his well-being depends upon the well-being of the Church and the constancy of his power and greatness and whatever you envy him for Take away the Church and He is no body O Friend could that cleer sight of yours look upon things without the Spectacles of prejudice and consider the office without the impossible to be avoided faults of some persons you would peradventure wonder at the aversion you have to a thing so beneficial to Mankind that the Divine Providence has left us few more signal testimonies of his constant care over us At least for my part I cannot but find my self obliged to a grateful acknowledgment of His love to the Church as often as I consider he has appointed one whose office and duty it is to take care of her good and placed him in such circumstances that to the efficacy of vertue and a good Conscience Interest and the preservation of his own Concerns and those great ones and all the considerations which sway with men are added to make him execute this Office well A Common Father of Christendom obliged by Conscience and interest to procure the good of the whole and disabled by want of the Material Sword which is committed to Princes from doing any great harm Power disarm'd you know cannot be much mischievous is so great a good that if the wisdom and goodness of God had not provided it for us I am confident those who love Christianity would have wisht and perhaps fruitlesly endeavour'd to have set it up themselves But let us suppose the Popes as bad men as you will suppose them to design the destruction of the flock they have undertaken to feed to be careless of the place they hold in this world and the account they are to give in the next suppose them wicked sensless and mad To make the Church abandon Tradition is a thing beyond all the plenitude of His power Hopes of happiness and Fear of misery Love to posterity and the Force of Nature and Inclinations of Mankind are things too deeply imprinted to be subject to any Awes or violence But I have no intention to meddle with Controversie wherefore pray take it well that I refer you for more satisfaction if you desire it to those who do Then for the Reverence which from the natural dictate of my thoughts you find in my unheeded expressions concerning Scripture you wonder at it and I more wonder at your wonder Yours I say who if I mistake not use not to give your self blindly up to the conduct of other mens Prejudices but desire first to see Reason and then to follow it In the name of God what have Catholics ever said or done that you should fancy them to have less respect for Scripture than is due to it or than other men have We hear ill indeed as you say but alas 't is because other men speak ill Sure I am 't is we preserv'd the Scriptures for fifteen hundred years and if we had not you had not had them to have reproacht us withal You receiv'd them from us and 't is by our Attestation you know there are Books of Divine Inspiration and which they are otherwise I know not vvhere you would have had them nor how have known them If you think vve read them not and take no care to understand them examine vvell the several Expositours and see if the Protestants equal the Catholics either in Number or Learning But we keep them seal'd up from the Vulgar and this for fear those cleer lights should too plainly discover the bracks of our Doctrine I know not how charitable you think that Comment but I am sure I find it very irrational If they be against us in Latin 't is a wise piece of pollicy a deep reach of subtle craft to keep people from reading them in English as if you had not learning enough to urge them against us in Latin or we to understand you unless you spoke English But thus stands the Case whoever understands Latin needs no permission to read the Scripture and vvho does not may have it for asking provided he be not of the number of the unlearned and unstable who deprave them to their own perdition Such there were in St. Peter's daies and vve have but too much cause to fear the number is greater now and if you think that to hinder the Perdition of men be to vvant Respect for Scripture you may think as your Charity and Judgment serves you but I think vve shall endeavour to shew ours by procuring their Salvation The truth is vve do little more in that particular than the Law I think still in force obliges you to do Look into the Statute Hen. 8. and see vvith vvhat limitations the Reading of the Bible is permitted If you observe them not we indeed are more obedient to our Laws than you to yours but the Laws of both are much alike for all this vvhile numbers of you read the Scriptures and shew your respect to them in contempt of the Law vvhich is a fine kind of respect But we refuse them for the Judge of Controversies Conscious say you that they would give sentence against us Methinks men vvho impute vvant of Charity to us should be a little more vvary in making such Constructions of things But I beseech you What do you mean by Judge of Controversies If no more but this that vvhatsoever is contained in those Sacred Books is Truth and Truth divinely inspir'd and such as ought to be receiv'd by all vvith a submission so absolute and entire that no Authority on Earth is permitted to oppose or question the least title of it and that vvhen of any point in Controversie or not in Controversie the verdict of Scripture appears there is no more to do but immediately leave off disputing and receive it vvith the reverence and submission due to Divine Oracles If this be all you mean as I think it is What Catholic ever deny'd or question'd or doubted of it We hold him neither Catholic nor Christian that does And as little as you think our Vulgar people acquainted vvith the Scriptures I believe you vvill find few vvho knows not thus much of them Whether all this makes the title of Judge belong vvith propriety to Scripture you may if you please dispute vvith our Controvertists But for the substance of vvhat vve hold if this vvhich I have exprest be that vvhich you hold Catholics hold the same and as fully and as firmly I conceive vvhen you affirm and we deny Scripture to be the Judge peradventure it might have been more proper to have said Rule of Controversie vve mean not the same thing For since all the excellent Prerogatives belonging to that Book hinder it not from being a Book and a Book must be made up of Words and Words and vvhat is signified by the Words are different things vve think it may be permitted us vvithout contempt of Scripture to think that difference is
their Prince qui vicem Dei agit who is the Vicar of God as to God himself S. Tho. of Aquin. If he be Author of the work attributed to him De Regim Princ. l. 2. says a King is oblig'd with all care and diligence to look after Religion not onely because he is a man but because he is a Lord and a King and Dei vices gerit is the Vicar of God on whom he chiefly depends To omit Nicolaus de Lyra Fevardentius and more then a Letter would hold or you have patience to read for I think you are furnisht with a sufficient stock of that vertue if you can forgive the folly of saying so much as I have done which seems to me not much wiser then to go about seriously to prove there is such a place as Jamaica or has been such a Man as Harry the 8th I shall onely adde the Authority of the Roman Pontifical Printed at Rome 1595. where the Prayer appointed for the Consecration of Kings ends thus That you may glory without end with our Redeemer Jesus Christ cujus nomen vicemque gestare crederis whose name you bear and whose Vicar you are This being so consider now what a pleasant Argument you have light upon by which Kings may as well absolve Penitents and confer Sacraments as the Pope dispose of Kingdoms Notwithstanding let us look a little nearer upon it Christ say you gave all the power he had He had all both Spiritual and Temporal therefore the Pope must have it too If you will not be too hasty in your censure but delay it till I have time to explain my meaning I will answer you a Catholick may be a very good Catholick and believe all a Catholick is bound to believe and yet believe never a one of those two Propositions Not that I mean to be guilty of the blasphemy of denying to the Son of God all power in Heaven and Earth but that Son of God being man too I do not know a Catholick is bound to believe that man purely as man was a temporal King But of this more by and by when your second Proposition comes into play in the mean time let us consider the first viz. That Christ gave to the Pope in St. Peter all the power he had himself Pray how does this appear 't is included say you in this that he is his Vicar I beseech you consider again for I cannot readily think of an inference which seems to me more wild and more palpably contradicted by the open course of things with which we daily converse A Judge represents the Kings Person a Constable does it all Officers both Civil and Military supply his place in their several employments Can every one of these therefore do as much as the King Can a General coyn money or a Judge call a Parliament or a Constable make War and Peace We see their several Powers are bounded by their several Commissions and the priviledge of representing his person gives them no more power then he is pleas'd to confer upon them How can it be otherwise with the Pope He indeed is the Vicar of Christ and represents his person and so the Judge does the Kings but what power he has we are to learn from his Commission not his Title Let us now consider what a good Catholick may say to this point And first I believe no man can reprove him if he say he finds no temporal power included in any Commission recorded in Scripture Tradition or the Fathers and if he refuse to believe more then he finds there I think none will reprove him for that neither In Scripture we find Saint Peter commissionated to teach to baptize to feed the Flock to confirm his Brethren we find the Keys of Heaven promis'd and given him and what those Keys signifie we find there declared to be this that what he should bind or loose on Earth should be bound or loos'd in Heaven But of deposing Kings or disposing of Kingdoms we read no word That his Commission extends only to Spirituals is a thing so notoriously known and universally receiv'd amongst Catholicks none denying it but some Canonists who meddle ultra crepidam and a few Divines who handle their crepida unskilfully and follow them that to be serious and earnest in the proof of it is a labour as little needful and perhaps less pardonable then that which I have newly ended of shewing Princes to be Vicars of God However because I am to say nothing of my self hear what others say De Anath Vinc. Gelasias speaks very clearly Fuerant haec ante adventum Christi c. Before the coming of Christ figuratively and remaining yet in carnal actions some were both Kings and Priests as the H. History delivers of Melchizedeck Which thing too the Devil striving always with a Tyrannical Pride to usurp to himself those things which belong to divine Worship has imitated amongst his Followers so that amongst Pagans the same men have been Emperours and chief Bishops but when we were once come to the true King and Bishop Christ neither has the Emperour any longer assum'd the name of a Bishop nor the Bishop the regal dignity For although his Members that is of a true King and Bishop are magnificently said according to the participation of his nature to have assum'd both in a sacred generosity that the Regality and Priesthood may subsist together yet Christ mindful of the frailty of humane nature tempering with a glorious Dispensation what might conduce to the salvation of his People has so distinguisht the Offices of both Powers by proper Actions and distinct Dignities desirous his Followers should be sav'd by wholesome Humility and not again betray'd by humane Pride both that Christian Emperours should need Bishops for eternal life and Bishops in the conduct of the temporal things should use the Imperial Laws that the spiritual action might be distant from carnal assaults and he who militat Deo is a Souldier of Gods should not embroil himself with secular business and on the other side he who is entangled in secular business should not preside over divine matters both that the modesty of both degrees might be provided for lest he who had both should be puffed up and a convenient profession be particularly fitted to the qualities of the Actions This man was a Vicar of Christ himself and you see he is so far from thinking his Commission extends to temporal things that he plainly teaches Christ distinguisht them and left the spiritual Power so alone to him that for temporal Laws he was to be beholding to the Emperour I might peradventure have run the hazard of reproof if I had said that to joyn those two Powers is an Artifice of the Devil but I suppose that saying will not be reprov'd in so antient and so holy a Pope Symmachus succeeded as to his Chair being the next Pope but one after him so to his Doctrine You says he to the
not the worst of the Case It is pretended in the behalf of the deposing Doctrine that it relyes on divine Right and the hot abetters of it will hardly suffer those to pass for good Catholicks who reject it The truth is they cannot well go less For while it is acknowledged as on all hands it is That subjection to Princes is commanded by Gods Law that which takes away this subjection must be Gods Law too or nothing And indeed considering the import of the Question and the immediate influence it has upon a main Point of duty it cannot well be doubted but the Truth on which side soever it be dees belong to Gods Law Certainly the Wisdom of God who took flesh purposely to instruct the world in all necessary duty did not leave out so considerable a part Now that his Law teaches we are to obey temporal Princes is both plain in it self and as I come from saying plainly confest by every body But 't is evident we cannot at the same time obey two Powers commanding contrary things Wherefore I cannot see but to require obedience in Temporals to the spiritual Power by the same Law which commands obedience to the Temporal is to make that Law contradictory and impossible to be obey'd Which as 't is a Blasphemy intolerable in any Christian so I fear 't is unavoidable in those who put a temporal vertue in the spiritual Power For that vertue plainly obliges to obedience in Temporals to which obedience we are obliged by another vertue that of the temporal Power And this is to require we should do what Christ himself has assured us is impossible to be done serve two Masters The way by which they seek to avoid this is by saying Kingly obedience as inferior must yield to Papal obedience as superior Which I think is by striving to weather Scylla to split upon Charibdis We have assurance from those whom we have more reason to credit that Kings are inferior only to God and have none above them but him alone I suppose this is to be understood of the same kind of Superiority For otherwise 't is ordinary enough for the same man to be both Superior and Inferior to another in several respects as a Father to a Son who is a Magistrate But 't is plain there is no reconciling this Doctrine with that of a Papal Superiority in Temporals We may as soon obey both when they command contraries as believe one has no Superior besides God to whom the Pope is Superior And yet there is another thing which sticks more with me This Papal Superiority in Temporals is no where to be found but in their own fancies There is no such thing in Scripture or Tradition Councils or Fathers To obtrude upon us an invention of their own heads and this for a part of Gods Law is to add to the Law of God Let them either shew that place of Gods Law which teaches Kingly Power is inferior and Papal superior and this in Temporals or shew how they do not give us for Gods Law that which is not and entitle themselves to the maledictions of the Apocalyps Feed my sheep and whatsoever you shall bind is not Kings are inferior in Temporals and their interpretation which hooks in Temporals is not Scripture Besides the Council of Trent has forbid the Scripture to be Interpreted against the unanimous consent of the Fathers And if any one Father can be brought who Interprets those places as they do or who does not Interpret them quite contrary if he meddle with them at all truly there is more to be said for them than I am aware of But let us consider a little farther In a Question which belongs to Christian duty and the law of God how does or how should a Catholic proceed I conceive who goes to work like a Catholic should frame his belief according to his Rule of Belief I think that is the use of a Rule To my judgment they go not this way who are for Deposing as indeed they cannot For if Tradition be as I conceive it is the Catholic Rule there is no applying this Rule to Deposition Look into all Bellarmins Arguments Those in his Rom. Pont. are all from Reason deducing such inferences from Scripture or acknowledg'd points of Catholic Doctrine as make to his purpose These deductions till they be acknowledged rightly made which hitherto is deny'd and that upon very good grounds have no force at all to induce belief and though they were acknowledg'd would make at most but a Theological conclusion Those against Barclay are all from Authority and this Authority is either of a single Pope Boniface 8 or a great many single men or those men met together in Councils For as for Scripture which he pretends and which indeed would do the business if it declared it self he makes nothing of it Now there is no number or quality of men let them be Catholics never so much which obliges to a belief of what they say otherwise then when they witness the point in question was received by them from their Ancestours as taught originally by Christ which testimony of theirs hands it over for such a point to those who come after In all other cases they speak their own private judgments and this whether single or assembled and for that reason are not parts of Tradition or the Catholic Rule and make no necessity of Belief And these being all the waies they have to the wood I do not discern the Catholic way among them But what is the consequence There are but two things acknowledg'd by Catholicks to which we are oblig'd to submit our Judgments Scripture and Tradition if these be truly two and not one thing with two names For as for Councils They belong to Tradition and are when duly qualifi'd the most considerable parts of it In Scripture we find Subjection and Obedience and this for Conscience possessing our Souls in patience expecting our reward in the next world and the like no word of Deposition Look into Tradition and we find Ten whole Ages perswaded and practising according to the same Maxims persevering in faithful obedience to just commands and patient refusal of unjust ones and apprehending they were oblig'd by the law of God so to do We find all the Fathers of all those Ages confirming them in this apprehension and inculcating the duty of Obedience even to Tyrants and Persecutors We find Popes themselves not only teaching but practising the same Doctrine obeying commands sometimes thought unreasonable and unjust and submitting with patience to the pleasures of their then acknowledg'd Lords the Emperours This is if any thing can be semper Vbique ab omnibus And this is the known Rule of the Catholic Church The opposite Opinion began at such a time in such a place and by such a Man and when it began was cry'd out on as a novelty conâ—rary to the ancient Doctrinâ— which in all other cases is
so little subtilty that every body does the like almost in every occasion There remains only to examine upon what Principle those who assert these errors proceed whether upon Faith or some other Faith is a reliance upon some Authority and in our case the Authority of Christ who alone is acknowledged the Author and Revealer of all which we are to believe Wherefore of any point in question it must either be pretended that it was revealed by Christ or it cannot be pretended that it belongs to Faith and if any maintain it upon other grounds so far he acts not as a believer but as otherwise qualified Now there are in the world two principal ways by which claim is made to the Authority of Christ for that which we maintain is Faith and that wherein we do not engage his Authority neither of us say is Faith or that they act as faithful who upon reason or experiment for example maintain any thing The World hopes from the learned industry of the Royal Society the sight of many truths yet hidden from her but all their endeavours can never make Faith of them nor concern your Church in them as considerable members of it as some of them are For they go not your Church-way of Faith They look not into Scripture but Experiments and act as Learned not as Church-men What they shall discover to the World will be revealed not by Christ but by them and if any believe them they will have no Christian but Society-Faith Such is the case of our Church Tradition in her known method by which she pretends to the Authority of Christ If any will run upon their own heads and discourse and maintain things and never look into her Rule She can be no more concerned in their proceedings than the Church of England in those of Gresham Colledge For since Faith is that by which she is a Church and Tradition that by which she comes to Faith people must engage Faith if they will engage the Church and Tradition if they will engage her Faith Wherefore whoever goes about to prove any thing otherwise than by Tradition uses not the method to come to Faith I mean the method approved by our Church and this conclusion whether true or false neither reaches Faith nor aims at it and by consequence cannot belong to the Church or Congregation of the Faithful Now reflect a little upon your Authors and see if they go this way to work and the first thing is the consent of the present Age for Tradition signifying the consent of all Ages 't is a madness to pretend it for that which is not believed so much as by the present Do they or can they even offer at this while they see themselves contradicted by men as learned and farr more numerous While all the Universities of a great Kingdom disapprove and condemn their Doctrine and their Books are burnt in the face of the World by public Justice and the men who do this acknowledged good Catholics all the while Do they or can they pretend the consent of former Ages while they know all Antiquity agrees that for many Ages Popes were so Supreme in Spirituals that in Temporals they were Subjects Such they acknowledged themselves and as such the Emperours treated them When and how and upon what occasion they came to be temporal Princes is known to all who are knowing in History A condition by the way which he who envies them little understands or little loves the good of the Church with which 't was much worse when Popes were hindred from doing their duty by the unjust violence and oppression of powerful men amongst whom they lived Do they alledg the undoubted Testimonies of the Fathers of the Church assembled in a general Council Nothing of this appears in what you have produced The men themselves are most of yesterday All many Ages since Christ and there needs no second Argument to prove any thing that it is not Faith if it can be proved that it began in any Age since the first as these opinions plainly did But consider their Arguments They are either grounded upon some odd interpretation of Scripture as the order of Melchesedech the two Swords St Peters walking on the water and the like or else upon some deduction and reasoning as weak as the water which they mention And this methodt though per impossibile it could prove the thing true yet could never prove it to be Faith There are many things in the world which are so acknowledged to be true that they are withall acknowledged not to be Faith Was it taught by Christ Was it believed by Christians Semper ubique ab omnibus Till this appear it neither is nor can be Catholic Faith But that which I insist upon is that this method is plainly resolved into Reason and can no more engage the Church of Rome than the experimental learning of the Royal Society the Church of England The Authors you produce rely not upon the Authority of Christ testified by an uninterrupted conveyance down to us but upon the strength of their own discourses which if they be weak and fail the Church never undertook that all in her Communion should discourse strongly Neither can she herself do more then testifie of the truths delivered to her and they are such and were so delivered This testimony is all which can be expected from her as a Church speaking of what concerns us to speak of her power to make Ecclesiastical Laws and the like are no part of our case if she fail in this and either testifie that to be delivered which was not so or suppress any thing which was delivered blame her but for this that some Members in her Communion have weak Reasons or strong Passions if you blame her consider the confusion you will bring into the World which I have so much dilated before that to repeat it would be tedious here But will you have a taste of the Churches sense of these things Consider the Hymn made in the first Ages of the Church inserted since by public Authority into her solemn Office received by all the Faithful and used on the Feast of the Epiphany Non eripit mortalia qui Regna dat coelestia Can the Church which prays thus be thought to favour the deposing power Or can her sense appear more plainly than in the consent of an universal practice But let us look upon her in a Council Wickleff amongst other errors had advanced this Proposition Populares c The people may at their pleasure correct their offending Lords Con. Const Sess 8. And this amongst the rest was condemned by the Council of Constance To the same Council was offered another Article worded in this manner Quilibet Tyrannus c. Every Tyrant may and ought lawfully and meritoriously be killed by any of his Vassals or Subjects even by secret plots and subtle insinuations or flatteries notwithstanding any Oath or League made with
know not where to fix my jealousie I cannot say but the cause you assign may have had some influence upon me for to hear men spoken against perpetually and universally and not to think there is some fire to all that smoke is hardly possible Yet let me tell you I think you have no great reason to complain for if I mistake not you owe a good number of your Proselites to this very cause and believe that of those who come over to you far the greatest part have been wrought upon by this perswasion That you are ill represented When you truly are so as I cannot deny but sometimes you are 't is no hard matter for you to shew it to candid people whom nature has so disposed to favour persons wrongfully traduc'd that this bad Idea where of you complain makes you at last sufficient amends There is such a charm in injur'd Innocence that I am very confident it brings you in more Converts than all your Arguments If some be hardned others are gain'd and peradventure fair play were more for the Interest of both sides However it be I acknowledge I was my self something mistaken in you and not so well acquainted as I thought with your Religion where things I perceive go otherwise than I apprehended I thought there had been an Oraculous kind of lustre in this power of the Popes which had either dazled you into a blindness of not seeing ought against it or aw'd you into a fear of saying what you saw if you saw any thing and for ought I perceive you are as cleer sighted as other men and speak bold truths as freely I must confess we are a little out when we impute blindness to you at least I 'm sure you saw more in this particular than I. But hark you Friend while you discourse of one thing my thoughts insensibly carry me to another I begin to conceit this Tradition of yours which makes such a noise and passes for such a bugbear may prove less frightful than our apprehensions make it And I cannot tell whether the Pope has not as much reason to be jealous of it as Protestants For methinks if that be made the Test of Doctrines and nothing impos'd upon our belief but upon the warrant of the constantly conspiring attestation of all Ages This deposing power of the Popes which from its inconsistency with Civil government I so much abhorr'd must needs be excluded from the Articles of belief and Protestans eas'd of a great deal of pains in pulling down that which your own beloved Principle pulls down to their hands For ought I know it may do as good service upon other occasions however I avow to you I am more friends with it than ever I was and think Protestants have no reason to look unkindly upon a Principle which takes their part so much in a question of such importance I wish with all my heart it were lookt into more throughly for I mistake extreamly if it would not cut off a number of those things of which we complain and though peradventure it be no discretion to speak so freely to you reduce things to that pass that while you labour to bring us over to you That very instrument which you use to that purpose may force you over to us But rather than such a thing should happen I presume the Pope would disown it and after he has us'd it as long as it would serve his turn turn enemy to It as soon as he finds It turn enemy to him But to tell you truly I am something in a better humour for Tradition because you speak of Scripture with that reverence which is fit and which pleases me so much the more by how much the less I expected it from you For you know how ill you hear pardon the pedantry of the phrase for failing in the respect due to that sacred pledge of the Divine Love which the fear or rather consciousness how cleerly those undimmable lights would discover the abundance of tares you have sown amongst the wheat of the Gospel makes you shut up from the Vulgar and exclude from the Test and Judge of Controversies And after this to profess they are divinely inspir'd and that no other writings can be compar'd to them is a thing which pleases indeed but surprizes me too Do you forget or have you a mind to condemn your self For the Spirit of God must certainly be Gods best Interpreter and where that is to be had as in books divinely inspir'd the Divine Spirit must certaiâ—ly be to seek another Judge is to refuse him now by whom we must one day be judg'd whether we will or no and should do well not to provoke in the mean time by contempt To tell you my thoughts freely If you would give a little more to Scripture than you do and we to Tradition I think things might be better betwixt us For you pretend to hate Novelties as I am sure we do All our whole Reformation being nothing else but the rejecting what you have introduc'd Let us have but Gods Law pure as he gave it and free from the mixture of erroneous additions or diminutions and we have no more to desire And if I understand Tradition rightly and that it signifie what Vincentius Lirinensis has long since delivered for the test of Sound doctrine viz. what has been held ever and every where and by all methinks you should like Novelties no more than We for novelty and this cannot consist together and there needs no farther confutation of novelty but only to shew that 't is a Novelty Which if it be so in the name of God how fell we out We all know that Christ was our only Lawgiver and that upon the observation of the Law he gave us all our hopes of Salvation depend that since him there has been no new Law-maker and whoever teaches any doctrine contrary to what was taught by him is long since declar'd Anathema by the Apostle that profane Novelties are to be avoided and those who broach or abett them are in the words of the Psalmist wicked men who tell us stories but not as thy Law O God And while we both agree in this how is it possible we should disagree in ought and what magick is it which thus sets up Altar against Altar and divides the seamless coat of Christ In the darkness of Barbarism and Ignorance things might more easily be obtruded upon us but in an age shining with so much wit and learning and so cleer sighted in Antiquity methinks it is no such hard matter to find out at least which is the Novelty and then if Vincentius say true we know without more ado which is the Truth Seriously Friend I am at a strange loss and cannot possibly unriddle this Mystery But my zeal transports me and I have almost forgot what we were talking of To return to your Letter It is I must confess long enough yet I wish it had been
submission from every body And though I suspect this Gathering will go near to take the business out of the hands of Scripture yet since it is no great matter who does it so the Miracle be done let us only observe at present how he gathers this plain inference of his and how it follows if the Pope be invested with the Power belonging to Ecclesiastical Primacy he is invested likewise with the Power of deposing Kings It is worth while to attend a little to a matter of this consequence and a little attention will serve turn where things are so plain Pray how does this follow so plainly why thus says Bellarmin Because the Pope by his spiritual Power can bind even Kings with the bond of Excommunication Suppose he can what then And by the same he can loose people from their Oath of Fidelity and Obedience and oblige them under excommunication not to obey the former excommunicated King but chuse them a new one How He can absolve subjects from the duty of Obedience and oblige them to chuse a new King Why this is the very thing call'd Deposing and if he can depose undoubtedly he can depose But whether he can do this is the thing in question and what he undertook to prove by a plain collection out of Scripture and does he offer us for proof the very thing to be prov'd This it neither proving nor gathering but saying twice over what they who deny once will deny as often as it is or can be repeated till it be prov'd T is in plain terms to say he can loose the band of Allegeance therefore he can loose the band of Allegeance or he can Depose therefore he can Depose In good earnest I should not easily have believed that such a man as Bellarmin should have over-seen himself so much But I perceive the greatest men that are are men and have their failings And though I should not have run proud of my own wit if I alone had observ'd a defect so palpable yet I must needs confess I am not the first discoverer Jo. Barclay has been before me and it may be as many as have considered the Argument as the truth is I say almost nothing which I have not from others If you remember I engaged no farther then to acquaint you what others say and I am as good as my word But it is so tedious and hobling a labor to be alwayes going over and over again with This man says that and t'other man the other that I cannot endure alwaies to cite my Authors But to return to our matter All we have here in proof of the deposing power is that the Pope has it which he that will take for a proof may but I fear that who believs it for that reason had as good believe it for no reason at all And how much soever there may be of Reason I verily think there is little of Scripture in it There follows the subordination of the two Powers from the subordination of their ends which is one of the 5 Arguments related in my former Letter and which to repeat again I suppose would be as ungrateful to you as tedious to me But there Bellarmin alledg'd it as an Argument from Reason and how he comes here to intitle it to Scripture I cannot guess The truth is I am wholly to seek why these two together and these two are all which belong to this Head should be called proof from Scripture when no place of Scripture is so much as alledged He assumes indeed that Ecclesiastical Primacy is founded in Scripture and Tradition But this is part of the question No Catholick disputes it with him The question is whether the Scripture teach the deposing Power is joyned to that Primacy I would fain see that place of Scripture which teaches this When Bellarmin undertook to prove his doctrine by Scripture I expected as I think any man would he should produce some place which teaches it either expresly or so that it might plainly be gathered from it And instead of this he brings us one reason such as it is and another which is not so much as a reason but a bare saying over what he was to prove and this he calls proof from Scripture He cites indeed in the Process of his discourse Mat. 16. and Jo. 21. but does not go about to shew how they are to his purpose only by way of History tells us that two Popes alledg'd them to shew that they dealt justly and that the power they challenged is not founded on uncertain opinions but divine Authority Undoubtedly these Popes had reason to desire it should be thought they dealt justly and that this power of theirs was not founded on uncertain opinions And every body knows they have alledged those places and more But every body is not satisfied with those allegations nor can perceive by them that divine Authority does indeed warrant their deposing claim neither does Bellarmin contribute any thing to their satisfaction They find in S. Hierom that the spiritual Key extends it self not to Temporals without arrogance and some body else from S. Jo. Chrysostom has told them that by the Keys is not understood any power given but spiritual to absolve from the bond of Sin and that it were foolish to understand it of a Power to absolve from the bond of debt And if they think it as wise to understand it so as to understand it of a Power to absolve from the bond of Allegeance they may do so for Bellarmin But you have a great deal to this purpose cited formerly and much more might be added if it were necessary by which it may be gather'd something more plainly then Bellarmin gathers that the Church understood not the power of the Keys as those Popes would have us understand the 16 of S. Mathew The like is of the other place of Feeding of which you observ'd unhappily that to understand it of Deposing is to think Christ meant his Sheep should be fed with knocks Upon that occasion you know I brought you S. Bernard affirming that to feed is no more then to Evangelize Fac opus Evangelistae Pastoris munus implesti I could easily produce Authority enough for the right sence of this place But another of the 5 Arguments mention'd in my last being drawn from hence you see there are all that Bellarmin could make of it which I have no mind to say again Several other Arguments there are scattered up and down by several Authors But I take these to be the principal At least they are those which Bellarmin chose and he being look'd upon as the Principal Patron of this opinion I think it needles to look after more and in his judgment worse It is now time to acquaint you with the arguments produc'd on the other side and the answers to them You shall permit me to contract them into as little room as I can for my Letter swells and I am weary both of
writing and of the subject I take them out of Withrington and Barclay who being the latest writers I suppose have seen what was sayd before though the truth is I am forc'd to use them more by necessity then choice my library not affording me those former Books whom I would gladly see The first says Withrington is like that which Bellarmine makes against those who assert a direct Temporal Power in the Pope If the Pope have and that by Divine Right power to depose Princes in order to spiritual good this must appear either by Scripture or Tradition Tradition is not pretended Out of Scripture the two chief places are those now mentioned Mat. 16. and Joh. 21. both which he endeavours to shew are meant only of spiritual power To this Schulkenius for Bellarmin replys He labours in vain to prove these places are meant of spiritual power for this they freely grant him But say they this power which formally is spiritual is virtually temporal or his the vertue to extend it self to temporals in as much as is requisite to spiritual good And therefore Bellarmins Argument is good because he intended only to prove by it that the Popes power was formally spiritual which is true and acknowledged by Withrington But Withringtons naught because he does not prove that the Power is not virtually Temporal and cannot extend to deposition c. If I had a mind to answer for Withrington I should not think my self silenc'd by this reply For when he says the Arguments are unlike the one good the other bad I cannot perceive by what reason one should believe him Bellarmins Argument is good says he because his Conclusion that the Popes Power is spiritual is true as if the Argument were a jot the better because the Conclusion is true The Argument is naught if the Conclusion follow not from the premisses though it be never so great a truth otherwise But what was the Argument No direct Power in Scripture therefore no direct Power This I take is Bellarmins Argument and by the favour of Schulkenius no deposing Power in Scripture therefore no deposing Power is so like it that they must be both good or neither That the Conclusion of the one is true and the other false is voluntarily said and nothing to purpose for the question is whether they have not the same dependance on their premisses If Bellarmin conclude well against the Canonists because they cannot shew their direct Power in Scripture I see not why Withrington concludes not as well against Bellarmin unless he can shew his deposing Power in Scripture which as far as I see Schulkenius does not go about to do But I have nothing to do with Withrington he has answer'd for himself though by ill luck I have not the Book now by me I am only to observe how the case stands betwixt the two parties which in short is thus Is the deposing Power in Scripture says Withrington 'T is virtually says Schulkenius I fear this is no very direct answer and suppose VVithrington should ask again Is this vertue apparent in Scripture To which Schulk gives me no ground to judge what he would reply And so I must leave them as I find them and pass to the Second Argument Coercitive Civil and coercitive spiritual Power being different and independent Powers must have distinct Courts and distinct penalties VVherefore as the Civil Power cannot inflict a spiritual punishment so neither can the spiritual Power inflict a civil punishment And this he strengthens by two Considerations 1. That the distinction of the two Courts since in the manner of proceeding the persons and causes brought before them and all other formalities they may agree must be taken from the difference of the penalties or nothing 2. Because no Commonwealth looking only into nature can deprive a subject of other goods then such as are proper to that Commonwealth the spiritual can only take away spiritual goods as the temporal only temporal They answer The two Powers are distinct but not wholly independent when they club into one mystical Body viz. the Church in which case the temporal is subject to the spiritual and therefore though the temporal cannot meddle with the spiritual the spiritual may with the temporal And for his additional Considerations they slight the first as being nothing but the conclusion of his argument repeated yet say however that Temporal punishments are not so proper to Temporal power but they may be inflicted by the spiritual And to the second that in Commonwealths subordinate the superior may deprive the subject not only of the priviledges proper to it self but those also which belong to the inferior Commonwealth This answer relishes much better with me then the former for it plainly denies at least half of what is assumed namely that the powers are independent which is a direct and allowable answer for so much But for the other half they deal not so cleverly They allow the powers distinct even in their penalties and yet maintain that one may award the penalties of the other which looks as if they were not distinct in their penalties Again they say they are distinct but assign not in what they are distinct They deny not what Withrington assumes that they may use the same proceedings take cognizance of the same matters convene the same persons And if they may inflict the same penalties too by what shall they be distinguisht So that I think they had no such great reason to slight his first consideration For certainly distinct powers must be distinct in something But you see where it rests Withrington since they deny it is oblig'd to prove the Independence of the two Powers which whether he have done or no I cannot tell Shall I tell you my thoughts freely I suspect the old School-Proverb An Ass may deny more more than Aristotle can prove may have some place here and that the Answerer has still the better end of the staff When it was Bellarmins turn to prove the dependance and subordination of the two Powers and Withringtons to answer you may perceive by my last where you have the Argument He could deal well enough with Bellarmin Now they have changed sides and Withrington is on the proving hand how it will happen I know not The third Argument is from the multitude of inconveniences which follow from the other opinion As that the Pope may as well take the life as Kingdom of any Prince and driving it a little higher authorize any private man to turn Assassin and kill the King by treachery when he cannot be conveniently depos'd To this they say they can answer easily enough but yet as easy as it is they do it not All they reply is let this pass as nothing to purpose meer bugbears to render the Papacy odious when of so many Princes who have been depos'd so many who have perisht by violent deaths what by the treachery of their subjects what by the force of their Enemys