princes is immediately commanded by God but where and over whom they shall be Princes depends upon humane means Others think this acuteness alters not the case and say that the Power of a Prince is one thing and the Title which he has to this Power is another that the Power is as immediately given Princes as to the Pope and that the Title to it is by humane means in both For he has no Power but by the means of humane Election more the Princes by Election Inheritance or the rest And so they make the designation of the person to be by humane means but the collation of Power immediately from God in both And thus every one speaks freely as his humour or learning serves and I for my part see not that this freedom is prejudicial any way for while we all agree we are to obey our Princes and if we do not we disobey God these subtleties I conceive are not much material One thing there is and but one that I can perceive which is of moment and which I hinted in my former Letter and that is that Position which makes the Power of the Prince deriv'd from the People seems liable to this pressing inconvenience that they seem not to part so wholly with it but in some cases they reserve a right to re-assume it again as when Princes prove tyrannical when the line fails and the like And this is a mischief of which great care is to be taken for one cannot easily find a greater For if the People retain any Power they must retain Judgement when to use it and if they be Judges when 't is lawfull to oppose the Prince when not there is a gap opened to all manner of Sedition and Rebellion or rather there can be no such thing as Sedition or Rebellion in the world at least of the People For when they oppose the Prince 't is a plain case by
me to think they do I have shew'd you what the Sentiments of the Fathers and the Church are for the rest it belongs not to me This which I have done being only to obey your Commands and testifie the power you have over Your c. The Seventh and Eighth OF THE Controversial LETTERS OR Grand Controversie Concerning The pretended Temporal Authority of POPES over the whole Earth And the True Sovereign of KINGS within their own respective Kingdoms Between two English Gentlemen The one of the Church of England The other of the Church of Rome LONDON Printed for Henry Brome and Benjamin Tooke at the Gun at the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard 1673. FRIEND I Know not how it happens but the more you shew me methinks the less I see While I read your Letters I find not what to except against yet when I look off I remain still unsatisfi'd That there should be a Spiritual Power distinct from the Temporal is plainly necessary in it self and own'd by us We go not to Westminster Hall for remission of our sins or to hear the Word of God preach'd or receive the Sacraments These things belong to Spiritual Magistrates amongst whom the Chief with us is the Bishop of Canterbury as with you the Bishop of Rome And since for Orders sake and the nature of Government a Chief there must be It matters not much whether as one wittily said the top link of the Spiritual Chain be fastned to the Chair of Canterbury or of Rome So the Temporal Primacy be undisturb'd and undisturbable by the Spiritual it seems all one vvhether have it I mean in point of Safety for true or false is another question And truly I neither see how your Spiritual Primacy should disturb it if all be true you say nor why I should doubt of the truth of what you say while I consider you say nothing of your own head but bring such Vouchers for every thing that I think your Church cannot say otherwise unless she throw off that Reverence which with so much ostentation she professes to have for Antiquity And yet of necessity there must be more in it The mischiefs against which I would be secur'd have actually happened Princes have been deposed and the world has been too much concerned in the effects of this Power to be ignorant of it Our own Princes have not been exempt from attempts of this nature and the hazard the nation ran in 88. is not yet out of our memory So that manifestly either you believe one thing and do another or you have not inform'd me truly but covered an ugly face with a handsom vizar Truly I believe better of your candour than to suspect you deceive me by design yet certainly things are not so cleer and smooth of your side as you would make me believe To read your Papers one would think nothing could be more innocent than your doctrine in this Point yet the vvorld is witness of doings far from Innocent I must confess I was sometime sufficiently perplext to unriddle this mystery But at last I remembred Bellarmin and vvhen I reflected on his Indirect and in ordine ad Spiritualia Power methought I had found the clew to guide me out of this Labyrinth That distinction does it Friend and in truth I never so well understood the vertue of Distinctions before for by the help of this I perceive you may say enough to pass for honest men and in the mean time reserve as much liberty as heart can vvish to play the knave Pardon my bluntness 't is without malice I assure you but I am too much intent upon the Question to be choice of my vvords especially to you and consider a little You have told me the Spiritual and Civil Power are distinct that the Popes Power is Spiritual and is not Coactive Why Bellarmin and any that follows him will grant all this But if vve conclude thence That the Pope has nothing to do vvith Temporals they vvill not suffer us but say His Power is indeed of its own nature Spiritual and directly regards only the good of Souls but if Temporals concern that good His Power is extended to them too not directly as if they were its proper object but indirectly as they collaterally fall in and are joyn'd to that which is its proper object So that they intend not that any part of that Authority which I conceive prejudicial to Princes and inconsistent with Government should be taken from him but plainly seek to establish it though another vvay and whereas Others go plainly to work and tell us without more adoe That the Pope is the only Supream Monarch of the Earth These go a little about the bush and say indeed He is not directly Lord of Temporals but come at last to the same and tell us He may as uncontroulably dispose of them as if he were If this be true all you have said is to no purpose and all you can say while you stick to this will not absolve you from inconsistency with Civil Government For 't is a plain case If the Pope may interpose in the disposition of Temporals as often as they have relation to Spirituals that He may interpose alwaies Since of necessity they must and cannot but be alwaies ordered either well or ill and both cases belong to the concern of the Soul And then 't is all one as some body in this case handsomly said whether my eyes be put out by a direct stroke of a Tennis Ball or by Bricol William Rufus was as mortally wounded by the Arrow which glanced as if it had been shot directly at him If Princes may lawfully be depos'd and their Subjects absolv'd from their Allegiance and oblig'd to obey the commands of another and that in Temporals they are no longer Sovereign nor absolute even in Temporals and whether the Power above them be Direct or Indirect Spiritual or not Spiritual so it be a Power and can act they are alwaies unsafe Pray Friend let me have no dodging Tell me plainly Is this the Doctrine of your Church or is it not If it be unless you can shew me That those can be good Subjects and true to their Prince who acknowledge another Power which they are to obey against their Prince and how that Prince is Supream in Temporals who has another above him whose Commands he is to obey in the disposition of those Temporals or if he do not his Subjects are not to obey him I must for all you have said continue in my first thoughts and not believe you tolerable in any Commonwealth If it be not true I think you would deserve very well of your Church to free her from the scandal which the credit of those who hold this and the countenance she gives them brings upon her In all events I beseech you speak plainly for else I must needs think either that your Church teaches you to hold what you are asham'd to own or vvhich 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
sufficient Power cleer the World from Mahumetism and Infidelity and Idolatry which likewise are main obstacles to Salvation and provide for the safety of so many Millions as are lost by them Farther Amongst Christians A man commits a mortal Sin and runs mad upon it Has the Church sufficient Power to restore this man to his Wits that he may Repent and be saved Can She hinder Abortions and bring all Children alive to Baptism And twenty other such Cross Questions they put But to Answer the Argument more precisely They consider this sufficient Power in the Church either in order to it Self or in order to all things necessary to the Effect Considering the Power in it self it is abundantly sufficient for as much as is required on that side but because to the Effect many things are required besides sufficient Power or Efficacy in the Cause as that the Subject be fitly disposed the Cause duly apply'd c. they say a Defect in these things argues no insufficiency in the Power and the Power may be very sufficient for as much as belongs to the Nature of Power and yet the Effect not follow for want of some disposition in the Subject For Example The Sun has sufficient Power to enlighten the whole World the Fire has sufficient power to burn that stack of Wood though the Sun cannot level a Mountain which intercepts the course of his beams nor the Fire has hands to bring the Wood to it or legs to carry it to the Wood. Wherefore they say The Church has Power abundantly sufficient to bring Men to Salvation for as much as is requisite on the part of Power but 't is a wild conceit to think She can remove all obstacles which Nature or Chance casts in her way to hinder the exercise of that Power And if one of those Obstacles happen to be the Wickedness of a Prince the Churches sufficient Power to Save men can no more take Him away than the Suns sufficient power to shine level a Mountain What her sufficient Power or Means to Save men are we may learn from those who certainly best know the end of the Church and Means to attain it the first Planters of Christianity who by there Example have instructed us That efficacious Preaching and more efficacious Living according to the Holy Doctrine they Preach'd Charity and Patience and humble Zeal are the sufficient Means which have prevailed upon the Converted vvorld and when they are in Gods fit time duly apply'd vvill be as sufficient for the rest In the mean time we may learn of Bellarmin that God vvill have a care of his Church and whatever he think must think our selves That Prayer is as good a remedy against a Bad Prince as a Wicked Popes And therefore that Proposition which assumes that a Deposing Power is necessary or that the Churches Power would be Insufficient without it they flatly deny From the same Head Bellarmin Argues again Every Commonwealth because it has Power sufficient to preserve it self and bring its Subjects to Temporal happiness may command another Commonwealth which is not subject to it to cease from doing injury to her and hinder her from the prosecution of her just Ends and if it refuse to Obey may Depose the Prince of it and set up another who will be more Just in case there be no other way to avoid wrong from it Therefore much more may the Spiritual Commonwealth command the Temporal which is subject to it and Depose the Prince in case She cannot otherwise compass Her End the Salvation of Souls And this Argument they treat not more favourably than the former For they say first It assumes plain Contradiction vvhen it puts two Commonwealths both independent and free and yet puts a Power in the one to command the other which is to make that other Subject and not Free Again It assumes without any reason and against all Truth That the Temporal Commonwealth is subject to the Spiritual which they will by no means admit unless perhaps of a Spiritual Subjection and that too of the persons as Faithful not as a common-wealth in which respect every absolute Commonwealth is absolutely free from all Subjection to any but God Farther they retort it as the former and say It concludes as well a Power in the Temporal Commonwealth over the Spiritual as in the Spiritual over the Temporal For say they The Temporal is a perfect Common-wealth too and has Power sufficient to attain its End Wherefore if the Spiritual hinder her in the prosecution of Her ends She may command the Spiritual Commonwealth to surcease and if the Spiritual Prince prove Disobedient depose him and set up another since the Spiritual Commonwealth is as subject to the Temporal in Temporals as the Temporal to the Spiritual in Spirituals But to Answer the Argument more directly they deny that this forcible proceeding of one Independent Commonwealth with another argues any Superiority or Subjection in either What they do in this kind if it be well done being justified by the force of Nature and light of Reason and lawless Law of Necessity vvhich teaches Force to be then fitly us'd when nothing but Force will compass an End otherwise necessary Otherwise this kind of Power is no other than a Strong man has to take away the Purse of a Weak one and there is no doubt but whoever has it may if he vvill make use of it and so the Pope if he be strong enough may certainly Depose a Prince as a Prince may a Pope But they wonder Bellarmin should be so little considerative as instead of a Power of just Authority to talk of a power of Strength in which they think he has done the Church but little service for if She come to vye with Princes in this kind of Power the Material Sword which belongs to them will in all likelyhood wound the Spiritual Outward-man more sensibly than the Spiritual Sword will the Carnal man Mean time they conceive he take a bad Method to conclude an Authoritative Power in the Church by the example of a Power in Commonwealths which is not Authority but Strength Another Argument Bellarmin makes from the obligation of Christianity in this manner It is not lawful for Christians to endure an Infidel or Heretic Prince of that Prince endeavour to draw his Subjects to Heresie or Infidelity But it belongs to the Pope to judge whether he be guilty of so drawing them or no wherefore to the Pope it belongs to Judge whether he ought to be Deposed or no. Because he could not but foresee his first Proposition would be deny'd him he provided Proofs which before I meddle with I must inform you what they say to thus much of the Argument for they are no where smarter This say they is without more adoe to put all Kingdoms into the Popes hands and make him as Absolute as the most extravagant of Canonists can fancy him For since there are but two things considerable
said for them but since they do not their part is to do their Duty in what concerns them to do and rely upon God for the rest Then for the Contradiction between the two Laws The Divine Law saies Bellarmin obliges us to preserve the True Religion Human only to have this or that Man for King Where is the Contradiction say they Cannot I keep this Man for my King and keep my Religion too A body would â—kink that this is very possible to be done The contrary to that Divine Law is You shall not preserve the True Religion and if any Human Law command this Disobey freely in God's name for Aequum est obedire Deo magis quam Hominibus But while you disobey this Law which you cannot without offending God obey do not refuse to acknowledge your Prince and obey him there where you offend God if you do not obey Again the contrary to vvhat he calls the Human Law is You shall not have this or that Man for Prince or which is all one You shall not obey him in just Commands Bellarmin has not yet produc'd any Command of the Divine Law which saies this nor vvill till Rebellion become a part of Gods Law In fine Whoever persists to put a contradiction betwixt Fearing God and Honouring the King will be Confuted by all the Bells in the Parish Lastly Whereas he makes it only by Human Law that this or that Man is King they Reply vvhat you have more at large in a former Letter That He becomes King as the Pope becomes Pope by Human means but when he once is so Obedience to him is by Divine Right and so if there be any contradiction betwixt Preserving our Religion and Obeying our Prince the Divine Law contradicts it self For as Preservation of Religion is Divine Law so Obedience to Princes is Divine Law too If Bellarmin be not pleas'd vvith these Answers they leave him to make better himself retorting as they are very good at Reparty his Argument against a scandalous Pope for he say they exposes Vertue to evident danger For such as the Ruler such will be the Inhabitants And Gods Law is to be observ'd when 't is contrary to Human Law and Gods Law obliges us to preserve Vertue and 't is by Human Law only that this or that Man is Pope c. And so we come to another Argument from the parity betwixt an Infidel Prince and an Infidel Husband whom the Apostle allows the Faithful Wife to leave and therefore Why are not the Faithful People as free in respect of an Infidel Prince In Answer to this they Dispute several things with exactness enough and examining the particular Cases where and how far and why Divorce is lawful find several Disparities and several Reasons why the Argument concludes not But to leave those Considerations which are not without their perplexity this Reply of theirs seems very plain Bring say they a Permission from the Apostle for a Subject to desert his Prince as plain as this is for a Woman to leave her Husband and we vvill acknowledge the case is equal The Apostle plainly derogates from the general Rule and brings an Exception wherein the Law of Marriage binds not He that was so careful of Private concerns cannot be imagined unmindful of Public and greater Had he known any Exception from the general Rule of Obeying Princes it is not to be suspected he would conceal it and testifie more care for Private Families than Commonwealths So that the Argument amounts to this We are free from the Law in cases where the Law is dispenst with therefore we are free likewise where 't is not dispenst with Again say they the Woman is only then free when the Man refuses to live vvith her for if he stay S. Paul wishes her to stay vvith him Now if any Prince refuses to Govern his People unless they vvill become Infidels like himself I think they will allow the People are not obliged to turn Infidels for his sake but may get them another in case he leave them But if the King will stay with his People since the Woman is to stay with her Husband who vvill be with her they think the very parity concludes the People oblig'd to stay vvith their Prince Otherwise the parity stands in this manner Even as the Faithful Woman is not to leave her Unbelieving Husband who vvill continue vvith her even so the Believing People are to leave their Unbelieving King who vvill stay vvith them Or even as the Believing Woman is free from an Unbelieving Husband who casts her off even so the Beleiving People are free from an Unbelieving King vvho does not cast them off Which methinks are something unlike for Parities The next Argument is of great esteem with Bellarmin He made it in his Book De Rom. Pont. and repeats it in Tortus and urges it largely against Barklay This it is Princes are receiv'd into the Church with this either express or tacit bargain to submit their Scepters to Christ and preserve and defend their Religion and this under penalty of forfeiting their Kingdoms if they fail Wherefore if they become Heretics or an obstacle to Religion they may without injury be Judged and Deposed by the Church For he is not fit to receive the Sacrament of Baptism who is not disposed to serve Christ and lose all he has for his sake according to S. Luke 14. If any one comes to me and hates not Father and Mother c. he cannot be my Disciple And the Church would err too grievously if She admitted a King who without Controul would cherish Heresie and overthrow Religion C. 24. Thus Argues Bellarmin in Rom. Pont. But against Barklay more largely Let us imagine saies he an Infidel Prince desirous to be receiv'd into the Church should speak in this manner I desire to become a fellow Citizen with the Saints by Baptism and promiss to submit my Scepter to Christ and defend his Church to my power and never to break my holy purpose Nevertheless If I happen to break my Word and become an Heretic or Apostate or Pagan I will not be punisht with Temporal Punishments either by the Church or its President or any but Christ and if the Chief Governour of the Church separate me from the Communion of the Faithful I will nevertheless that the Faithful Sons of the Church continue Faithful Subjects to me and may not be absolved from the bond of their Obedience by any Such a King saies he if Barklay think fit for Baptism wise men would laugh at him For if a man should desire to be incorporated into any City and should protest that if he had a mind to betray that City he would not be judged by the Magistrates of it but by the King who dwells far off every body would laugh at him And truly He that according to the Gospel ought be prepar'd to lose his life for the Faith of Christ ought more to be
form and if a Wicked Prince may be punisht by the Church with a punishment worse than Death I know not vvhy the charitable Anger of a Churchman may not be satisfied vvith it However it be according to Bellarmin himself De Eccles C. 6. Excommunication is the most grievous punishment which the Church can inflict when she has proceeded so far She has no more to do saies Coelestin 3. Wherefore if Deposition be a thing with vvhich the Church has nothing to do Bellarmin may be content if that be not done which cannot be done and e'en subscribe to Pet. Gregorius teaching as learnedly as honestly L. 26. de Repub. C. 5. that Rebellion against Princes upon pretence of their Vices cannot scape the Crime of Treason and Indignation of God and those who reign wickedly are rather to be left to the Judgment of God than the hands of Subjects be polluted with Sacriledge and Parricide God wants not Means when he pleases either to amend or take away such Bad Princes But to return to the Argument They positively deny any bargain at all made in Baptism unless you vvill call the Purpose they make to live Vertuously an express bargain and a submission to the Law vvhich the Baptized embrace and consequently to the punishments of it an implicit one as indeed who is once Baptized vvhether Prince or Private man may upon occasion be Admonisht and Reprehended and Censured by the Church but if Human frailty and the Temptations to vvhich our Nature is subject make a Prince break either this Bargain or Purpose that he should therefore be content to be Deposed or that he Bargains to submit to any such Penalty they flatly deny and say that by the same Reason since every Private man makes the same Bargain in Baptism which any King does every Man that Sins might presently without injury Done him have his Estate Confiscated or be sent to the Galleys or the Gallows Which would make strange vvork in a World so frail as ours And for this Reason they deny the Consequence as vvell as the Antecedent of this Argument For say they although a Prince should bargain to forfeit or Crown or Life if he forfeit his Faith unless he bargain expresly that the Church or Pope be Garranty of this Treaty and give them power to proceed to Deposition in case of Failer on his part nothing is done and they have otherwise no power to do it For all the Power they receiv'd from God is Spiritual and is not to meddle with matters so Temporal So that a King must not only submit to the Churches Power but create in her a Power vvhich God gave her not or nothing vvill come of it Upon the whole they say two things which seem remarkable enough First that this claim from Bargain or Promise whether express or tacit plainly evinces there is no Internal proper Power in the Church to Depose Princes for then there were no need of this External Right by bargain besides that if such Power accrue to her as it cannot be other than according to the express Terms of the Contract so it vvould not be Indirect as Bellarmin pretends but as Direct as can be imagined there being in the World no Power more Direct than I have over those things for which I have bargain'd Next they say that Bellarmin manifestly contradicts what other Divines and himself vvith them teach of the Nature of the Promise made in Baptism Suarez observes that this Promise is not to be understood a proper Promise or Vow made to God but only an Obligation which the very Profession of Christian Religion made in Baptism induces by reason of the Divine Law and Power granted by Christ to his Church Which I take to signifie Whereas in things in vvhich we are otherwise free we can oblige our selves by Vow or Promise as vvhen I Vow to give Alms or do any other good Work and this Vow induces an Obligation vvhich otherwise I had not but in things vvhere we are otherwise obliged if I Vow to perform them I am oblig'd to no more by my Vow than I was before that the Promise made in Baptism is of this second sort and People were oblig'd to the performance of the Christian Law then receiv'd although they made no promise so to do De Monach. C. 19. So Bellarmin elsewhere teaches That the promise made in Baptism is nothing but a testification or acceptation of the Obligation which the Law of God brings with it Neither are the Baptized bound to any either Explicite or Implicite intention of obliging themselves farther than as they are oblig'd by the Law of God And farther That Baptized Christians are forced by the Church to keep the Laws of Christ not so much in virtue of their Promise as out of this that they are become Members and Children of the Church and every Member is subject to the Head and every Child by the Law of Nature to his Parent Wherefore manifestly either the Law of God obliges Princes to submit to Deposition without any bargain of theirs or this Bargain he talks of leaves them as free as they were before If the Law obliges them 't is to no purpose to mention Bargains if it do not 't is to no purpose neither since their Bargain signifies nothing for they bargain no farther than to observe the Law And the Argument amounts to this They bargain to be Depos'd because they bargain to observe the Law which obliges them to no such thing Besides if we examine a little more narrowly and ask by what Law of God Princes become liable to Deposition Bellarmin Answers 't is by Bargain which is not to be liable by the Law of God And if we ask again vvhere any such Bargain appears He tells us 't is not an Express but a Tacit Bargain imply'd in the Law of God which is plainly to prove the Bargain by the Law and the Law by the Bargain and that is such a kind of Argument as I think they call a Circle but sure 't is none of the best nor needed have been so much esteemed by Bellarmin There follows an Argument which you had light upon and propos'd to me vvith so much smart Rallery in a former Letter from the Comparison of the Chief Postour in the Church to a Shepheard Which in short is this When it was said to S. Peter Feed my Sheep all Power was given him which is necessary to a Shepheard in regard of his Flock But a Shepheard must have Power against Wolves and Rams that they hurt not the Sheep and Power to provide as is convenient for the Sheep themselves Then applying the Notions of all Three by similitude to Princes as you have formerly observed he concludes The Pope has Power over them in respect of every one They Answer there is more wit than solidity in this discourse Similitudes of all other being the worst Topies and which affords the weakest Arguments as
He has besides a second sentence of the Popes against the Barons of England by name wherein he speaks in this manner We would have you know that lately in a General Council we did excommunicate and anathematize the Barons of England moreover we do excommunicate and anathematize We aggravate our hand more strongly against them c. This bears date 17 Calend. Jan. the 16 Decemb. of the same year and 't is clear by the Pope's expressions that before this time the Council was ended and it may be had been a good while If these 60 Canons were all examined with that maturity which becomes a Council and so decreed Councils at that time were much nimbler then now a dayes If proceedings then had one quarter of the flegm we use now their suspicion is not altogether without ground who think the consultations then on foot were interrupted by the breaking out of suddain wars and nothing brought to conclusion Withrington takes another exception to this Canon which he says comes not home to the purpose nor can by the rules of Law be interpreted to extend to Soveraign Princes because as he says in construction of Law such Princes at least in penal or as they call them odious matters are never understood to be included in general words as Lords Magistrates and the like no more then the Pope when only Bishop is named or Abbot by the word Monk If it had been meant of Soveraign Princes it had been as easy to have named them expresly as temporal Lords and they were so named in other Decrees even of this Council Besides this very Decree in the very same words changing only spiritual punishments into temporal was publisht within 5 years by the Emperor and it cannot be imagined he meant to make Soveraign Princes subject to his Laws or had power so to do though he meant it These and several other things may be say'd but in my opinion they need not for there is another answer free from the intricacies whether of Law or History and which to my apprehension is both easy and plain Every body knows that Decrees of Councils are of two sorts Some declare what is to be believed others prescribe something to be done And every body knows that these two are of very different natures To refuse Decrees of Faith is to renounce the communion of that Church whose Representative the Council is that is the whole Church if the Council be general unless there be a just exception against their proceeding For Faith is that by which a Church is a Church and if you be of a different Faith you cannot be of the same Church But for the other sort of Decrees when they concern civil matters because those whose business it is to manage them are supposed to be better acquainted with them then spiritual men whose business it is to attend to spirituals neither reason nor custom allows them any force till they be received by particular Countries and by that reception made binding For it were very unreasonable one Law should bind all Countries when that which is convenient in one place may be and often is prejudicial in another We in England acknowledg no Law but by consent of Parliament In France they require Verification as they call it in their highest Courts of Justice Every Country has its particular method but what has not past this test is currant no where And this is a notorious thing for default of which there is none who knows not that these kind of Decrees of the Council of Trent are not obliging in France to this day Again t is equally notorious that the Canon in question is of this second sort Wherefore 't is as plain as can be that unless it can be made appear It has been duly receiv'd and by such reception become binding of itself it is not binding any where I mean where both powers are not united to command it For where the Pope has the Authority of a temporal Prince there both powers concur I forbear to touch several things mentioned pertinently enough As how Bishops in Council should order temporal penalties who out of Council unless they have a share of temporal power communicated otherwise to them cannot go beyond spiritual A Congregation of Bishops is but so many Bishops nor is it easy to conceive how their meeting together should invest them with an authority of another kind and such as is not proper to Bishops To which purpose a famous Canonist upon occasion of temporal penalties inflicted by a certain Canon inquires what the Pope had to do with temporals and answers truly nothing but he ordered that penalty in vertue of the Emperors consent who was present and approv'd it So that when Councils make such kind of Decrees 't will be hard to make out any other Authority by which they make them than the consent of Princes concern'd But these considerations and several other I pass by the former being plain in it self and plainly doing the business The Decree in question is of that kind which all the world knows is not binding but where and only where t is receiv'd Either produce this reception or t is to no more purpose to urg it then to alledg the authority of a Bill thrown out of one of the Houses or not assented to by the King Upon the whole if there had gone a little more knowledg to Bellarmin's zeal 't would have been so much the better He undertakes to prove that general Councils teach evidently that Princes may be depos'd by the Pope and brings in proof a Decree which teaches nothing but orders that which none is bound to obey unless he live in a Country who have made it a Law to themselves if any such Country there be And if this be his evident teaching it will be concluded that his Doctrine in this point can be taught no otherwise then by a teaching which evidently is no teaching Bellarmin concludes with the Council of Lyons under Innocent 4. in which there was publisht a sentence of deposition against the Emperor Frederick 2. This as Art requires at a close he sets forth as gloriously as he can Having related the later part of the sentence This says he is the sentence of the Soveraign Bishop with approbation of the whole Council that is with the consent and praise of the Vniversality of Christian Prelates And yet one I know not who dares dispute against it and publish his Book and cast a mist before the eyes of the simple and so goes on to the end of the Chapter amplifying the boldness and rashness of standing in opposition to so many and so learned and so holy men whom for the greater solemnity he gathers all into one great Council excommunicating and deposing by Apostolick Authority Heretical Princes or Patrons of Hereticks And upon this fancy of making one Council of all ages he is so intent that he quite forgets that Heretical Princes were no part of the
nothing of the jealousy and suspicion rising from the unlimited expressions of this doctrine Upon the whole they seem plainly to grant all the inconveniences objected by VVithrington which is to confess that as far as this Topick is effectual They are confuted They slight the place as nothing to purpose notwithstanding since 't is the Gospel rule to judge of the Tree by the fruit and since Logick allows the Topick I think they were oblig'd to shew either that the inconveniences were not inconveniences or else that they did not follow and in fine have answered better if they could The fourth Argument is from the practice of the Church begun with the Church it self and continued for many ages no mention in Scripture or ancient Fathers of a power either in Pope or People to deprive or kill even persecuting Princes but all is unanimous and constant exhortation to patience and obedience Now if there be any warrant in the Gospel for Christians when they come to be strong enough to cast off such Princes as are enemies to the Church we must needs have heard of it c. VVithrington dilates but this is the substance They answer two things First That the practice of the Church varies according to different times That for the first 300 years she practis'd patience because she could do no other there being no Prince dispos'd to protect her afterwards it became the practice by means of Catholick Princes to resist Infidel or Heretick or any way injurious to her whether Princes or People And for this they largely instance in the several expeditions made for the recovery of the Holy Land all commanded say they by several Popes and their commands obey'd by Christian Princes I begin to suspect I do not understand what we are talking of if I do certainly this is nothing to it I thought the question had been whether subjects may lawfully desert their own Prince and refuse to perform the obedience due to them by Law and Oath upon the Popes command to the contrary and Sculkenius talks of one Prince making war with another No man doubts or if any do our business has nothing to do with his doubt but that Catholick Princes may lawfully make war and the Pope lawfully perswade them to it to protect innocence and hinder oppression whether of Ecclesiastical or other right But this is a case betwixt Prince and Prince ours if I understand it is betwixt Prince and Subject For my life I cannot understand what relation the holy war has to this matter nor can I imagin what share the Pope had in it more then a man of zeal and credit to perswade them as any other might have done to a good work I do not believe any Prince who went thither thought himself oblig'd by the Popes commands or that he commanded any to go except in the case of Vow or the like engagement of his own 'T was zeal not obedience which carried Princes thither In short if Schulkenius mean this practise which he says was introduc'd of resisting force by force of Princes interposing for the relief of innocence as they saw occasion he speaks of another matter If he mean that when subjects get force enough they may use it against their own Soveraign upon warrant of the Popes authority he teaches us a piece of Christiatity which I would advise should by all means be kept carefully conceal'd from those Infidels whom in the Indies and elsewhere zealous men seek to convert If ever they get any inkling farewel all hopes of the progress of Christianity 'T is in truth a position extreamly false and extreamly shameful Their second Answer is that Withrington is out when he affirms there is no mention in Scripture or the ancient Fathers of deposing or killing Persecutors For there is mention in both of Saul depos'd by Samuel and David plac'd in his room Of Agag kill'd Of ten Tribes taken by Ahias from the house of David and given to Jereboam Of Kings set up and pul'd down by Elias both in Israel and Syria Of Jehu made King by a Prophet and Joram both depos'd and kill'd Of thalia and Ozias one kill'd the other depos'd for Leprosy Of Hieremy plac'd over Nations and Kingdoms to pluck up c. Of the Macabees fighting successfully against Antiochus And it cannot be doubted but the High Priest among Christians has as great or greater power then the High Priest among the Jews where they repeat again the two places Mat. 16. and Joh. 21. and that deposing power is necessary to the integrity of the commission given by them and conclude with Lucifer Calaritanus who says nothing to the purpose Some think Bellarmin wrote this book and borrowed the name of Schulkenius to disguise his own Tenderdown Steeple had as much to do with Sandwich Haven as this with the Deposing Power It were easy to shew as much of every one of these examples if I would take the pains to run them over particularly but since Bellarmin himself slights them I may be permitted to do so too and save that labor I will only observe that the High Priest among the Jews interven'd in few of these examples and to conclude a power in the Christian High Priest by a parity with the Jewish High Priest from instances where there was no exercise of his Power is a shortness of which Bellarmin was too sharp-sighted to be guilty That which Lucifer Calaritanus says is that Constantius was a wicked man and deserved death which is Tenderdown Steeple again A Prince no doubt may be a wicked man there have been more in the world besides Constantius and more have taken notice of their wickedness besides Lucifer Calaritanus But what then Neither does he mention nor do I know any tribunal which can call them to account for their wickedness but that of the last day from whose impartial Justice Princes shall be no more exempt then other men And to that we must leave them The last is rather a Transition then an Argument at least the force of it depends on what follows Withrington makes it in this manner To subject Princes to another power without sufficient reason is plain injury to Princes and plain treason But Bellarmins reasons which are the best are insufficient c. And so goes on to examin and disprove them as I have already inform'd you They reply by retorting the same Argument As t is wicked to subject the Power of Princes so t is both wicked and sacrilegious to diminish the Power given by Christ without sufficient reason but the reasons of VVithrington and Barclay are insufficient c. They farther deny either that he has or can answer Bellarmin's reasons or that he has done his business though he could because another may have better But unles they would inform us where those better reasons are to be found there can be no more done then to deal with those which He who is most in vogue thought the best For
thought fit that they refuse to give him that Title Now Bellarmine sticks to the consequence which is all the mischief and makes the Pope do all that a supreme Monarch could do and thinks all is well if he do not call him so when as if he could do what Bellarmine would have him he truly were supream Monarch and Bellarmine might make no bones to call him by his proper name The truth is ' â—would anger any King at heart to be put out of his Kingdom and not so much as know why nay while on the contrary he is fully perswaded he cannot be dispossest even by those who dispossess him If a Canonist come and tell him Sir you must descend the Pope your supream Lord has so commanded If he believe the Canonist he understands how a superior Power is to be obey'd and submits as a Lieutenant when his Commission is recalled But if Bellarmine come and tell him you are now a private man the Pope has so declared Without doubt he will reply what if he have Have not you your self told me that I am a true King no Vassal of the Popes but supream in Temporals Have not you told me the Popes Power is only spiritual and do you tell me now I must give up my temporal Crown to the command of a spiritual Authority All this is true quoth Bellarmine but yet you must obey What! must I obey one who cannot command in such things Yes he can 'T is something hard for you to understand who are no Scholar you can understand what 't is to obey and that is enough for you the rest belongs to us of the Trade In my conscience this would sooner put a man out of his wits then out of his Kingdom and who kept his wits I believe would go near to keep his Kingdom too In fine the sum total of the Canonists account is but this That the Pope by reason of his absolute supream Authority in all things is not to be questioned but obey'd in whatever he commands And if Bellarmine go less in substance whatever he do in words I am mistaken Nay how much short is he even in words when he tels Barclay C. 17. That if the spiritual Prince happen to abuse his Power by excommunicating a temporal Prince unjustly or absolving his Subjects from their obedience without just cause and so disturb the temporal Commonwealth This were sin in the spiritual Prince but yet that temporal Prince could not assume to himself the judgement of spiritual things or judge the spiritual Prince and much less depose him from his spiritual Seat This is worded in opposition to Barclay who by the same Argument which Bellarmine brings for the Deposition of Princes proves that they may as well depose Popes But if this do not signifie that right or wrong the Pope is always to be obey'd I understand it not For Deposition according to him is a spiritual thing an act of spiritual Power to judge of this a Prince must not assume to himself no not in case of Injustice And if he must not question what remains but to obey it and this in all Cases just or unjust Let the boldest Canonist that is out-go this if he can Upon the whole I see no other difference betwixt the two opinions but that one is abominable false and the other abominable false and abominable full of non-sense besides They with one bold untruth subject all Princes to the Pope and for the rest discourse at least consequently Were their Principle true all would follow which they say He makes Princes as much subject as they and when he has done cals them true soveraign Princes and discourses so that no part hangs together Every one fals together by the ears with his fellow and makes such mad work that a body can understand nothing of it but that 't is false Consider a little what he teaches in his Rom. Pont. against these Canonists That Christ or the Christian Law deprives none of the Right and Dominion he had before that otherwise Christianity would be injurious and a wrong instead of a benefit and therefore Christian Rings and Emperors acknowledge no Superior in Temporals but are true and supream Princes in their own Kingdoms Again That Christ our Lord has distinguisht the Acts Offices and Dignities of Popes and Emperors that one should not presume to meddle with the Rights of the other and a great deal more to this purpose But that strange things happen in the world now and then one would not suspect that these things and Deposition should both be taught by one man and that man a friend of the Popes Sure if I were Pope I should not think my self much oblig'd by him who gives me a Power to do injuries But with what Distinction-sodder shall we ever cement these things Does a King lose nothing when he loses his Kingdom Is nothing taken away when all is gone Is he depriv'd of no Right who is depriv'd of the Right to reign Is it no injury to be turn'd out of a Throne to be forc't to change Purple for Rags and languish out a despised life in helpless Beggary Do Christian Princes acknowledge no Superior in Temporals if they acknowledge one at whose command they must quit their Temporals By the way we are at our Superior in Temporals again with the meaning of which for my late bad success I dare not meddle It signifies you know ee'n what you please But let it signifie what it will I am sure no Distinction can hinder but who has Power to command in Temporals is Superior in Temporals And he would make us believe at the same time both that Christian Princes know none such and yet do know a certain Person who can command away their Temporals from them To make both these true at once is me thinks a pretty confident undertaking Then again what means this that the two Powers are distinct and one not to meddle with the Rights of the other I am sure he does not mean that the same Person cannot have and exercise both because then the Bishop of Rome could not be a temporal Prince Now I understand how in that case the Powers are distinct in themselves notwithstanding they are united in one Person because that one Person commands temporal things in vertue of one power and Spiritual in vertue of another which certainly he may do who has both But when there is but one Power extended to both kind of actions The powers certainly are then confounded if they can be confounded at all For what can confounding or mixing in this case signifie but making one of two which one shall have the vertue of both So liquors so every thing that I know in the world are blended or confounded together Wherefore 't is Bellarmin not the Canonists who truly confounds these Powers They make them two but say the Pope has both Bellarmin saies he has but one and that the Spiritual only but