This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.
THe Iesuit is heere ensnarled by the testimony of Bernard, as one fallen into a quagmire; who the more hee struggleth to get out, plungeth himselfe deeper into it. Bernard asserteth the right and power of both swords, equally to be in the Pope, (for that, of
Directly, and Indirectly, is not Bernards distinction, but the Iesuits vaine and new found fiction) and there∣fore be may giue power to others, ad nutum ipsius, to exe∣cute the Materiall sword: yet by himselfe cannot vse, or draw out the same. What is this else, but that one may giue power to another, to doe that which hee cannot doe himselfe?
The Iesuit is intolerably ignorant, if he know not, that by their Canon law, the Pope is made Lord of the whole vvorld in temporalibus: by vvhom Kings raigne, and of vvhom they hold their Scepters. In popish books printed and allowed, They who hold the materiall sword to be in the Pope, not directlie, but indirect∣lie, are censured for Politilian Hereticks, these times-ser∣uers.
But what if I should vse the same distinction heere, and say, that supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall, were it the King indirectly, to weet, in or dine ad custodiam v∣triusque tabulae; to pronide and procure, that all Eccle∣siasticks performe their duties, according to the pre∣script of Gods law: Were not this Iesuits Argument, according to his owne dispute heere, dasht in peeces? For, as the Pope may haue the materiall sword indi∣rectly, and yet haue no power by himselfe to vse the same: so may a King haue supreame Iurisdiction Ec∣clesiasticall indirectlie; and yet not haue power by himselfe to execute the functions of Iurisdiction Ec∣elesiasticall; and so not to excommunicate. True it is, No man can giue that vnto another, which himselfe hath not to giue: yet the King may giue authoritie to another, to doe that, which pertaines not to himselfe to doe, as formerly was shewed.
This is a decided case amongst the Canonists, Decis. 2. Tit. de Praebend. Quia licet Abbatissae aut Moniali∣bus cur a committi non possit, quoad exercitium actuale, ta∣menius potest ipsis competere, vtexercitium faciant per vi∣rum illius potestatis capacem. Vide notatum per Innocent de Praeb.c.Lateran.et per gloss.in ca. Cum et plantare. Though vvomen be vncapable of the cure of soules, as touching the actuall exercising thereof themselues: yet Abbasses, and Monials, may haue right and power, to exercise the same by a man capable of that power.
But it is not amiss to obserue some conclusions from the Iesuits Positions heere.
First, that the Popes supreme power Ecclesiasticall, is dependant vpon another, that is, vpon Peter. For he asserteth out of Bernard, That (not Christ, but) Peter gaue vnto the Pope, the cure of the vvhole Church.
Secondly, that the Pope, as Peters successor, neither hath, nor can giue, any temporall possessions. For so he makes Bernard concluding thus: Peter had no tem∣porall possessions himselfe: therefore he could give no tem∣porall possessions to his successor the Pope.
Thirdly, That a man may giue that to another, which hee hath not himselfe. For the Pope, as Peters successor, giues temporall Kingdoms & Empires: and yet the Pope, as Peters successor, hath no temporall posselsions, much lesse Kingdoms, and least of all, Empires.
Out of these conclusions, growe these two Quae∣res following;