APPENDIX. NO. VI. 140 The prince has authority indirectly in ecclesiastical affairs. to Gregory the Second, ἐγὼ βασιλεὺς καὶ ἱερεύς είμι, “I am [ἐξηκολούθησας τῷ πείσματι καὶ τοῖς ἐνοίκοις σου πάθεσι καὶ ἔγραφας ὅτι βασιλεὺς καὶ ἱερεύς εἰμι. καὶ τοῦτο οἱ πρὸ σοῦ βασιλεῖς ἔδειξαν ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ, οἱ κτισάμενοι, καὶ φροντίσαντες τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, ἅμα τοῖς ἀρχιερεύσιν ἐκζητήσαντες πόθῳ καὶ ζήλῳ τῆς ὀρθο δοξίας τὴν ἀληθείαν. — Leonis Imp. Epist. ad Greg. Papam II. ap. Concilia, tom. viii. col. 669, A.] · [οὗτοι εἰσιν ἱερεῖς καὶ βασιλεῖς οἵτι νες καὶ τῷ ἔργῳ ἐπεδείξαντο.—Ibid. Β.] q [Unde apparet quod ego omnium vestrum admonitor esse debeo.-Ludovici Pii Imp. Capit. II. ap. Concilia, tom. ix. col. 628, B.] · [εἰ τοὺς πολιτικοὺς νόμους, ὧν τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἡμῖν θεὸς κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φιλανθρωπίαν ἐπίστευσε, βεβαίους διὰ πάντων φυλάττεσθαι πρὸς ἀσφάλειαν τῶν ὑπηκόων σπουδάζομεν, πόσῳ μᾶλλον πλείονα σπουδὴν ὀφείλομεν θέσθαι περὶ τὴν τῶν ἱερῶν κανόνων καὶ θείων νόμων παραφυλακὴν, κ.τ.λ.—Auth. Coll. ix. Tit. xix. Nov. 137. Præf. ap. Corp. Jur. Civ.] Instances from the Jewish kings. 141 DE LIB. ECCL. SECT. IV. that this inspection into things sacred belongs to princes CASAUBON by divine right, appears from the institution of kings by God, in the 17th of Deuteronomy; and from the examples CHAP. II. of the kings of Judah: 2 Kings xii. King Joash, when he saw that the sacred treasure was not rightly administered by the priests, took that care upon himself, and composed the matter by his royal authority: and that without the complaint of any one, not so much as of Jehoiada the highpriest, who had anointed him king. Jehoshaphat is commended as a religious king, 1 Kings xxii., but is there noted for not having fully done the work of God: for he had not pulled down the altars; and how could he have done that, unless the authority of doing it were in the king? The same thing is said of several others: but Hezekiah alone has the praise of restoring religion, 2 Kings xviii. Ecclesiastical history is full of like examples of Christian kings, who in France, Spain, England, and elsewhere, have of their own accord, and by their royal authority, revived the decayed institutions of ancient piety. Of whom I shall speak in another place. Here therefore we must observe the difference between the civil and the sacerdotal power: for the civil has not only a direct authority in temporal, but an indirect one in ecclesiastical affairs whereas divine matters are so committed to ecclesiastics, as that they are forbid to concern themselves in those that are secular. They may indeed out of charity act in these too, but not by any sacerdotal power or authority. They who think otherwise, and allege that place of St. Paul, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. vi., and others such like, are refuted in the eighth chapter. We know there are examples, of the ancient priests of the Jewish people, who did not only meddle in the state, but acted the greatest things in it. But that was done either by God's express command, as when Elisha anointed Jehu king, or by a certain extraordinary 2 Kings 9. right; of which sort are those duties, which the Greek philosophers call κатà πeρíσтаσi, "in extremity:" for they teach, that besides the proper duty of every citizen according to the place and station he enjoys in the city, sometimes with re s [Bellarmine maintained, (De Romano Pontifice, lib. v. c. 4,) Papam non habere ullam mere temporalem jurisdictionem directe jure divino; but (c. 5), Papam habere summam tempo- NO. VI. 142 The civil power is supreme in a Christian state. APPENDIX. spect to the state there happen such times, that it is lawful for every one to consult the public safety, if he can contribute any thing thereto, even by going out of the ordinary course. These they call duties kaтà Teрíoraσw, in the extremity, or according to the circumstance or exigence of the state, such as depend as it were on the necessity of the case or times of the republic. Thus though it is not lawful for any private person to kill any one, yet when the republic is oppressed, if any one slay the usurpert, he has a reward decreed to him, as to one that has deserved well of the commonwealth. These duties can be prescribed by no other certain law than the regard which is to be had to the public utility; for the sake of which the Greek sages tell us, that we ought xaλáσai Ti Tĥs ȧKρißeías, “to abate something of what is rigidly just.” And for a rule in such cases, they allege that verse of the poet which defines that to be the best augury by which the safety of his country shall be procured. On which occasion I cannot but add the precept of St. John Chrysostom in his twenty-fifth Homily on the first Epistle to the Corinthians". Τοῦτο κανὼν χριστιανισμοῦ [τοῦ τελειοτάτου], τοῦτο ὅρος ἠκριβωμένος, αὕτη ἡ κορυφὴ ἡ ἀνωτάτω τὸ τὰ κοινῆ συμpéρovтa nтeîv: "This is the rule of Christianity, this its φέροντα ζητεῖν perfect definition, this the highest point of it above all, to consult the public utility." V. The supreme power in a well-ordered State is the civil not the sacerdotal power. I lay it down for a thing certain and granted, which in politics is easily demonstrated, and of which no wise man doubts, that it is not possible for the safety of a State to be provided for by any other means, than by its having only one sovereignty in it, whether that be sustained by one person, as in a monarchical State, or by many, as in an aristocracy or a democracy: for in those also there is but one supreme power. This being laid down and granted, there does not seem so much as the least doubt, but that the supreme authority in a Christian State does of right belong to him or them in whom is that sovereignty. Indeed the Church and the State are two systems of bodies, each of which in things pro The clergy were not designed to possess temporal power. 143 DE LIB, SECT. V. perly pertaining to it have received a plenary power from CASAUBON Christ, but with this difference, that the Church should be subject to kings in this world, and expect its own kingdom CHAP. II. hereafter in heaven, and then reign, and not till then, with its own head. That the State should hold its kingdom on the earth, but that a temporal kingdom begun in this world, and to end here. Besides, the sacerdotal power was not instituted by God to bear civil rule; but for the ministry of the word, and of things divine, as I have already shewn. St. Bernard says to Eugenius, lib. ii. : "Dominion is forbidden to the Apostles, and therefore to thee. Darest thou usurp either the Apostleship, being a prince, or the principality, being an Apostle? the apostolic form is this: dominion is forbid, ministration is introduced." If this be true in the Apostles, (and it is most true,) how much more in presbyters, bishops, and popes, whom I suppose no modest man will assert to be equal in dignity with the Apostles? add to this, that the State extends further than the Church: why therefore should the lesser part rule over the greater? especially seeing the methods of governing the Church are very different from those of ruling the State. If a ploughman in high shoes, unskilful of sea affairs, desires the government of a ship, Melicerta the sea-god cries out, There is no modesty left in the world. And will you, whose province it is to manage and take care of things sacred and divine, and to renounce the cares of the world, contend that you have right to govern the State? and seeing that civil prudence, which is the soul of the State, is joined with the administration of wars, the effusion of human blood, and many other things altogether contrary to the holiness of the priesthood, will you challenge to yourself alone these two things, that are so inconsistent in their own nature? certainly the State existed before the Church was admitted into it, and emperors and kings enjoyed the supreme power. Let any place of Scripture be produced, which takes away their right from princes, which divests them of the sovereignty, and gives it to the Christian priests. In * [Apostolis interdicitur dominatus ; ergo et tibi. Tu usurpare audes, aut dominus Apostolatum, aut Apostolus dominatum? Forma Apostolica hæc est; interdicitur dominatio, inducitur 144 The Church does not deprive princes of temporal power. APPENDIX. the mean time let us believe with the universal Church, that NO. VI. our Lord Jesus, when He bestowed this new benefit upon States, which were before ordained, that they should also become churches of God, did in no sort diminish or weaken their former rights, otherwise those verses of Sedulius sung in the Catholic Church would be false": Hostis Herodes, &c. Why, impious Herod, dost thou fear, To this testimony, not now of Sedulius, but of the Catholic Church, agree those of many popes of Rome, as those of Gelasius and Pelagius produced above. Of Gregory the Great I shall speak in the fourth chapter'. Pope Nicholas a, who succeeded Benedictus in the year of our redemption 858, says in his Epistle to the Emperor Michael, " Do no prejudice to the Church of God; for she does no prejudice to your empire." If the Church is no way prejudicial to princes, who before Christianity was embraced enjoyed the supreme government in their principalities, then their rights remain to them untouched; nor is that true which is now taught, that the pope of Rome is the Lord of the whole earth, and that directly, as is daily asserted in public at Rome, and by some persons also elsewhere: besides it is most certain and notorious, that whatever right ecclesiastical persons now enjoy in things temporal, is all owing to the liberality of Christian emperors and princes; who when they indulged so many rights and privileges to ecclesiastics, assuredly thought of nothing less than of thereby divesting themselves of the sovereign authority, and transferring it upon the Church: on which account that has place here, which Pope Hormisda says in his Epistle to Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica", [Hostis Herodes impie, Christum venire quid times? Qui regna dat cœlestia. Sedulii Hymnus, 1. 30. Op., p. 374. [The passage referred to is, Po- ritium, Op., tom. ii. 676, A; as may be seen from Bellarmine de Rom. Pontif., lib. v. cap. iii., Op. tom. i. p. 43k, from which this part of Casaubon's treatise is derived.] a [Nolite præjudicium Ecclesiæ Dei irrogare; illa quippe nullum imperio vestro præjudicium infert.-Nicolai Papæ I., Epist. viii. ad Michaelem Imp. ap. Concilia, tom. ix. col. 1343, E.] [Quo pudore, rogo, privilegia circa |