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
other Titles to be quite exempt from him and subiect to none in temporall matters And seing that this supremacie in Ecclesiasticall matters either is not distinguished from their Regall Authoritie or is necessarilie annexed vnto it as they refuse to be subiect in temporall matters so might they in Ecclesiasticall The King of England Why he rather then the King of France The King of France why he rather then any of the others Yea if these Kings pretend not to be subiect to the Emperour much more may they claime exemption from one anotherr 9. If any answere that by Common consent they may either choose one to call the rest or being all equall they may meete altogether in one neither will this serue For as for the first meanes it is morally impossible because Kinges who haue high aspiring mindes would neuer be drawen to subiect them selues to any and so whilst euerie one would be Chiefe none should be Chiefe The second meanes is as impossible for first where shall they meet Certes no King will easilie leaue his Kingdome and so euerie one would be desirous to haue the Councell in his Countrie yea euerie one would refuse to haue such a meeting in his Kingdome for feare of daunger But suppose they meete when they are mett how shall they agree especiallie they being commonly of diuers Religions for if a King in that he is a King is to iudge in matters of the Church euery King hath right to be of this Councell and so the Turke the Persian the Muscouite shall haue place in this Councell If you say that not euerie King but onely Christian Kinges are Heads of the Church in their Kingdomes then at least Catholick Lutheran and Caluinian Kinges must be of the Councell and how shall these agree who shall moderat seing there is no more reason of one then another If you say that Bishops must be the Men that must make Decrees and Canons and conclude all in this Councell This they cannot do without Kinges if euerie King be supreme Head in their Countrie and therfore it was enacted accordinglie in the Parlament holden by King HENRIE the Eight in the twenty sixt yeare of his raigne That he should be reputed supreme Head of the Church of England and should haue all the honours Authorities and commodities belonging there vnto Amongst which honours the Principall and that which is necessarilie annexed vnto the Headship of the Church is to call Councels and to sitt as Chiefe Iudge in them See Poulton â—n his AbridgemeÌ„t of the statutes Sander de Schis Angl. And Queene ELIZABETH had also graunted vnto her by a Parlament in the first yeare of her raigne all power for the correction and reformation of the Clergie for the iudgements and punishmeÌ„ts of schismes and heresies for nominating of Bishops and for calling of Synods and that with such ample Authoritie that nothing should be decreed in any Synod with in the Realme without expresse licence and consent of the Queene And if the Bishops in the Councell agree not as I see not how they can if there be no one amongst them that can command who shall be the man that shall take vp the matter amongst them If you say the Kings I demand who shall beare the sway amongst them And so to make Kinges Heads of the Church in their Kingdomes is to hinder all Generall Councels which yet heretofore haue been so oft assembled by the Authoritie of the Pope to the great profit peace and vnitie of the Church 10. Fourthlie if Princes in that they are Princes or Christian Princes were Heades of the Church in their Realme then Children might be Heades of the Church yea and women also for they are capable of Regall Authoritie wheras not withstaÌ„ding the Wiseman pronounceth a vae curse to the land whose King is a Child Ecclesiastes 10. And much more woe it were to a Church whose head is a Child Surely S. PAVL 1. Cor. 14 that commands women to be silent in the Church would neuer haue permitted such to gouerne the Church And yet after King HENRIE had arrogated this monstrous power in a King to make it ridiculous to the world God permitted that next after him a Child came to be King the Head of the Church of England and next but one after the Child a womaÌ„ succeeded also in the like authoritie 11. Fiftlie to make enerie King supreme Head of the Church in his Kingdome destroyeth the vnitie of the Church for wheras there are three especiall and essentiall Vnities in the Church to wit Vnitie of Head and one gouernment Vnitie of one faith Vnitie of the same externall profession and worship of God by the same rites and Sacramentes If we receaue euerie Prince in his Realme for Head of the Church these three Vnities can not long be conserued For as for the first Vnitie though our Aduersaries would say that it may well be conserued in CHRIST who is the principall and onely principall and absolute Head yet because CHRIST is now ascended to his Father and conuerseth no more visibly amongst vs besides him the Church which is a Visible Congregation and bodie standeth in neede of a visible Head else should she be visibly headlesse and imperfect And therfore as scripture hath declared CHRIST for our soueraine and invisible head Ioan. 10 Vnum ouile vnus Pastor One fould Ephes 1. one Pastour And againe Ipsum dedit caput supra omnem Ecclesiam God the Father made him head ouer all the Church which is his bodie So doth scripture and CHRIST him self in scripture point out another vnderhead and visible Pastour Mat. 16. saying Thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church and againe Pasâ—e oues meas feede my sheepe that is all Christians Ioan. 21 and so PETER was in his time and his successour the Pope now is Chiefe Head and visible pastour ouer all Christians and consequentlie ouer all Bishops euen in a Generall Councell vnlesse they will denie them selues to be the sheepe of Christ. And this Vnitie was necessarie to conserue the other Vnities of faith and eternall profession and worship of God by the same SacrameÌ„tes For diuers visible Heades would not so easilie agree amongst them selues it being a naturall thing for meÌ„ in equall authoritie to striue to drawe all to their partie Whereupon S. CIPRIAN sayth Cypria lib. 4. ep 9. lib. 1. epist 8. lib. de vnit Eccl. That the Church is Plebs suo sacerdoti adunata The people vnited to their Priest And that Non aliunde natae sunt haereses aut orta schismata nisi quod vni sacerdoti Dei ab vniuersa fraternitate non obtemperetur Not from any other source heresies or schismes are risen then for that obedience is not giuen to one Priest of all the fraternitie For why Exordium ab vno proficiscitur Primatus Petro datur vt vna Christi Ecclesia vna Cathedra
monstretur The beginning is taken from one and the Primacie is giuen to PETER that one Church and one chaire may be shewed Cypr. ep ad Iubaianū Hier. lib. 2. contra Iouin And in his Epistle to Iubaianus Ecclesia quae vna est super vnum qui Claues accepit voce Domini fundata est The Church which is one is by the voice of our Lord founded vpon one who hath receiued the Keyes And S. HIEROME sayth Inter duodecim vnus eligitur vt capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio Amongest twelue one is chosen that the Head being appointed the occasion of schisme may be taken away But if we admit euerie King as Head of the Church in his Kingdome we shall not haue one visible Head but manie and those also verie diuers For as Kings claime supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall because they are supreme Princes for the same reason may the senate in Venice Genua and Geneua challenge the same Authoritie Whence followeth that vnitie in faith and Sacraments vnder so diuers Heads cannot any long time be retained but we should haue as many Religions as Kings and as many diuers and independent Churches and Kingdomes for one King will not depend either for him selfe or his people of an other 12. This diuision we see alreadie proceedeth from these diuers Heads Haue we not seene how Religion in England hath changed with our Kinges since they challenged supremacie of our Church King HENRIE the Eight in the six and twentith yeare of his Raigne in the Parlament holden at VVestminster the third of Nouember 1534. enacted that the King should be reputed the onlie supreme Head in earth of the Church of England and should haue aswel the Title and stile as all honours authorities and commodities belonging thervnto and all power also to redresse all Heresies errours and abuses in the same and the yeare before also the fiftenth of Ianuary the King and Parlament decreed That no Appeales should be made to Rome no Annates or Impositions should be paied to the Bishop of Rome no sutes should be made to him for licēre or dispensation And yet in the Parlam̄et holden at Westminster anno Domini 1554. the first and second yeare of King PHILIP and Queene MARIE obedience was restored to the Church of Rome and all statutes repealed which derogated to the Authoritie and honour of the Sea Apostolick and the Title of the Kings supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall was reiected After this notwithstanding was the same Authoritie taken againe by Queene ELIZABETH in the Parlament Anno Domini 1558. Anno 1. regni Elizab die 13. Ian. Likewise in the Parlament holden by King HENRIE the Eight in the one and thirtith yeare of his raigne and eight and twentith of April and in the yeare of our Lord 1537. these six Articles were enacted The Six Articles The Reall presence of the true and naturall Bodie and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine without the substance of bread and wine 2. That Communion vnder both kindes is not necessarie for the people 3. That Priests cannot marrie after Priesthood 4. That Religious after their vowes cannot marrie 5. That Priuate Masses are according to Gods law and to be allowed 6. That Auricular Confession is expedient and necessarie And yet this statute was qualified and repealed by EDWARD the sixt his sonne and as yet a Child in the yeare of our Lord 1547. 4. Nouemb. and first yeare of his raigne After that againe the self same six Articles were receiued and confirmed in Queene MARIES raigne in the first Parlament an Domini 1553. 24. Octob. and in another an Domini 1554. Likewise King HENRIE the Eight in the Parlament holden the 22. of Ianuary and 34. of his raigne in the yeare of our Lord 1542. condemned Tindals Translation of the Bible and all bookes written against the Blessed Sacrament and forbad the Bible to be redd in English in any Church which statutes were repealed by King EDWARD at VVestminster an 1. Edu 6. Domini 1547. And yet the former statute of King HENRIE was renewed by Queen MARIE in the first yeare of her raigne an Domini 1553. and repealed againe by Queen ELIZABETH in the first yeare of her raigne So that if Kings be heads of the Church and haue supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction we shall haue as many Religions almost as Kinges And euen as King HBNRIE the Eight after his vsurpation of the supremacie changed his wiues and made his mariages lawfull and vnlawfull his children legitimat and illegitimat at his pleasure and by Authoritie also of the Parlament which durst not gainesaie so euery King shall haue authority to change religion and must be obeyed as the onlie supreme Head in earth of the Church For as King HENRIE the Eight and his young Sonne King EDWARD and his Daughter Queene ELIZABETH challenged Authoritie to redresse errours and correct heresies to giue validitie to all Ecclesiasticall lawes and Synodes as King HENRIE made it Heresie to denie the Reall Presence so another King of England or of another Kingdome may decree the contrarie As King HENRIE forbad Priests to marrie so another King will permit them to marrie As King HENRIE commanded the Bibles to be read and diuine seruice to be sayd and song in Latin so another will like better of the vulgar tongue of his owne Countrie and if you say that the King is tyed to the word of God euerie one of them will say that they follow the word of God hauing the Authoritie to iudge of heresies and consequentlie of the true meaning of the word of God 3. Sixtlie if Princes were Heads of the Church a ridiculous consequence and of which euen the Kinges and Queenes of England haue bene ashamed would follow to wit that they may preach minister Sacramentes excommunicate call Councels and sit as iudges in them c. For if the Prince be supreme head he is also supreme Pastour of the Church of his Kingdome for Head and Pastour in this kind is all one In Tortura Torti And this D. ANDREWES graunteth and prooueth by the example of DAVID to whom the people sayd That God had sayd vnto him Tu pafces populum meum Israel 2. Reg. 5 Thou shalt feede my people of Israel VVheras there only mention is of a Temporall Pastour gouernment and feeding as appeareth by the words following Tu eris Dux super Israel Thou shalt be Captain ouer Israel Gen. 45. And in this sence IOSEPH said Ego te pascam I will feede thee meaning his father IACOB So that if the Prince be Head of the Church he is Pastour but it pertaineth to the office of a Pastour to gouerne his sheepe by lawes to feede them with bread of the word of God Matt. 4. by which the soule liueth and the Sacraments to seuer an infected sheepe from the flocke by excōmunication least it infect the whole and consequentlie if the King be supreme head
subiects to Bishops and especiallie to the Chiefe Bishop they can not in that kind be heads and superiours to Bishops 17. Lastlie I prooue this by out Aduersaries confession which is an argument ad hominem of no little force because none is presumed to lie against him selfe Calu. in cap. 7. Amos. CALVIN pronounceth thus of HENRIE the eight his supremacie Qui initio tantoperè extulerunt HENRICVM Regem Angliae certè fuerunt homines inconsiderrti dederuut enim ills summam rerum omnium potestatem hoc me grauiter semper vulnerauit Erant enim blasphemi cum vocarent eum Summum Caput Ecclesiae sub Christo They who in the beginning did so much extoll HENRIE the Eight King of England were men inconsiderate for they gaue him supreme power of all thinges and this did alwayes much aggreue mee For they were Blasphemous when they called him supreaine Head of the Church vnder Christ This was the opinion of CALVIN which is not to be contemned of our Protestants who follow him as an Oracle in other and those verie manie points And to him haue subscribed our Puritans in England and the Brethren of Heluetia Zurich Berne Geneua Polonia Hungarie and Scotland who all denie this supremacie of Kings in Ecclesiasticall causes Yea our Protestants them selues whilst they seeke to auoid the absurdities which aboue I haue produced against this supremacie and which Catholickes haue obiected do in effect despoile the King of all such Authoritie 19. Becanus in Dissid Angl. For first as BBCANVS hath tould them they are not agreed whether his Authoritie should be called Primacie or Supremacie nor whether he should be stiled Primate or Soueraine Salclebr pag. 140. D. And. in Tort. pag. 90. Tomson pag. 33. Head or Gouernour SALCLEBRIDGE calles the King Primate of the Church of England Doctour ANDREWES calles his Authoritie Primacie and yet TOMSON will not haue this authoritie called Primacie but Supremacie because the former word argueth a power Ecclesiasticall and of the same order with that which Prelates of the Church haue the last word he saith signifieth not so much And againe he will not haue it called Spirituall Authoritie but Authoritie in respect of Spirituall things Tomson pag. 31. Idem pag. 95. Salcl pag. 305 and he addeth that the King gouerneth Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically And yet SALCLEBRIDGE saith that Kinges annointed with sacred oyle what will he then say of Kings that are not annointed are capable of Spirituall Iurisdiction And wheras at the first by the Parlament anno Domini 1543 in the yeare 35. of HENRIE the eight it was decreâ—d That the King should be called supreme head of the Church Poulton in his statute Tooker pag. 3. Burhill pag 133. and that also vnder paine of highe Treason yet now TOOKER and BVRHILL will not haue the King called head of the Church And so in deed Queene ELIZABETH in the First Parlament chose rather to be Gouernesse of the Church then Head 20. And as these men varie in the name so do they in the Power and thing it self TOOKER saith The King hath and can giue Tooker pag 305. Salclebr pa. 140. and take away all Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the outward court SALCLEBRIDGE sayth the King can dispense in pluralitie of benefices D. And. apud Tooker pa. 305. Bur. pa. 234. Salcl pa. 121. Took pag. 36. Bur. pag. 137. 242. Took pag. 15. D. And. pag. 151. and can licence a Bastard to take holie orders D. ANDREWES sayth hee hath all externall Iurisdiction but Censures yet BYRHIL denyeth him all Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall both in the inward and outward Court SALCLEBRIDGE sayth the King can giue Benefices create and depose Bishops and yet TOOKER sayth he can only nominate and present BVRHIL denyeth the King Authoritie to excommunicate yea he sayth he may bee excommunicated And the same doth also D. ANDREWES and TOOKER maintaine But what a supreme Head is he that can not cut of by excommunication an infecting and infected member What a Pastour that caÌ„ not cast out an infected sheepe by Excommunication And if he can not excommunicate but rather may be excommunicated it argueth that he hath a superiour who can exercise Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction ouer him and so he is not supreme Head of the Church Wherfore Catholicks as they acknowledge the Pope supreme Head Salcl pag. 136. so they say he can not be excoÌ„municated by any SALCLEBRIGE sayth that it is clearer then the sunne that Princes haue determined controuersies of faith in 8. Councels Tooker pag. 50. Bilson caeteri infra citandi and yet TOOKER as also D. BILSON D. ANDREWES and D. FIELD as wee shall see anone will not haue the King called superiour in matters of faith 21. After this doubting and varying they proceed to a flat denyall of the foresaied supremacie In Tortura Torti pa. 170. D. ANDREWES hath taken a great part of the Supremacie from the King for he confesseth that the Emperour hath no Imperiall right to diuine things These be his words Non est in ea quae diuina sunt Imperiale sed neque Pontificale ius vllum Ther is not in the King any Imperiall no nor Pontificall right ouer diuine thinges He addeth that the King hath no right to dispose of Churches which yet King HENRIE the 8. challenged and practized to the ruine of tenne thousand Churches in one yeare For thus sayth D. ANDREWES At illa diuina hîc quae tandem Aedes Templa Basilicae neque verò in ea quae ita diuina sunt Rex noster vllum sibi ius vendicet Ibid. pa. 171. And a little after he sayth That the King is no Iudge in a cause or matter of faith And in the next page he seemeth to affirme and prooue out of the Councels of Constantinople Pa. 172. Antioche and Carthage that the King is not to be Iudge in the causes of Bishops And the page next after that Pa. 173. In sacramentes the King hath neither supreame nor any power at all And besides all this he addeth that he cannot excommunicate Pag. 151 Nos Principi sayth he Cenfurae potestatem non facimus VVe do not graunt the Prince or King any power to excommunicate c. D. BILSON saith plainlie that the King hath Authoritie ouer the Persons of the Church Bilson in his true difference pag. 171 172. par 2. but not ouer the things of the Church to wit ouer the persons of the Bishops but not ouer faith Sacraments materiall Churches and such like Which yet I see not how it can stand together for if the King be supreme Head not only ouer the Kingdome but also ouer the Church that is of the persons of the Church then as because he is supreme Head of the Kingdome he can command his laye subiects in temporall matters as to paie Tribute to obey temporall lawes c. so if he be supreame Head of the Church and
to my Soueraigne speake no more of him then any other Prince but abstracting from all Princes factes and cases in particular I intend onlie to dispute as I haue hetherto of the Popes Right and Authoritie ouer Princes in generall The First Clause of the Oath I. A. B. do trulie and sincerelie acknowledge professe and testifie in my conscience before God and the world that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames is lawfull and true King of this Realme and of all other his Maiesties Dominions and Countries 12. I will not stand much with WIDDRINGTON about this clause because all Catholicks will acknowledge his Maiestie that now is for their Prince and King and will sweare also fidelitie vnto him in all Temporall matters and this Oath hath bene offered by the Catholicks in an Epistle they wrote to his Maiestie which others also haue offered and for better notice and in argument of their true meaninge published their offer in print This then is one reason which maketh Catholicks to suspect that in this Oath couertlie is intended a denyall of the Popes spirituall supremacie For if the Prince and his Magistrate intended only Ciuill and Temporall Alleageance why did they not propose this Oath in the ordinarie tenour and termes of a Ciuill oath with which the former Kings of England and all Catholick Kinges of other Countries euen to this day content them selues Why bring they in the Popes Authoritie which other Princes leaue out But they knew that Catholicks would neuer haue refused such an oath and therefore to trouble and engage their consciences to haue thereby some pretence to seaze vpon their liuings and goods and to vexe their persons they deuised this Oath Which their manner of proceeding may make Catholicks iustlie suspect that some thing is intended to which in conscience they cannot agree and consequentlie oathes conscience and Religion being so nice and daungerous matters if there were no other reason then this In his Newyearesguift num 8. pag. 37. the Catholicks haue iust cause to make not only a scruple but also a conscience to take it And therefore Widdrington him selfe in his Newyeares-guist confesseth at least that in the beginning and why not still Catholickes might iustlie suspect this oath to be vnlawfull 13. Suarez Gretzerus Hence it is also that some writers make a scruple of those wordes Supremus Dominus Soueraigne Lord because the Oath being of it self suspicious and the King of England by his ordinarie Title giuen him by Parlament being stiled Supreame Head of the Church which dignitie the Bishops and Diuines of England affirme to be annexed to the Kinges Regalitie iure diuino as we haue seen aboue Chap. 6. they feare least a snake lie hid in the grasse and a pad in the strawe and that vnder that Title of Supreme or Soueraigne Lord is couertlie vnderstood Supreame Head of the Church of England not only in Temporall but also in Spirituall causes But because these wordes Soueraigne Lord may be taken in that good sense which ordinarilie they import and are not put ex parte praedicati but only ex parte subiecti for by this clause the swearer sweareth not that his Maiestie is Supreame or Soueraigne Lord but only that our Soueraigne Lord is true and lawfull King I will not much stand about them 14. For as if one should sweare that the Archbishop of Cantetburie is trulie a persecutour of Catholicks he should not sweare that he is trulie Archbishop but onlie that he who is called Archbishop of Canterburie is truly a persecutour so by swearing that our supreame Lord King IAMES is true and lawfull King we do not sweare that he is Soueraigne or Supreame Lord but only that he who is so stiled is our Prince and King which no English Catholicke will refuse to sweare But howsoeuer Catholicks haue good cause to suspect all things in this vnwonted Oath it being not the ordinarie Oath of Alleageāce which the Kings in other Countries propose and wherewith the Kings of England contented them selues till they began to seuer them selues from the true Catholicke Romane Church for true Catholicke and Romane euer went together and to banish out of their Realme all Papall Authoritie as an enemie to their state which other Princes do retaine and euer haue reuerenced and maintained as the Chiefe support of their Kingdoms And that which augmenteth the suspition is for that his Maiestie him selfe seemeth to make doubt of this Oath and so it seemeth daungerous either for the Magistrate to propose it or the subiects to receaue it For these are his Maiesties wordes vttered in the Parlament an 1606. Some doubtes haue been conceaued in vsing the Oath of Allegeance and that part of the Act which ordaineth the taking therof is thought so absurd as no man can tell who ought to be pressed therewith For I my selfe when vpon a tyme I called the Iudges before mee at their going to their courts moued the question vnto them wherin as I thought they could not reasonablie auswer So that this obscuritie in the Oath should first be cleared least swearing to that which wee vnderstand not wee expose our selues to periurie The Second Clause And that the Pope neither by him selfe nor by any authoritie of the Church or Sea of Rome or by any other meanes with any other hath any power or authoritie to depose the King or to dispose of any of his Maiesties Kingdomes or Dominions or to authorize any forraine Prince to anoy him or inuade his Countries or to discharge any of his subiects of their Alleageance and obedience to his Maiestie or to giue licence or leaue to any of them to beare Armes raise tumultes or to offer any violence or hurt to his Maiesties Royall person state or gouernment or to any of his Maiesties subiectes within his Maiesties Dominions 15. Widdr. in disp Theol. in exam huius clausulae This clause sayth VViddrington is Petra illa scandali lapis offensionis that Rocke of scandall and stone of offence at which so many of this age as well learned as vnlearned haue stumbled And in deed to VViddrington him selfe it hath beene such a Rocke of scandall but by his owne fault for many haue passed it with out either falling or stumbling that he hath not onlie stumbled and fallen at it him selfe but by his fall he hath beene the cause of the fall and ruine of many an hundred For if August serm 14. de Sāctis Act. 7. 22. as S. AVGVSTIN sayth S. PAVL by holding the garments of those that stoned S. STEVEN did more stone him then any of the stoners them selues Magis saeuiens omnes adiuuaudo quà m suis manibus lapidando Certes Widdrington persuading by his bookes that the Oath is lawfull sinneth more damnably then any one of them that take the Oath yea taketh it in euerie one of them and stumbleth and falleth in them all and consequently more then them all But vae homini illi
spoke in this manner If it was saied to Peter I will giue thee the keyes of heauen I say vnto you then that this is the Porter whom I will not contradict but as much as I know or can I desire to obey in all thinges his statutes least when I come to heauen gates there be none to open them to mee This sayd that Religious King and this was his respect to the Sea Apostolick Epist ad Ioan. III. KENVLPHVS King of the Mercians writing in his owne and all his Bishops Vide Malmes lib 1. de gest Reg. Angl. and Nobilities name beginneth his letter in this humble manner To my most holie and welbeloued Lord LEO the Romane Bishop of the holy and Apostolicke Sea Kenulph by the Grace of God King of Merchland with the Bishops Dukes and all degrees of honour with in our Dominions with health of most sincere affection in Christ and afterwards he saieth The sublimitie of the Sea of Rome is our health and the prosperitie therof our continuall ioy Because whence you haue your Apostolicall dignitie thence had wee the knowledge of the true saith VVherfore I thinke it sit that the eare of our obedience be humblie inclined vnto your commandements And then demanding the Popes benediction for the better gouernment of his people and resistance of forraine foes he addeth This blessing haue all the Kinges who swayed the Mercian Scepter deserued to obtaine at your Predecessours hands This same do I in humble manner request Malmes lib. 3. de gest is Pont in VVilfrido Malmes lib. 1. de gest Pōt Angl. Westm an 854. Bale Gent. 2. cap. 20. and desire to obtaine of you most holy Father first by way of adoption to receaue me as a child as I loue you in the person of a Father and shall imbrate you with the whole force of obedience And afterwardes he makes mention of a token of an hundred and twentie Mancuzes which he requesteth him to accept King ETHELDRED receiued the letters of Pope IOHN the seuenth vpon his Knees King ETHELWOLPH sued to the Pope for a dispensation sent his sonne Alfred to the Pope to be instructed and sent Peter-pence and made all England tributarie to the Romane Sea King ALFRED surnamed the Great Malmes lib. 3. de gest Reg. Angl. Fox Act. Mon. pag 166. 167. Stow. an 1066. of whose valour learning and Pietie our Chroniclers write wonders in his Preface before the Pastorall of S. Gregorie which he translated into the Saxon language calleth him Christs Vicaire King WILLIAM the Conquerour offred to trie his Title with Harold before the Pope and after got his Title approoued at Rome He wrote an Epistle to GREGORIE the seuenth in which he confirmeth the Tribute of Peter pence which the Kings of England Lib. 5. hist Ang. Cambd. in Britā pag. 350. Malmes lib. 3. de gest Reg. lib. 1. hist nouel Florent Vigor in Chron an 1107 Matth. Paris pag 96. Houed an 1131. Fox pag. 192. Fox pag. 193. Houed pa. 502. euen from King INAS paied to the Pope as Polidore Virgil writeth in signe of reuerence and subiection to the Romane Sea King HENRIE the first surnamed Beauclerd for his knowledg in the seuen liberall Sciences built a Church at Dunstable and by the Authoritie of Pope EVGENIVS the third as Cambden confesseth placed there Canon Regulars he yeelded the inuestiture of Bishops and intertayned most honourably Pope INNOCENT the second and caused him to be admitted through out all France He wrote a letter to Pope PASCHAL which Fox setteth downe and giueth him this Title To the venerable Father PASCHAL chiefe Bishop and at the same time as the same Fox relateth he wrote another letter to the said Pope demanding the Pall for Gerard Arch-Bishop of Yorke King HENRIE the second though for a time he contended with Pope ALEXANDER the Third yet after the death of S. THOMAS of Canterburie Fox pag. 227. Coop an 1072. Bal. cent 3. cap. 4. Houed par 2. Annal. pag. 677. he permitted Appeales to the Pope and submitted him selfe and his Kingdome vnto his pleasure King RICHARD surnamed Coeur de Lion sonne to HENRIE the second wrote a letter to Pope CLEMENT the second with this Title To his most Reuerend Lord and Blessed Father by the grace of God CLEMENT chiefe Bishop of the holy Apostolick Sea and a little after The factes of Princes saith he haue better successe Houed pag. 706. when they receaue assistance and fauour from the Sea Apostolick Matth. Paris Houed an 1190. And so whē this King went to the holie Land he left the care and gouernement of his Kingdome vnto the Sea Apostolick King HENRIE the third when the Pope sent a Legate into England as Matthew Paris relateth met the Legate at the Sea coast Matth. Paris pag 589. Fox act pag. 287. and bowing his head to his knees conducted him and after writing a letter to Pope INNOCENT he callethe him most holy Father and Lord and Chiefe Bishop and offreth Kisses to his blessed feete King EDWARD the thiad writing a letter to the Pope walsing pag. 150. which Walsingham serteth downe saieth That it is heresie to denie the Popes iudgement praesidere omni humanae creaturae to preside ouer all humane creatures The same King writing to Pope CLEMENT vseth this submission To his most holy Lord Clement by the diuine prouidence Chiefe Bishop of the sacred Romane and vniuersall Church Edward by the Grace of God King of France and England and Lord of Ireland deuout kisses of your blessed feet And the same King and all his Nobles anno 1343. assembled in the Parlament at VVestminster in a letter written to the Pope Fox Act. pa. 383. which Fox setteth downe calleth him Head of the Holie Church King HENRIE the sift that warlike and victorious Prince sent his Embassadours to the Councell of Constance called for the condemnation of VVickleph Stowe an 1416 and there demanded and obtained that England might be called a Nation and one of the fower Nations that owe deuotion to the Church of Rome Fox Acts pa. 799. Georg. Lilius in Chron. an 1506. King HENRIE the seuenth anno 1506. sent three solemne Oratours to Pope IVLIVS the second to yeeld his obedience according to the manner vnto the Sea of Rome Yea King HENRIE the eight in the yeare 152◠dedicated his boke against Luther to Pope LEO the tenth which booke I haue seene signed with the Kings owne hand in an English Caracter for which the Pope gaue him and his successours the Title of Defendour of the faith That he acknowledged the Pope his Pastour appeareth by this that at first he made sute to him for a separation from Queene CATHERINE but when he perceaued he could not obtaine his sute then and vpon that occasion onlie he exiled the Popes Authoritie and made him selfe Head and the first Head of the Church of England as may appeare by that which I
haue saied of the knowen respect the Kings of England euer before bare to the Pope and the Apostolicall Sea 14. Seuenthlis I prooue this by the ancient Ceremonies of kissing the Popes feete and other Homage which no good Christian though a King or Emperour hath euer disdained fulfilling therein the prophecie of Esay Quam speciosi pedes Euangelizantis pacem How beautifull are the feet of him that Euangelizeth and preacheth peace Esay 52. And following therin the example of the three Kinges Matt. 2. who adored Christ and of the prime Christians who brought the price of their Lands to the feet of the Apostles Act. 4. 5. Act. 10. Phocius in Nomo con Cap. Constantinus dist 96. Naucler lib. 2. gener 18. Blond li. 10. Mart. Polonus Platina in Steph. 2. S. Ansel Luc li. 1. Collecta Plat. in Adria 1. Baro. to 12. anno 1130. Platina in Eugenio IV. and of Cornelius that fell at Peeters feet CONSTANTINE the Great Greater for his humilitie then for the greatnes of his victories and Emperie honoured the Pope as his Pastour and superiour and bestowed great temporall honour and Regalities vpon him IVSTINIAN the Great in the yeare 535. adored AGAPETVS Pope IVSTINIAN the second crouching to Pope CONSTANTINES the first feete embraced him King PIPIN going to meete Pope STEEVEN who was going to him into France for helpe kissed his feet and ledd his horse by the bridle into the Court and pallace CHARLES the Great would not be hindred by Pope ADRIAN the first from kissing his feet as Platina writeth LEWIS King of France and HENRIE the second King of England kissed humblie the feet of INNOCENT the second SIGISMVND the Emperour in the Councell of Constance worshipped Pope MARTIN prostrate vpon the ground ALBERT Emperour of the West and IOANNES PALEOLOGVS Emperour of the East vsed the same submission to EVGENIVS the fourth in the Councell of Florence 15. By this which hath bene said who is of so little insight that seeth not how Princes are and ought to be subiect vnto the chiefe Bishop and highest visible Pastour of the Church which if Princes also could see as their conceipt of their owne Authoritie many times hindreth them from seeing they would not encroach vpon the Church as they doe they would not contemne her lawes but honour them as Oracles they would not despise the Churches Pastours but would as the auncient Christian Princes were wont to do honour them aboue all terrene Potentates 16. And would to God our noble soueraigne King IAMES had bene trained vp in the schoole of Christs Catholike Church in which our ancient Kings his Predecessours learned their dutie towards the Pope that rare and deepe iudgement of his would neuer haue permitted him to thinke a Temporall King as great as the Pope In praf monitor pag. 5. to whom his Predecessours subiected their persons Kingdomes Crowns and Scepters it would neuer haue sunke into his learned head that the Pope should be Antichrist and consequentlie all his Predecessours the Kings of England yea of Christendome so wise so pious so warlike so victorious worshippers and fauourers of Antichrist he would neuer haue incited the Emperour and Christian Princcs In praef monitor to curbe him restraine him and to diminish that his Authoritie which not they but Christ gaue him by which he hath put the crowne vpon many an Emperour and Kings head by which all Christian Kinges and their Kingdomes haue bene maintayned in Religion wealth and prosperitie against which Authoritie no temporall stares haue long preuailed but like waues against the Rocke by persecuting it haue wasted and ruined them selues which Authoritie was not giuen him ex prima intentione to take away temporall Kingdomes from any vnlesse by euill comportement they make them selues vnworthie of all rule and humane societie but rather to conserue them and to adde vnto them a new Crowne and Kingdome of Heauen for non eripit mortalia qui regna dat Coelestia he that giueth to man heauenlie thinges goeth not about to take away from him those that be earthlie Imploie then ô noble soueraine your rare witt power and force to defend and protect this Authoritie not to impugne it shew your self worthie that Title of a Defendour of the faith which was giuen to your Predecessours by the Sea Apostolick not for impugning but for defending her faith and Authoritie Seeke not to sacke and rase that Citie which is built vpon a Rocke Thinke not to preuaile against that Church against which all the persecutions schismes and heresies that haue beene raised against her no nor the forces or gates of Hell could hetherto or shall euer here after preuaile Seeke not to sinke the shippe which PETER ruleth and at whose sterne CHRIST him self sitteth It may be by Gods permission tossed with windes waues and Tempests but it can neuer be drowned for as Pope GREGORIE the ninthe once tould an Emperour that thought by humane force and policie to sincke her Cuspinianus in Frederice Niteris incassum nauem submergere PETRI Fluctuat at nunquam mergitur illa ratis Thou striu'st in vaine S. PEETERS ship to sinke Floate may it well to drown it neuer thinke CHAPTER VI. That Princes Kings yea Emperours haue no authority to gouerne the Church or to make Ecclesiasticall lawes neither to be accounted heads or Superiours but subiects of the Church though protectours and defendours and therefore are modestly admonished of their duty and office 1. ALmightie God as he hath instituted two powers terrene and spirituall Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall and hath distinguished them in Natures obiects functions ends so to auoid confusion he hath placed them in diuers subiects The terrene power he hath giuen to Princes and Magistrates the spirituall and Ecclesiasticall to Priests Prelats and Pastours as aboue we haue seene For although there be no such naturall repugnancie but that these powers may consort in one Ep. 126. ad Euag. and the selfe same person for as S. HIEROME sayth in the law of Nature the first begotten of euerie familie were Priests and Temporall Lords Melchisedech also and Moyses and the Machabâ—et were Priests and Princes yet it is most conuenient that these two powers should be separated the King and Prince by reason of his warres and Temporall Affaires wherwith he is intangled being not so apt to menage matters of the Church and Religion the Prelate and Pastour being by office obliged to attend to diuine matters from which the menaging of common wealthes affaires would much distract him And therfore as the Church came to greater perfection Num. 27. so were these offices giuen to distinct officers For IOSVE was made Captaine and Commander in Temporall things 2. Paralip 19. ELEAZAR was the High Priest and chiefe in matters of the Church AMARIAS the High Priest commanded in his quae ad Deum pertinent in matters pertaining to God and ZABADIAS was deputed to the gouernment of those thinges that
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.
matter of faith when as thou knowest not the mystieries of faith And yet againe to the same purpose he addeth Soluimus quae sunt Caesaris Caesari quae sunt Dei Deo c. VVe haue payed to Caesar what was Caesars Tribute is Caesars it is not denyed the Church is Gods therfore it must not be giuen to Caesar because the Temple can be no right of Caesars No maÌ„ can deny but that this is spokeÌ„ with Caesars honour For what more honorable then for the Emperour to be called the sonne of the Church Which when it is sayd it is sayd without sinne it is sayd with grace Imperator enim bonus intra Ecclesiam non supra Ecclesiam est for a good Emperour is within the Church not aboue the Church The like libertie of speech he vseth also in an Epistle to his sister Marcellina Ambr li. 5. cit ep 33. ad Marcellinam sororem Mandatur denique Trade Basilicam c. To be briefe the Emperours commaund is Deliuer vp the Church I answer it is neither lawfull for mee to deliuer it nor expedient for thee O Emperour to take it Thou canst by no law spoile or ransake the house of any priuat man and thinkest thou that the house of God may by thee be destroied and ruinated It is alleaged that to the Emperour all thinges are lawfull all thinges are his I answer doe not ô Emperour charge thy selfe as to thinke that thou hast Imperial right ouer diuine thinges Do not extoll thy selfe but if thou wilt raygne longe be subiect to God It is written Mat. 22 What is Gods to God what is Caesars to Caesar To the Emperour Palaces do belong to the Priests Churches To thee is committed the care and charge of publick walles not of those that be holy If S. AMBROSE would not yeeld a Church or Chappell to the Emperours disposition would he if he had liued in King HENRIE the Eight his time and in England haue permitted him to seaze vpon all Abbayes Abbay lands and Churches belonging vnto them Or would he or S. ATHANASIVS or HOSIVS haue permitted him to sitt in Parlament as supreme Iudge in matters not only temporall but Ecclesiasticall or if they had seene Cromwell appointed King Henrie the Eights Vicaire Generall in Spirituall causes taking place aboue all the Bishops and Archbishops in their Conuocation would not ATHANASIVS haue called it the Abomination of desolation 14. Bilson in his Difference pa. 174. Andr. in Tortura Tortipa 169. Field li. 5. de Eccles cap. 53. To this Argument Doctour BILSON Doctour ANDREWES and Doctour FIELD answere that Constantius and Valentinian the younger were reprehended by these Fathers not for medling in Councels and Ecclesiasticall affaires but for tyranizing ouer Bishops and for partiall and vniust dealing But if these Fathers had meaÌ„t no otherwise they would not so absolutly haue reprehended medling in Ecclesiasticall matters but would onlie haue inueighed against the abuses For if a Pope who is in deed Head of the Church should abuse his Authoritie in Councels or Ecclesiasticall Iudgments though euen a Catholick who takes him for supreme Head might reprehend the abuse Athan. supra yet he could not saie to him as ATHANASIVS did to Constantius If this be the Iudgment of Bishops what hath the Pope to do with it Nor could he say to the Pope as he did to the Emperour VVhen was it euer heard from the beginning of the world when did the Iudgment of the Church take Authoritie from the Pope Neither could he haue sayd to the Pope Hosius supra as HOSIVS sayd to the same Constantius VVhen was the Emperour present to wit as Iudge for as Protectour and hearer he knew and saw CONSTANTIN the Great present in the Councell of Nice in Ecclesiasticall Iudgments Neither could he haue sayd to the Pope as the same HOSIVS saieth to Constantius Do not intermeddle in Ecclestasticall businesses nor do thou command vs in this kind but rather learne these thinges of vs. Much lesse could those wordes of S. AMBROSE Ambros supra which he so bouldlie spake to Valentinian haue been sutable to the Pope or any supreme Head Ecclesiasticall VVhen didst thou heare ô most Clement Emperour Pope that any of the laitie Clergie Iudged Bishops in a cause of faith Much lesse could these other words of S. AMBROSE haue been fitting a Pope or any supreme head Ecclesiasticall A good Emperour Pope is in the Church not aboue the Church Nor could S. AMBROSE haue denyed so peremptorily to deliuer a Church or Chappell to the Emperour if he had deemed him supreme head of the Church much lesse could he haue alleadged that reason of his denyall To the Emperour Pallaces appertaine to the Priest Churches for if the King be supreme Heade of the Church then Churches pertaine to him as well as Pallaces 15. But let vs heare another Father S. Chrysost ho. 4. de verbis Isaiae 2. Paral. 26. CHRYSOSTOME pondering the audacious fact of King OZIAS who in the pride of his power victories and former vertues arrogated to him selfe the Priests office hath these words Rex cum esset Sacerdotij Principatum vsurpat Volo inquit adolere incensum quia iustus sum Sed mane intra terminos tuos alij sunt termini Regni alij termini Sacerdotij Being a King he vsurpeth the power of Priesthood I will sayth he offer incense because I am iust But stay within thy limits Others are the bounds of the Kingdome others of the Priesthood If then the King hath his limits prefixed and contained within the Kingdome it followeth that he cannot intermeddle him selfe as a superiour in Ecclesâ—asticall causes but he shall passe his limits The same Father in his next Homelie hath these words Chrysost hom 5. de verbis Isaiae which are worthy the marking Quanquam nobis admirandus videatur Thronus Regius ob gemmas affixas aurum quo obcinctus est tamen rerum terrenarum administrationem sortitus est nec vltra potestatem hanc praeterea quicquam habet Authoritatis Verum sacerdoti Thronus in Coelis collocatus est de coelestibus negotiis pronunciandi habet potestatem Although the Kings Throne seemes to vs worthy to be admired for the pretious stones wherwith it is besett and the gould wherwith it is couered yet the King hath only the administration of terrene things neither hath he beyond this power any further Authoritie But to the Priest a throne is placed in HeaueÌ„ and he hath power to pronounce senteÌ„ce of heauenly businesses and affaires appertaining vnto heauen 16. Tenthlie I proue this veritie by the Arguments wherwith in the former Chapter I haue prooued that Kings Christian by baptisme are made subiects of the Church as much as is the lowest Christian and that not onlie Popes but inferiour Bishops haue challenged superiority ouer them which also Princes from the beginning haue euer acknowledged For if Princes in matters Ecclesiasticall be
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
I will doe all these three things as I may sweare without daunger of periurie that the Pope can not depriue a Prince But out of these wordes of WIDDRINGTON I will frame this argument against him selfe I can noe more sweare these three thinges then I can sweare without all daunger of periurie that the Pope can not depriue a Prince but I can not without daunger of periurie sweare that the Pope cannot depriue a Prince ergo I cannot sweare these three things without daunger of periurie The maior proposition is WIDDRINGTONS the minor I haue often prooued because itis at least probable euen by WIDDRINGTONS confession that the Pope can depriue a Prince and if it be probable that he can it may be true if it may be true there is daunger of periurie to abiure it and so the Conclusion followeth to wit that I caÌ„ not sweare these three thinges without daunger of periurie The Sixt Clause Which Oath I acknowledge by full and lawfull Authoritie to be proposed vnto me and do renounce all pardons and dispensations to the contrarie 59. In this Clause the swearer acknowledgeth that this Oath is proposed by full and lawfull authoritie which notwithstanding is not at least so certaine a thing as that a man may sweare it For although the Magistrate haue authority to propose an Oath of meere Ciuill alleageance vnto lay subiects yet he hath not anthority to propose such an Oath as this which as I haue prooued containeth so many thinges not to be sworne and so much derogateth to the Authoritie of the Pope which for so long a time he hath possessed and practised And especially the Magistrate can not pronose this Oath to all sortes of people seeing 〈◊〉 can not be without morall daunger of periurie much lesse can he propose it to Priests whose Ecclesiasticall immunitie freeth them from Magistrates and Temporall Iudges interrogations and Tribunals Ca. quâ—quam de Censibus in 6. Ca. aduersus cap. non minus de Immunit Eccl. and who only are to be examined by their Bishops and Ordinaries and by them to be punnished when they offend and not by any Temporall Iudges vnlesse the fault be so great that the Bishop thinketh it meet to degrade the delinquent and to deliuer him to secular power And so it being a thing at least verie doubtfull whether the Prince and Magistrate haue authority to propose such an oath yea it being euident that they cannot because as aboue is prooued it is euident that it containeth many things which are against faith and Authoritie of the Church and Councells the Prince and Magistrate can haue no authoritie at all much lesse full and lawfull Autho itie to propose this Oath And so neither can this Clause be admitted 60. Adde to this that what soeuer VVIDDRINGTON saith the King and Parlament by this oath do take vppon them to decide what power the Pope hath from Christe the Authour and S. Peter the Popes first Predecessour for what is it other to determine and decide a question then to declare that one parte of it is to bee beleeued and followed towitt that the Pope cannot depriue or depose a Prince and that the contrarie is to bee abiured as impious and hereticall And if anie Doctour of the Church should define this question or anie other how can he determine more playnlie and resolutelie As for Example the Church defineth that there are 7. Sacraments and pronounceth Anathema against the contrarie opinion which saith there are but two or not 7. Doth shee not in this define the question Euen so our Prince and Parlament by this oathe haue decreed that the Pope can not depose or depriue a Prince and they oblige the Subiect to sweare this parte and to abiure the contrarie as heresie Is not this then to determine 61. Whereas Widdrington alleageth Disp Th. c. 7. n. 11 that the facultie of diuinitie in Paris and Mentz doe oblige those that are to proceed Doctours not to teach or preach publiquelie that our B. Ladie was conceiued in originall sinne and yet doe not define the controuersie this maketh rather against him for they also doe in this define and though not absolutelie yet as much as by theire authoritie they can and therfore they doe not oblige their subiects to abiure as heresie the contrarie opinion of the Thomists for that were absolutelie to determine and to arrogate the Popes authoritie wherefore seing that the King and Parlament doe oblige Catholickes to abiure as heresie and vnder the penaltie also of a Premunire that the Pope cannot depriue or depose a Prince it followeth that they absolutelie determine of such a spirituall proposition and matter of diuinitie against the Practise of manie Popes and against the decree of the Lateran Councell and so in this they Challenge to them selues the Popes or Churches Authoritie to which it appertaineth to define what is heresie and consequeÌ„tlie to sweare that this oathe is proposed by lawfull Authoritie is to sweare in effect that the King and Parlament haue spirituall Authoritie and that the King is supreame Head of the Church of England and hath Authoritie to define what proposition is hereticall At least this Argument maketh it doubtefull least this Clause importeth thus much and so is not to bee sworne The Seuenth Clause And all these things I do plainlie and sincerelie acknowledge and sweare according to the expresse wordes by me spoken without any equiuocation or mentall reseruation whatsoeuer And I do make this recognition and acknowledgment hartilie willinglie and trulie vppon the true faith of a Christian So helpe mee God 62. Diuines affirme that the guiltie D. Th. 2. 2. q. 69. a. 1. Caiet ibid. Henric. quodl 1. q. 44. Petrus Nauar li. 2. de restit or supposed guiltie is not lawaies bound to answer according to the Iudges meaning and intention if the Iudge do not make his interrogations iuridicallie The same Diuines affirme that a Iudge doth not make his interrogations iuridicallie when he questioneth about any secret thing of which there is not some fame cap. 4. n. 136. Lessius lib. 2. de iust iure cap. 31. dub 3 alij Vide cap. qualiter quando ca. Inquisitionis dâ— Accusationibus or report against the supposed guiltie or when he examineth things which pertaine not to his Court but rather to the spirituall Court or when there is not semiplena probatio or sufficientia indicia or when the supposed guiltie knoweth him selfe innocent for then he is not bound to answer according to the Iudges intention but may equiuocate Likewise when he knoweth him selfe innocent and yet if he confesse the circumstance which is demaunded he should be presumed nocent he may denie it with an equiuocation As for example if one had been present when his companion without his consent killed another if the Iudge aske whether he was not present he may denie it meaning he was not so present as to consent or