power because as I haue saied the Communitie at first had authoritie to choose which gouernement in particuler it thought most conuenient is not to be ascribed immediatly to God D. Tho. 1.2 qu. 90. a. 3â— and. qu. 105. a. 1 ad 1. a second cause being found out sufficient to produce such an effect And so the Kings authoritie in particuler and taken determinatlie is not immediately of God or Nature but cometh to him by meantes not only of the peoples designation but also of the peoples gift and donation D. Th. 1.2 q. 105 ar 1. ad 1. and 2.2 q. 10. art 10. Caieta ib. Bellarm to 1. lib. 3. cap. 9. Suarez l. 3. de leg c. 4. Almai li. de potest eccl cap. 1. Prou. 8. Rom. 13. And this opinion is holden by the best Diuines both auncieÌ„t and moderne But this not withstanding it is most true which God saith Per me Reges regnant Kings raigne by me To which his Apostle subscribeth sayeing Non est potestas nisi à Deo itaque qui potestati resistit Dei ordinationi resistit There is no power but of God therfore he that resisteth the power restisteth the ordinance of God because Kinges authoritie proceedeth mediatelie from God to wit by meanes of the authoritie of the Communitie which proceedeth immediatelie from God and Nature and it is also Gods prouidence that Kinges raigne ouer vs and God as the first cause cooperateth to their election and creation and approoueth also the same But yet for all this the people is a second cause of Kinges authoritie 13. If any obiect that Saul and Dauid were immediately created by God Kinges of the Iewes I answere that God in this preuented the people for the peoples good for otherwise the Iewes by lawe of Nature had authority to choose and create them selues a King as is already prooued Neither doth it hence follow that the people is aboue the King or is not bound to obey the King or can depose the King at their pleasure for although the people at the first created the King yet they created him not as a simple Magistrate or officer but as an Absolute Prince and they dispoiled them selues of authoritie to giue it to the King as to one that can better rule then the confused multitude and became as it were 〈◊〉 priuate personne subiect not superiour â—o to King and so the Kinges power now 〈◊〉 so long at least as he is not an intolleâ—able Tyrant is not depending of the people â—nd no meruaile because many effectes which depend of their causes in fieri and in â—heir first production depend not of them â—n facto esse and conseruation So the Sonne â—â—ueth after his Father and fruite may be extant after the tree is consumed and we giue many thinges franckly and freelie which afterwards we can not at our pleasure â—ake away VVherfore as a freeman selleth â—im self freely but after the sale is so bound to his Maister that he can not free him self at his pleasure but remaineth will he nill he a subiect and bondman who before was a freeman so the people before the election of their King is free superiour but after is a bounden subiect and inferiour though by a Ciuil not despoticall subiectioÌ„ And so supposing this election the people is bound in conscience to obey their King as superiour and cannot now depose him vnles it be in case of intollerable Tyrannie for then the common opinion holdeth D. Thom. Opus 20. de Regi Princ. cap. 1. Sotus l. 4 de Iust Iure q. 1. a. 3. q. 4. a. 1. Rom. 13. that the Authoritie which the people had in the beginning to create him returneth againe by deuolution to depose him but must obey him in lawfull thinges though he be difficile and gouerne not altogether as he should doe according to that Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit let euerie soule be subiect to higher powers and againe Itaque qui potestati resistit Dei ordinationi resistit therfore he that resisteth the power resisteth Gods ordinance And againe Ideoque necessitate subditi estote VVhich in Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ideo necessit as est subijci Therfore be subiect of necessitie and yet againe Subiecti estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum 1. Pet. 2. siue Regi quasi praecelleÌ„ti c. Be subiect therfore to euerie humane creature for God whether it be to the King as excelling c. And as in the same chapter Saint PETER commandeth seruants to be subiect in all feare to their Maisters not only to the good and modest but also to the waiward so the people is bound to obey Kings Vide Lessium li. 2 dei â—st iure c. 9. dub 4. though Waiward and difficile yea though they be Tyrantes so that their first entrance be lawfull and they not deposed yea though their entrance were by vnlawfull Inuasion so that the people generallie did afterwards consent and accept of them as their Princes and superiours for to a superiour whilest he remaineth superiout and commandeth lawfull thinges obedience is due otherwise be he neuer so lawful if he command things vnlawfull we must obey God before men Act. 5. and the King before the Viceroy 14. But against that which I haue saied of the creation of Kinges by the peoples election some may obiect that nowadaies in all Europe almost all Kinges are made by succession as are the Kings of Spaine France â—nd England To this I answere that though this be so yet the source and origin of this is also the peoples election For at the first â—excepting those Kinges which extraordiâ—arilie were giueÌ„ immediately from God to the Iewes the people chose or approued â—he King but perceauing what difficultie and daunger also of tumults and sedition would ensue if after the death of their King they should be to seeke and stand vpon election of another they were conâ—ent that the lawfull heires of the first King â—hosen should succeed to his father without newe election although when the â—ewe King is crowned the peoples consent is demanded and the King is sworne vnto them And in Spaine the Archbishop of Toledo receaueth the Kinges oath in the name of the Church and people In France the Archbishop of Rhemes In England the Archbishop of Canterburie and so all Regall power though not immediatelie yet originallie cometh from the peoples election and donation 15. And therfore wee see that the Kinges power in diuers countries is diuersly limited as in France and England where many of the Kinges lawes are not taken to be of force vnles the Parlament of states concurre to the making or confirming of them which limitation VViddrington ascribeth to the King In Resp Apol n. 174. pa. 137. as though he did voluntarilie thus limit him self But who seeth not how vnlikely it is that Kinges should thus restraine their owne power and tye their owne hands
he may make Ecclesiasticall lawes propose the word of God by preaching and true interpretation of it in Councels separate heretikes from the sheepefould by excommunication least they peruert others Yea if the Prince be supreme Head of the Church all Authoritie of preaching administration of Sacraments calling Councels iudging and defining in them collation of Benefices giuing of orders Iurisdictions absoluing dispensing excommunicating proceedeth from him VVherefore King HENRIE the Eight as he challenged the Title of supreme Head so he challenged almost all this Authoritie as we haue seene And to Queene ELIZABETH in the first Parlament and first yeare of her raigne the like authoritie was graunted Vide Sander de Schis Angl. fol. 149.150.151 See also Poultons Abbridgement of the statutes For in that Parlament it was decreed that she her heires and successours should haue all priueledges preeminences prerogatiues and spirituall superiorities which may be exercised or had of any power or man Ecclesiasticall That she and her successours should haue all power of nominating and substituting whom she will to correct heresies schismes abuses and to vse all authoritie which an Ecclesiasticall Magistrate may doe There also it was decreed that no Synode shoulde be called but by the Princes letters and commandement and that a Bishop should not be nominated or elected by any other then the Princes Authoritie nor should exercise any Iurisdiction but at the Queenes pleasure nor otherwise then by Authoritie from her Regall Maiestie And hence it is that the Prince writeth to the Archbishop in this manner For as much as all Iurisdiction as well Ecclesiasticall as secular proceedeth from Kinglie power as from the Head we giue thee Power to promote by these presents to holy Orders c. And the Archbishop of Canterburie vseth this stile VVe N. by the Diuine permission Archbishop and Primat of England authorised sufficientlie by the Kinges or Queenes Maiestie c. This argueth that in England all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction to excommunicare absolue to preach and minister Sacraments to call Synodes to decree in them to make Ecclesiasticall lawes c. proceedeth from the Prince as from the Head and fountaine and consequentlie seing that what Authoritie the Prince giueth to others he hath him self hee may excommunicate make Ecclesiasticall lawes call Councels sitt as supreme Iudge in them as others by his Authoritie doe And seing he can giue to others Iurisdiction to giue Orders he may also minister Sacraments preach and teach for this Authoritie he giueth to others And therfore as in all Common wealthes the Prince can do those thinges which his inferiour Officers do though it be not alwaies so conuenient so if all Ecclesiasticall power proceedeth from the King as from the Head and fountaine looke what the Bishops and Ministers can do by Authoritie receaued from him that he also him self may do which yet is so ridiculous that our Princes hitherto haue bene ashamed of manie of those offices and as we shall see anon euen the Protestants of England when they are pressed are ashamed of this monstrous Authoritie 14. Seuenthlie if Christian Kings for few of our Aduersaries dare say that Pagan Kings haue Ecclesiasticall Authoritie be heads of the Church it followeth that till CONSTANTINE or PHILIP the first Christian Emperours the Church was without a head for three hundred yeares If you say that S. PETER and his successours were heads till CONSTANTINE then I demaund who deposed Pope SYLVESTER when CONSTANTINE came to be Christian and consequently Head or if S. SYLVESTER was not deposed then it followeth that there were two Heads at once and those not subordinate 28. Eightlie I prooue this by Kings and Emperours Confessions And as towching Kings wee haue seene their Confessions in the former Chapter As for Emperours CONSTANTINE as we haue seene called the Bishops of the Nicen Councell Ruffinus li. 1. cap. 2. Euseb lib. 4. de vita Constāt cap. 24. his Gods and Iudges and as Eusebius reporteth he was wont to say to Bishops Vos ô Episcopi intra Ecclesiam ego extra Ecclesiam à Deo Episcopus constitutus sum You ô Bishops in affaires with in the Church I in matters without the Church am appointed pointed Bishop by God Meaning that he was to be a vigilant Prince in the gouernment of the Empire but not to meddle with Ecclesiasticall affaires And therfore when the Donatists in a matter pertaininge to the Churches deciding appealed from a Councell of Bishops holden by Pope MEICHIADES vnto him Non est ausus saieth S. August epi. 162. Augustin Christianus Imperator sic eorum tumultuosas fallaces quaerelas suscipere vt de iudicio Episcoporum qui Romae sederant ipse iudicaret He durst not so to admit their complaints as to Iudge of the Bishops who in Rome had sit in Iudgement Yea OPTATVS saieth Optat. lib. 1. cont Parm. circa finem That when he saw they appealed in such a matter vnto him he exclamed O rabida furoris audacia sicut in causis Gentilium fieri solet appellationem interposuerunt O VVood mad audacitie of furie they haue interposed an Appellation as is wont to be done in the causes of Gentils Tortura Tort. pa. 174. VVheras Doctour ANDREWS saith that CONSTANTIN delegated the Bishops to heare the Donatists cause I demande wheron he groundeth that for if he might delegate he might haue iudged of the Bishops sentence and yet S. AVGVSTIN saieth he durst not And although at last ouercome by their importunitie he heard them yet not as Iudge but as an Arbiter THEODOSIVS the yonger sent Counte Candidianu◠to the Councell of Ephesus With this caueat That he should not meddle in Ecclesiasticall matters because illicitum est eum qui non sit ex ordine sanctissimoram Episcoporum sese Eccelesiasticis immiscere tractatibus It is vnlawfull for him that is not of the order of most holy Bishops to entermeddle him selfe in Ecclesiasticall treaties and affaires But Doctour ANDREWES answereth Tortura Torti pa. 175. That it is no good Argument to say A Count can not meddle in Councels ergo an Emperour cannot But he should haue remembred that this Count was sent to supplie the Emperours place and therfore if he as the Emperours Ambassadour could not meddle in Councels neither could the Emperour him selfe He should also haue marked the Emperours reason which was because it is vnlawfull for him that is not of the order of Bishops to meddle in Ecclesiasticall affaires which reason aswell excludeth the Emperour as the Count vnlesse Doctour ANDREWES will make all Kings and Emperours Bishops VALENTINIAN the elder saied Sozom. 16 ca. 7. 2.1 Sibi qui vnus è laicorum numero erat non licere se huiusmodi rebus interponere It was not lawfull for him who is one of the layitie to meddle in such matters And although Doctour ANDREWES would expound Zozomen who reporteth this speech of the Emperour by Nicephorus Hist Tri. part lib. 7.
hath Authoritie ouer Clergie men as Clergie men he can command euen Churchmen in Ecclesiasticall matters and can call Synodes determine controuersies of faith in them enact Ecclesiasticall lawes and bestowe Ecclesiasticall Benefices and so he shall haue Authoritie not onlie ouer the persons but also ouer the things of the Church And therfore as he that should say that the King for the necessarie good of the Common VVealth cannot dispose of the Temporalities of the Realme should in effect make him no King so BILSON in saying that the King hath no Authoritie ouer the spirituall things and graces of the Church makes him no Head of the Church nor superiour ouer Church men as Church men For if the King be Head of the persons of the Church he can command them as his subiects And then I demand of BILSON in what things he can command them If in temporall thinges onlie as to paie Tribute to go to warre c. then is he King only of the Common wealth but no Head of the Church If in Spirituall things as administration of Sacraments decisions of matters of faith in Councels c. then hath he the administration of spirituall things and hath authority not only ouer the persons but also ouer the things of the Church But I neede not wrest this frō BILSON by force of Argument for he no lesse plainely confesseth that the King is no Head of the Church Bilson par 2 pag. 240 These are his wordes VVe confesse Princes to be supreme Gouernours that is as we haue often told you supreme bearers of the sword which was first ordained from aboue to defend and preserue as wel godlines and honestie as peace and tranquillitie amongst men We giue Princes no power to deuise or inuēt newe Religions to alter or chaunge sacraments to decide or debate doubtes of faith to disturbe or infringe the Canons of the Church Thus he VVherby we see first how he derogateth from that authority which King HENRIE the 8 and Queene ELIZABETH challēged and the former Parlament approoued for by that authoritie King HENRIE the 8. exiled all the Popes authoritie forbad all Appeales to Rome contrary to the ancient Canons disposed of Abbaies and Churches without the Popes authority c. And by the same authoritie Q. ELIZABETH chaūged the sacraments and all the whole face and hew of religion and forbad Councels to be called or any thing in them to be decided without her consent Secondlie we may see also herby how BILSON maketh the King no supreme Head yea no head at all of the Church but only a Protectour and defender therof which Title all Catholikes graunt to Kinges acknowledging that the King is to defēd the Church to assist her by his temporall sword and Authoritie that shee bee not hindred in calling Councels and administration of the Church yea and to punish heretikes condemned by her and deliuered vp to secular power And no more doth BILSON graunt And so he denying the Prince to be head of the Church and graunting him to be only a protectour and defender is guiltie of high treason 22. D. Field lib. 5. de Eccles cap. 53. Doctour FIELD also in effect denieth this authority to the King for he distinguisheth things merelie Spirituall in this manner Either sayth he the power in these things is of order or of iurisdiction the power of order consisteth in preaching the worde in ministring Sacramēts and ordaining ministers and in these things saith he Princes haue no Authoritie at all much lesse supreme authority The power of iurisdiction standeth in prescribing lawes in hearing examining and iudging of opinion in matters of saith and things pertaining to Ecclesiasticall order and Ministerie and due performing of Gods seruice and in these the King can only by direction of the Clergie make penall and tempor all lawes for the Execution of Bishops lawes and Canons Thus he But to omitt how aptlie D. FIELD annexeth preaching to the power of order Vide Sairum lib. 4. de Censuris cap. 16. num 21 which may be exercised with licence of the Bishop by one that hath no Orders at all to omitt also how he can possiblie distinguish the powers of order ād Iurisdiction he and his Doctours denying all Caracters and making ordination nothing else but a meere deputation to such an office I auerre that D. FIELD in this contradicteth the former authority which was giuen by Parlament to King HENRIE the Eight and King EDWARD his sonne and Queene ELIZABETH his Daughter as may appeare plainlie by the actes of Parlament aboue alleadged and he maketh the King no Supreme Head of the Church but onlie an Assistant Protectour and Defendour therof as I haue shewed against D. BILSON 23. Wherfore the Catholicks of England haue iust cause to complaine of seuere dealing towards them who many of them haue bene condemned to Premuniries and cruell deathes for denying the snpremacie of the Prince in Spirituall causes of which notwithstanding the leardnest of the Ministerie make such doubt and question as we haue seene yea denie it in plaine termes For if that care had bin had of the Kings Catholick subiects which their number antiquitie and loyaltie seemed to require this question of the Supremacie should haue bene better discussed and more maturely resolued before the Ministers should haue preached it as necessarie to be beleeued and before Catholicks should haue been so seuerelie handled for denying it their own Doctours now varying so much as we haue seene about the very name and thing it self and some of the leardnest amongst them denying it as flatly as any Catholick can do 24. Remember then O Kinges Princes and Potentates of the earth what is belonging to your so high an office Psal 2. An exhortation to Princes Et nunc Reges intelligite erudimini qui iudicatis terram And now ô Kings vnderstand your office informe your selues ô you that iudge the earth what belongeth vnto you You are Iudges of the earth and Common wealth you are not to meddle with the Church which is called Regnum Coelorum Mat. 13 the Kingdome of Heauen You are Isa 49. as Esaye calleth you Nurcing Fathers but no Gouernours of the Church you are Protectours and Defendours and Assistants obliged by scepter and sword to assist her and to punish her Rebelles at her direction You are subiects no Superiours sheepe no Pastours Inferiour members no Heads and your greatest honour and safetie is to serue not to rule the Church to defend not to inuade her rightes Harken ô Princes to that holsome counsell which AZARIAS the High Priest gaue to King OZIAS 2. Paral. 26. Ioseph l. 9. Ant. cap. 11. who would be medling with the Priests office For when he being puffed vp with pride of hart tooke vppon him to offer Incense in the Temple and on the Altar of Incense AZARIAS matching his Kinglie pride with a Priestlie Zeale followed him at his heeles accompanied with fourescore Priests and
regna dat coelestia That Christ is come why dost thou dread O Herode thou vngodlie foe He doth not earthlie Kingdomes reaue That heauenly Kingdomes doth bestow 4. And so although CHRIST were euen as man a Temporall King yet he not actually raigning him self it is not likelie that he should giue any such authoritie to S. PETER and the Pope his successour And although hee had actually raigned him self yet it is not necessarie that he should giue that Authoritie to S. PETER for hee had also the power of Excellencie by which he might command euen Infidels not baptized and by which he instituted a Church Sacraments and a Priesthood which S. PETER and the Pope his Successour can not doe Certes none can denie but that CHRIST might haue giuen S. PETER supreme Iurisdiction spirituall ouer the Church without Temporall because as spirituall power is not necessarily annexed to the Temporall as I haue proued in the former Chapter so Temporall power is not necessarily ioyned to the spirituall and therfore seing that neither the law of God nor Nature nor man giueth any such Temporall Iurisdiction to the Chiefe Pastour of the Church why should either he challenge it or we giue it him especiallie it being a thing verie inconuenient and odious that either the Church or her Chiefe Pastour should haue any such Temporall power For if it were so that the Church or her supreme Pastour had any such soueraintie it would deterre all Pagan Kings and Princes from our Religion fearing least the Church by her absolute Authoritie might depriue them of their Kingdomes Crownes and Scepters at her pleasure And hence it is that the Popes them selues confesse that they haue no Imperiall nor Kinglie Authoritie giuen them by CHRIST but rather that these two powers are in distinct subiects So NICHOLAS Pope sayth Cum ad verum ventum est c. Ca. cum ad verū d. 96. Vide supra pa. 66. et pag. 78. VVhen it came to the vnderstanding of the truth neither did the Emperour take vnto him the rights of Bishop-like Authoritie nor did the Bishop vsurpe the name of the Emperour because the same Mediatour of God and men man Christ IESVS hath distinguished the offices of both powers by their proper and distinct dignities as that Christian Emperours for attaining eternall life should neede bishops and Bishops should vse the Imperiall lawes for the cause onely of temporall things And S. BERNARD Bern. li. 2. de Cōsid ca. 6. Nam quid tibi aliud dimisit Sanctus Apostolus quod habeo inquit tibi do c. VVhat other thing did the holie Apostle leaue vnto thee what I haue saith hee I giue thee VVhat is that One thing I know it is neither gould nor siluer seing that he sayth gould and siluer is not with mee Bee it that by some other way thou maist challenge this vnto thee yet not by Apostolicall right for he could not giue thee that which he had not VVhat he had he gaue sollicitude as he sayd ouer the Churches Did be giue thee rule and domination not ouer-ruling the Clergie but made example of the flocke and doost thou thinke this to be spoken onlie out of humilitie not in veritie the voice of our Lord is in the Ghospell the Princes of the Gentils ouer-rule them c. but it shal not be so amongst you 5. But although the Pope and Chiefe Pastour of the Church hath no direct Temporall power but only in his owne Temporall Patrimonie and Kingdome by which he may dispose of Kingdomes Crownes and scepters yet he hath a Spirituall power which may directlie and ordinarilie dispose of spirituall matters and indirectlie and in some extraordinarie case of the Temporall also that is when it shall be iudged necessarie for the consernation of the faith or Religion or the Churches lawes and right or some other great and necessarie good I say the Pope hath no direct power ouer Princes for then he might limit their power abrogate their lawes and depose their persons at least for some iust cause though it did not concerne either faith or the Churches right or necessarie good as the King can deale with his Viceroy and any of his subiects and then Princes should not be absolute and independent who yet as aboue is declared in Temporall matters and so long as they exceede not the bounds of their authority by commanding things contrary to Gods law or the Churches Canons acknowledg no Superiour in earth neither Pope nor Emperour nor Common wealth For as for the Emperour all Princes who are not his Vassals as the Kings of Spaine England and France are not as they acknowledge him Superiour in dignitie and therfore will and must giue him the precedence whersoeuer they meete yet they are not subiect to him nor bound to obey him vnlesse it be when the Pope the Chiefe Pastour and hee the greatest Prince in dignitie shall thinke it necessarie that all Christian Princes contribute or concurre for the defence of Christendome against the Turke or such like Common enemie As for the Pope I graunt that CHRIST gaue him no Temporall power at all which aboue I haue prooued for that Temporall power which he hath in Italie hee had not by Christs immediat graunt but onlie by Constantines and other Emperouts and Princes donation which donation supposed and confirmed also by Prescription and his subiects yea all the Christian worlds consent that part of Italie which he possesseth is as trulie appertaining to him as England is to the King of England France to the King of France and Spaine to the King of Spaine onlie the Pope cannot transfer his Kingdome to his Heyres as they may because it cometh not to him in particular by hereditarie succession but onlie by election Yea if the Pope were by the law of God a Temporall Soueraine Prince ouer all the world other Princes should holde of him and CONSTANTINES donation by which he made him Temporall Prince of Italie had been no donation but restitution As for the Common wealth I haue aboue declared how it hath despoiled it self of all authoritie and by translating it to the King is trulie a subiect and like a priuate person and so hath no power ouer the King vnles it be in case of intollerable Tyrannie as aboue is explicated 6. I say yet that the Pope hath an Indirect power ouer Kings euen in Temporall mattters which power notwithstanding is not Temporall but spirituall nor any distinct power from his spirituall supremacie but euen the self same And therfore GREGORIE the Seuenth in his deposition of HENRIE the Fourth sayth that he deposeth him by the power he hath from S. PETER of binding and loosing And although his Pastorall and Spirituall power directly and ordinarily hath the menaging only of spirituall matters and so directly and ordinarily exerciseth it self in excommunicating interdicting and suspending frō Spirituall offices calling Councels and deciding controuersies of faith in them in making
the Synagogue yet could it not thence be inferred that Princes are to gouerne the Church of Christ For first the Synagogue was more terrene and Lesse perfect then the Church and so as their sacrifices and Priests were terrene in respect of ours so God might haue giuen them terrene Princes for their chiefe Ecclesiasticall superiours which manner of gouernment is not to be made a patterne for the gouernment of the Church of CHRIST this being a more perfect common wealth more spirituall gouerned by more spirituall Pastours enriched with a more spirituall sacrifice and Sacraments Secondlie if Princes then were rulers of the Synagogue it was by Gods speciall and Indiciall law and seing the Iudiciall and Ceremoniall lawes are abrogated they can not binde Christians or if Bilson will needs haue it that Christian Princes must now gouerne the Church because they then ruled the Synagogue one might inferre that the Ministers of England must be circumcized and must offer Caldes because then the Iewish Priests did so VVherfore that law as Ceremoniall and Iudiciall being abrogated we must looke to the new law in which not withstanding there is no one Text or example that giueth Princes the rule of the Church Thirdlie I answere that none of all the Kings alledged by D. Bilson and D. Andrewes did gouerne the Synagogue in Ecclesiasticall matters but did onlie assist the priests that gouerned and punnished Malefactours and transgressours of the law Suarez according to the prescript of the law interpreted by the Priests as Suarez in his answere to our soueraine hath learnedlie declared 6. The second argument against Princes spirituall supremacie shall be this If a Prince hath authoritie to gouerne the Church of his Kingdome either he hath it preciselie because he is a King or because he is a Christian King but by neither of these waies he hath it ergo by no way he hath it Not because he is a King for Kinglie power only medleth with temporall and humane matters and therfore Kings are called Humanae Creaturae 1. Petri. 2. humane creatures and they haue their authoritie from the people in manner afore sayd which people can giue no Ecclesiasticall power that being spirituall and supernaturall yea if Kings as Kings had this Authoritie then the Kinges which raigned in the Apostles time though Infidels should haue been Heads of the Church although they were no members at all and consequentlie NERO should haue been Head of the Church and all the Apostles and the sheepe of Christ had bene committed to a Rauening Wolfe which though it be most absurd to imagine yet TOMSOM as BECANVS in his booke entituled the English Iarre reciteth is not ashamed to auouch it saying Omnes Principes etiam Pagani obiectiuè habent supremam potestatem in omnes omnino personas suorum subditorum generatim in res ipsas siue ciuiles sunt siue sacrae All Princes euen Paganes obiectiuelie haue supreme Authoritie ouer all the persons of their subiectes and generallie ouer their goods whether they be Ciuill or holy Not because he is a Christian King because Baptisme by which he is made a Christian and member of the Church giueth the King no new power no more then it doth to others that are baptized And therfore if before Baptisme he be no Head of the Church neither is he after Baptisme rather Baptisme as aboue we haue seene maketh him a subiect to the Church wheras before he was not and only giueth him a new charge to obey serue and assist the Church VVherby it may appeare how fowlie Doctour ANDREWS was deceiued when he sayd That an Ethnick King when he becommeth a Christian gaineth and getteth a new right and power ouer the Church and Spirituall matters for these are his wordes Quin Rex quiuis Tortura Torti pag. 40. cum de Ethnico Christianus fit non perdit terrenum ius sed acquirit ius nouum in bonis Ecclesiae spiritualibus Yea euery King when of an Ethnike he becometh Christian doth not loose his terrene right but getteth a new right in the spirituall goods of the Church And Citing Bellarmine he sayth Omnia haec Dominus tuus totidem verbis All those things thy Master Bellarmin in so many words affirmeth Bollar lib. 5. de Pont. ca. 2. 3. as though Bellarmine had affirmed that a Pagan King were Head of the Church and had right and power in spirituall matters whereas Bellarmine is too learned to make so grosse an errour and only affirmeth That Pagan Kings are true Princes and Lords of their Countries 7. But perchance they will say that the Prince hath this Authoritie by a speciall Graunt from God him self This they may say but with how little reason may appeare by that which alreadie I haue handled in this Chapter for I haue prooued out of scripture that Christ gaue all Authoritie concerning the gouernment of the Church to his Apostles and their successours and not any at all to Kings and Princes VVhich because our state pleasers perceaued well enough they are enforced to play the Iewes and to alledge examples out of the old law as D. Bilson and D. ANDREWS do which examples not witstanding as I haue shewed do not firt their purpose for they knew and D. ANDREWS confesseth saying Exemplum inde nobis snmendum est Tortura Torti pa. 363. cum in Testaemento nouo nullum habeamus Thence wee must take an example since in the new Testament we haue none that there is not one text or example in the new Testament that giues Princes any power ouer the Church but rather giueth it from them vnto the Pastours 8. Thirdlie if Princes were supreme Commanders in Ecclefiasticall matters and gouerment of the Church the gouernment of the Church should not be Monarchiall which yet is the best gouernment Aristoâ— l. 8. Eth c. 1â— Plato in Poli. Senec lib. 2. de Benef Plut. in opusc â—a de re Homer 2. Iliad Iustorat ad gent. Athan. orat ad Idola Gypr lib. de vanit IdoloruÌ„ Mat. 16. Ioan. 21. as Aristocle with all the best Philosophers and auncient Fathers do affirme and was in deed chosen by Christ for his Church as the writers of this time prooue out of scripture and especiallie out of those wordes spoken to S. Peter Thou art Peter and on this Rocke will I build my Church and those also Pafce oues meas seede my sheepe but rather if Kinges were euerie one head of the Church in their Kingdomes the gouernmeÌ„t of the Church should be Aristocraticall because the Church should be gouerned by diuers Princes which were most inconuenient in the Church and subiect to schismes and tumultes For if euerie King be supreme Head in his Kingdome when a Generall Councell should be called as his Maiestie of England desireth I demand who should call it The Emperour the Kinges of England Spaine and France though they giue him precedence in place and honour yet they pretend by prescription and
prison sayd he would not take the oath for the Bishopricke of London and two others of them Mr. Drurie and Mr. Cadwallader suffred death rather then they would take the oath VViddrington hath no more reason to alleage them now for the oath then I may haue to alleage now VViddrington against the oath because once he stood against it If WIDDRINGTON say they should not haue chauÌ„ged their opinion I must tell him that they had more reason to chauÌ„ge their opinion vpon their Chiefe Pastours commandement then VViddrington hath to chaunge his opinion against his Chiefe Pastours commandement This I say supposing they had once been of that opinion as they Protest they neuer were and therfore in their Protestation alleaged by VViddrington do giue the Pope as much authoritie as S. Peter had and professe that their intentions were not in any wise to diminish his authoritie Secondly I auswer that towardes the end of Queene Elizabethes raigne it was signified to certain Priestes theÌ„ being in London that the Queenes Maiestie was then so well affected to her Catholicke subiectes that she profered theÌ„ free vse of Religion prouided that she might haue securitie giuen for their fidelitie of which by reason of Pius Quintus sentence of Excommunication and deposition pronounced against her she seemed to stand in feare These 13. Reuerend Priestes easilie induced to beleeue that which they so much desired and fearefull not to giue way to so great a good pretended to English Catholickes were content to make that Protestation which Widdrington setteth downe Disput Theol. cap. 3. sec 3. â—um 11. by which they protest that they acknowledge her to haue as full Authoritie power and Soneraigntie ouer vs and ouer all the snbiectes in the Realme as any her Highenesse Predecessours had And wheras Widdrington maketh this inference ergo to make this their fact and Protestation lawfull they must needes deny that the Pope had authoritie to depose Queene Elizabeth I deny that his consequence and that for manie reasons For first although I will not be so bolde as to examine whether Pius Quintus had iust cause to depose Queene Elizabeth but rather suppose he had nor whether the 13. Priestes thought or might iustlie thinke that he had no iust cause yet the Pope may haue Authoritie to excommunicate and depose and yet if there want iust cause his sentence shall be inualid and of no force And so it followeth not the 13. Priestes acknowledged the Queene lawfull Queene after the sentence of deposition ergo they thought the Pope could not depose her because the sentence might be inualid not for want of Authoritie in the Pope but for want of iust cause in the Queene Disput Theol. cap. 10. So WIDDRINGTON affirmeth that the Catholickes of England may take the oath notwithstaÌ„ding the Popes commandement to the contrarie and if one should thence inferre ergo he thinketh the Pope hath no Authoritie to coÌ„maund he would deny the ConsequeÌ„ce and say that the commandement wanteth force to oblige not for want of Authoritie but by reason that it proceedeth from ill information So in the same Chapter he confesseth that the Archpriest hath power to take from the Priestes who holde the oath to be lawfull their faculties and yet if he should he would say they were not taken away not for wante of power but for want of iust cause So Father Personnes alleaged by Widdrington sayth Disput Theol. cap. 10. sec 2. n. 54. Si enim quaestio esset de facto c. for if the question were of facte as this is of the 13. Ptiestes to wit whether the Pope in this or that case can depose or excommunicate this or that Prince vpon these or these causes or whether the former Popes haue done rightin this or otherwise then some of these reasons which you affirme are alleaged by your frindes might be admitted into consideration whether it would be to aedification or destruction whether it would bringe with it commoditie or discommoditie whether it would be profitable or hurtfull or whether there were causes sufficient or not for no man defendeth that the Pope can depose without iust cause or whether due admonition of which in your letters there is mention hath been made Thirdlie suppose the sentence of Pius Quintus where valid and iust as the contrarie is not easilie to be thought of a man of such Authoritie and sanctitie and consequentlie that the Queene was iustlie and trulie deposed yet the 13. Priestes might promisse to obey her in Temporall and lawfull matters because they might thinke that the Queene would notwithstanding the sentence still raigne and gouerne and would persecute with losse of goods libertie and liues all those that would not obey her and seing that such domages excuse from the sentence of excommunication and giue leaue to communicate with the Prince excommunicated and to obey him in all lawfull matters the 13. Priestes supposing otherwise the daunger of incurring these domages might promisse obedience to the Queene in all lawfull matters Wherefore Diuines Casuists haue in these two verses comprehended all the thinges which excuse from excommunication and make communication with the excommunicat persons lawfull Haec Anathema quidem faciunt ne possit obesse Vtile lex humile res ignorata necesse Thirdly and lastly I answer that although the sentence of excommunication and deposition against Queene ELIZABETH were valid and consequentlie she trulie deposed and depriued of all Regall Authoritie yet the 13. Priestes at the time when they made that their Protestation might acknowledge Queene ELIZABETH to be their lawfull Queene and to haue as full Authoritie as any her predecessours had because that sentence of PIVS QVINTVS might at that time be abrogated and of no force and so cease to bind and consequentlie the Priestes might acknowledge that then she had as full power as she had before the senteÌ„ce and as much right and Authoritie as any of her Predecessours And indeede that PIVS QVINTVS sentence did at that time cease to binde it may be gathered by this that thirtie three yeares had passed from her deposition vnto the time in which these 13. Priests made their Protestation all which time as well Catholickes as ProtestaÌ„ts obeyed her as Queene the Popes then raigning knowing and not reclayming and consequentlie consenting which consent of the subiectes of England and Popes of Rome was sufficieÌ„t to abrogate the former sentence and consequentlie to putte Queene ELIZABETH in the same estate she was in before the sentence And that this tacit consent is sufficieÌ„t to abrogat either positiue law or sentence I prooue by Vasq wordes Vasq 1. 2. Disp 177. c. 2. n. 17. whome VViddrington so often alleageth For Vasquez iuÌ„ping herein with the common opinion of Diuines and Lawiers thus pronounceth Cum Princeps sciens vsum eum approbat vel non improbat nascitur consuetudo quae habet vim legis vel quaesufficit ad derogandum legi