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
Albestanensis Bishop Hugo de Sancto Victore Henricus de Gandauo Vlricus Dionysius Carthufianus Ioanues Driedo Albertus Pighius Iacobus Latomus Conradus Brunus and to these may be added Adolphus Schulkenius and Lessius 6. Out of England he bringeth Alexander of Hales a learned Professour of Diuinitie and Maister to S. Thomas of Aquin and S. Bonauenture Holcot Franciscus Maironus Ioannes Bachonus Thomas VValdensis Prouinciall in his time in England of the order of Carmelites and one of the learnedst of his age Cardinall Pole Doctour Sanders To whome may be added Cardinall Allen in his Apologie and Answer to the libeller Doct. Stapleton Mr. Reynolds and diuers others of our learned writers since King HENRIE the Eight his time 7. Dareth now our aduersarie shew his face against such an ample Senate of Doctours and learned men can he thinke him selfe a good Catholicke that holdeth against Catholick Councells Chiefe Pastours Doctours yea and the Catholicke Church which neuer dissented from her Doctours and Pastours He will say that he wanteth not Doctours also O the Doctours I graunt he may alleadge Hereticks for his opinion for in this he conspireth with them for although as wee shall see anone they arrogate to them selues this power yet they denie it to the Pope Nay sayth VViddrington I haue Catholicke Doctours also to countenance my opinion and to free it from Heresie yea temeritie And who be these his Authours He alleageth Occam Ioannes Parisiensis Dante 's the Poet Almainus Ioannes Maior Hugo Vulcurunus Albericus and others But either these Authours were Schismatickes as Sigebert or they expreslie auerte the contrarie to that for which he alleadgeth them as Ocham and Almaine or finally they neither affirme the Popes power nor denie it in deposing Princes And so onlie fiue or six as Dante 's the Poet Sigebert the Schismatick Barclay Bochell and Lescherius expreslie holde with VViddrington Schulck pag. 131. as Schulckenius hath shewed particularlie of euerie one of the authors he alleageth And what are these obscure Authonrs to Scriptures Councels Popes Practise of the Church so many learned Authours of Italie France Spaine Germanie and England as are produced But that the Reader may see more plainelie how little authoritie Widdrington purchaseth to his opinion by his Authours I shall examine some of them in particular 8. Apol. n. 4 Disput Theolog. sec 3. c. 3. n. 4. New yeares-guift pa. 54. VViddrington in his Apologie and Theologicall Disputation and Newyeares guift alleageth out of Ioannes Azorius diuerse Authours as patrones of his opinion and seemeth to endeauour to bring in AZORIVS him selfe amongest them though by the head and shoulders IOANNES AZORIVS a famous Iesuit sayth he affirmeth that it hath euer been a great controuersie betwixt Emperours and Kinges on the one side and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether in some certaine cases the Pope hath a right and power to depriue Kinges of their Kingdomes c. And he alleageth diuerse Authours out of Azorius who fauour his opinion But First although he might haue some reason to alleage those Authours yet I can not see what reason he had to alleage them out of Azorius for if he would therby make his Reader beleeue that Azorius alloweth his opinion for probable in that it is countenaunced by these Authours by him alleaged he abuseth his Reader for that AZORIVS condemneth these his Authours and cōsequentlie him selfe verie deepelie whosoeuer pleaseth to reade AZORIVS shall see that he disputing this Question alleageth for the first opinion Tom. 2. lib. 4. instit moral c. 19. which denieth the Pope Authoritie of deposing Princes in some cases Lutherans Caluinistes and Marsilius Patauinus an hereticke and after that he sayeth non longè ab his fuerunt Gulielmus Ocham c. not farre different from these heretickes were William Ocham and Ioannes Parisiensis Deuines and Dante 's the Flonentine Poet and Almainus tract de suprem potest laicâ quaest 3. Maior in 4. dist 24. quaest 3. concl 3. who haue followed Ocham And then he addeth hauc sententiam Marsilij temerariam errorem continentem ipse Marsilius alij colligere se arbitrabantur imprimis c. This temerarious opinion and which containeth errour Marsilius and others thought they might gather first c. And after that he addeth reuera nisilabi errare velimus negare omnino non possumus penes Romanum Pontificem esse iure diuino vtramque potestatem trulie if we will not be deceaued and erre we can not at all deny but that the Romane Bishop hath bath authorities Tom. 2. lib. 10. Instit mor. c. 6. And after he prooueth this out of the canon Law by Diuines also and Lawiers The same Azorius addeth to these fauourers of VViddringtons opinion Hugo Michael vulcurunus and Albericus but condemneth them and prooueth out of Bartolus l. 1. ff de requirendis reis § vlt that Dante 's was after his death almost condemned of heresie and he alleageth Antonius 3. p. tit 21. cap. 5. § 2. who sayeth that Dante 's in hoc errauit erred in thu and so is put in the Index amongst prohibited authours and his booke of Monarohie condemned and of Albericus he sayeth he is cautè legendus warilie to be read and confuteth what he saith Wheras therfore Azorius sayeth that it hath euer been a great contronersie betwixt Emperours and Kinges on the one side and the Bishop of Rome on the other c. whence VViddrington would in ferre that his opinion were disputable and probable Azorius meaneth not that it hath been a controuersie betwixt Bishops of Rome and all Emperours and Kinges for seing that he coūteth this opinion of VViddrington temerarious and erroneous therin he should condemne all Emperours and Kinges of temeritie and errour but he meaneth schismaticall or hereticall Emperours and Kinges especiallie such as the Bishops of Rome haue deposed who to holde their crownes stood to it that the Pope could not depose them wherupon their followers complained of GREGORIE the seuenth And therfore in GREGORIE the seuenth his time when the greatest controuersie was about rhis matter none but the Emperour deposed and his followers Schismatickes as he was did contradict the Popes sentence of deposition yea then the Kinge of England William the Conquerour Alphonsus Kinge of Castile Philip King of Fraunce Kanuius King of Denmarcke Count Robert of Flaunders and other Princes held league and amitie with GREGORIE the seuenth against the Emperour and his Antipope Baron tom 11. an 1084 Et anno 1085. n. 11. 12 in Greg. 7. Epist ad Greg. 7. quam referunt Magdeburgēses Cent. 11. cap. 8. de Schismatibus circa med as may be seene in Baronius in his eleuenth Tome Yea the Emperour deposed pleading that he could not be deposed but for heresie confessed that he might haue been deposed for heresie Traditio Patrum est sayth he me solius Dei iudicio obnoxium esse nisi quod absit a