Answer to Book by Romish Priests, Doctrine 12
XII. We hold, he ſaith, That a Woman may be Head, or Supream Governeſs of the Church, in all Cauſes, as the late Queen Elizabeth was.
Anſwer.
NOne of us ever called Queen Elizabeth the Head of the Church: unleſs, as it ſignifies Supream Governour. And that indeed we aſſert ſhe was, and all our Kings are, of all perſons whatſoever, in all Cauſes. But becauſe ſome leud People perverted the meaning of this, our Church took care to explain it in one of the Articles of Religion; that no man might miſtake in the matter, unleſs he would wilfully, as this Writer doth; who could not but underſtand, that it is expreſly declared, Article XXXVII. that when we attribute to the Queen's Majeſty the chief Government, we do not give to our Princes the miniſtring either of God's Word, or the Sacraments, &c. but that only Prerogative, which we ſee to have been given always to all godly Princes in the holy Scripture by God himſelf. That is, that they ſhould rule all Eſtates and Degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Eccleſiaſtical or Temporal; and reſtrain with the Civil Sword, the ſtubborn and evil doers. This is our avowed Doctrine.
Now, what do our Bibles ſay againſt this? Nothing, but a woman may not teach, 1 Tim. II. 12.&c. 1 Tim. II. 12. And do not we ſay the ſame, that our Princes may not miniſter the Word, or Sacraments? What a ſhameleſs ſort of People have we to deal withal; who face us down that we affirm what we flatly deny? And when he pretends faithfully to recite the words of our Bible, after the New Tranſlation (as he doth in his Preface) here he gives us another Tranſlation in the ſecond Text he alledges, 1 Cor. XIV. 34. But take it as it is, it proves nothing but his folly and impudence; unleſs he could ſhew that Queen Elizabeth preached publickly in any of our Churches. But ſee the Childiſhneſs of this Writer, in alledging theſe Texts againſt the Queen, which make nothing againſt our Kings; who are not Women ſure: And we aſcribe the ſame power to them, which we did to her; and no more to her than belongs to them.
From Scripture he betakes himſelf to Reaſoning; which proceeds upon the ſame wilful, Miſtake we cannot call it, but, Calumny, (againſt our expreſs Declaration to the contrary) That we give our Kings ſuch an Headſhip, or Supream Power, as makes them capable to miniſter the Word and Sacraments. From whence he draws this new Slander, That many hundreds of them have been hang'd, drawn and quarter'd, for denying this Power. VVhereas every one knows the Oath of Supremacy is nothing elſe but a ſolemn declaration of our belief, that our Kings are the Supream Governors of theſe Realms, in all Spiritual things or Cauſes, as well as Temporal: and that no Foreign Prince or Prelate hath any Juriſdiction, Superiority, Preheminence, or Authority, Eccleſiaſtical or Spiritual, in theſe Realms, &c.
Now what can he find in his Fathers to oppoſe this? There were none of them, for above 800 years, who did not believe this; that Emperors and Kings are next to God, and the Pope himſelf ought to be ſubject to them. L. II. 1.The words of Optatus ſpeak the ſenſe of them all; There is none above the Emperor but God alone who made him Emperor. And none can deny the Ancient Cuſtom to have been, that the Clergy and People of Rome having choſen the Pope, the Emperor confirmed or invalidated the Election as he pleaſed. Adrian indeed would fain have changed this Cuſtom, (Anno 811.) but ſtill it continued a long time, that the Election was not accounted valid, till the Emperor's Confirmation. And he cannot but know, (if he have read his own Authors) that after Adrian's attempt, above forty Popes, from John IX. to Leo IX. were all created by the Emperors, who frequently alſo depoſed Popes. And Popes were ſo far from having any ſuch Authority over the Emperors, that when Pope Gregory VII. adventured upon it, it was eſteemed a Novity, not to ſay an Hereſy, (as Sigebert's words are, ad Anno 1088.) which had not ſprung up in the World before.
But the Reader may here obſerve how well skill'd this Man is in the Fathers, who places John Damaſcen in the very front of them, who lived in the Eighth Century, and yet is ſet before Theodoret who lived in the Fifth, and St. Chryſoſtome who lived in the Fourth, nay, and before his Ignatius, who lived in the time of the Apoſtles; whoſe words import no more, but that all muſt obey their Biſhop as their Paſtor; which agrees well enough with the Biſhop's obeying the Emperor as his Prince. What John Damaſcen ſays, I cannot find; nor is there any thing of that nature in the place he quotes out of Theodoret. But Valens was an Arian, who commanded things contrary to the Chriſtian Religion, and ſo was not to be obeyed. It is mere tittle-tatle about St. Chryſoſtom's calling the Biſhop a Prince, as well as a King; for a greater than he, Conſtantine the Great, in like manner calls himſelf a Biſhop, as to all External Government.