The King by vertue of his supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction shall be able to present vnto Free Chappell 's c. 2. Now M. Tooker to the contrary denyeth it pag. 36. where talking of the Kings of England he saith thus Beneficia autem curata vel non curata non confâ—runt omnino in quempiam maiora minoráue multò minus dignitates Ecclesiasticas siue Episcopatus siue Archiepiscopatus per vniuersum ambitum Regni sui Eorum certè collatio vel institutio est quorum est destitutio id est Episcoporum Comprouincialium qui potestatâ—m habent personas ipsas sacrandi Hoc habet iuris Regia Maiestas quod minor subordinata potestas habet ius inquaÌ„ nâ—minandi praesentandi apud nos c. Kings do not at all collate or bestow vpon any man benefices that haue care of soules or not care greater or lesser much lesse Ecclesiasticall dignities whether Bishopriâ—kes or Archbishoprickes throughout the whole circuite of their Kingdomes For this truly belongeth vnto those whose office it is to dispose therof to wit to the Comprouinciall Bishops who haue power to consecrate the said persons on whome they bestow them Indeed the Kings Majesty notwithstanding hath this right with vs in EnglaÌ„d which an inferiour and subordinate power also hath to wit right to nominate and present vnto benefices c. 3. Behould heere a triple Iarre or discord betwene these two Authors and this in a dayly and vulgar matter The first is that M. Henry Salclebridg saith that the collation of benefices belongeth to the Kings of England in that they be the Primates of the Church of England M. Tooker saith to the contrary that it belongeth not to Kings at all but to Bishops The second Iarre is that M. Salclebridge saith that Kings by their owne authority haue conferred benefices M. Tooker saith that they neuer do nor haue done The third is that M. Salclebridge saith that Kings by vertue of their supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction may present vnto benefices M. Tooker auerreth that in this point Kings haue no more right then their subiects other inferiour persons for so he saith Hoc haâ—et iuris Regia Maiestas quod minor subordinata potestas habet The Kings Maiesty hath in this point of conferring benefices the same right that an inferiour subordinate power hath c. Whether of these two then should King Iames belieue if he had a fat benefice or an Archbishopricke now to bestow IX Question VVhether the King can create and depose Bishops or no 1. MAISTER Salclebridge saith that he can For thus he writeth pag. 121. Christiani Principes in suis Regnis cum laude propria authoritate Episcopos crearunt deposuerunt Christian Prices haue in their Kingdomes by their owne proper authority created and deposed Bishops and that with praise c. And then againe pag. 144. Rex Angliae Archidiacono Richmundiae Episcopalâ—m concessit Iurisdictionem The King of England graunted Episcopall Iurisdiction to the Archdeacon of Richmond c. And yet further pag. 155. Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate de iure atque cum laude omnium Ordinum Episcopos elegerâ—nt ac proinde deponere potuâ—runt The Kings of England of their owne supreme authority by right with praise of all maÌ„ner Estates haue elected Bishops and therfore they might depose them also c. And then lastly Constat Christianos Prinâ—ipes cum laude Episcopos elegisse deposuisse etiam Romanos It is manifest that Christian Princes haue elected deposed Bishops yea Popes also and that with their praise c. 2. Now M. Tooker he denyes in the place before cited that the King can create or depose Bishops For there he assigning two things necessary for the ordayning or creating of a Bishop to wit ConsecratioÌ„ of the person a Bishopricke addeth that the King can performe neyther of these two For neyther can he confer any beneficeâ— and much lesse a Bishopricke or Archbishopricke neyther hath he any power to coÌ„secrate persons In so much that in another place he confesseth that it is so far off from King Iames to haue power to create or depose Bishops that he would rather acknowledg himselfe for one of their schollers and Disciples For thus he wryteth pag. 311. Serenissimus ac pientissimus Rex noster Iacobus non habet quicquam antiquius honorificentius quà m vt cum Valentiniano filium se Ecclesiae profiteatur cum Theodorico Italiae Rege se alumnum Ecclesiae discipulum Archiepiscoporum suorum Episcoporum libenter recognoscat Our most Gratious and most pious King Iames doth esteeme or accompt nothing more noble and more honorable then with Valentinian the Emperour to professe himselfe a sonne of the Church and with Theodoricus King of Italy most willingly to acknowledge himselfe a foster-child of the Church and a disciple of his Archbishops and Bishops c. 3. This Iarre now as you see is of great momeÌ„t For if the King cannot create or ordaine Bishops as M. Tooker saith he cannot then it followeth euidently that Thomas Cranmer who was made Archbishop of Canterbury by the King Henry the 8. was no true but a false Bishop no pastour but a robber one that entred not into the sheepfold by the dore but climbed vp some other way Whereof againe ensue three other markable points First that all other Bishops who were afterward eyther created by CraÌ„mer or by the King were like vnto Cranmer himselfe Secondly whatsoeuer was done of them by Episcopall authority or Iurisdiction was of no validity or force Thirdly that they so ordained are bound to restitution of all reuenewes and profits which they haue reaped by their Bishopricks What counâ—â—ll now is there to be taken in this point Let your Academicks I pray you consider X. Question VVhether the King can excommunicate his obstinate subiects or no 1. HEERE now do our aduersaries ranke their King amongst ordinary men what they graunted vnto him before heere now they seeme to reuoke For they say that the King cannot excommunicate any of his subiects and yet himselfe may be excommunicated by them and expelled out of the Church of England wherof himself is supreme Head The former part herof doth M. Tooker affirme pag. 15. in these worlds Rex non habet potestatem distringendi gladium spiritualem vel quempiam excoÌ„municandi The King hath no power to vnsheath the spirituall sword nor to excommunicate any man c. And the Chaplaine my Lord of Ely pag. 151. saith Nos Principi censurae potestatem non facimus We do not giue authority to our Prince to vse Censures c. And againe M. Tompson pag. 83. ExcoÌ„municare nullo modo ad Suprâ—matum Ecclesiae pertinet To excommunicate doth no way belong to the Supremacy of the Church And againe pag. 84. Omnes fatemur Râ—gem excomunicandi potestatem nullam habere We do all confesse that the King hath no power to excommunicate c.
them to Idolatry Shall they then obay these Princes commaund â—ut then should they do against their Consciences Shall they refuse to obay Then farewell Primacy of the Church Perhaps they will answere that they will obay when they thinke good Shall therfore subiects be Iudges of their Kings May then the Catholickes in England say after this manner If it plâ—ase your Maiesty in this point we thinke good to obay your Maiestyes commaund but in that not XIII Question VVhether the King may constraine his Subiects to take the Oath of Prmacy or no 1. HITHERTO haue we treated of the Iarring disagreement of our Aduersaries abouâ— the nature offices origen of the Kingâ— Primacy Now there remaineth a certaine practicall question which toucheth the ConscieÌ„ce to the quicke to wit whether the King may constraine or force his Subiects to sweare that they acknowledge his Kingly Primacy wherof we haue spoken before Or whether they will acknowledg the King as Primate and supreme Head of the Church of â—ngland vnto whome as vnto their Primate supreme Head they will promise fidelity no lesse in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall matters then in Politicke and temporall This question hath two points The first whether the King of England doth de facto exact or hath at any time exacted such an Oath of his subiects The other is whether his subiects are bound in conscience to take such an Oath if the King should exact the same Of both these points seuerally I meane to speake a word or two The first Point 2. The first point then is Whether the King of England doth exact or at any tyme hath exacted such an Oath of his subiects It is manifest that K. Henry the 8. did For so wryteth Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England Laurentius Cocchus Prior Coenobij Dancastrensis vnà cum tribus Monachis duobus laicis Aegidio Horno Clemente Philpotto quòd nollent Ecclesiasticum terreni Regis Primatum iuratò confiteri exclusi è terris ad caelestem aeterni Regis gloriam transmissi sunt Laurence Coch Prior of the Monasterie of Dancaster togeather with three Monkes and two Laymen Giles Horne and Clement Philpot for that they would not sweare to the Ecclesiasticall Primacy of a temporall King being excluded from earth were translâ—ted to a celestiall glory of the eternall King c. And then againe Proponebantur eis noua Comitiorum Decreta iubebantur iureiurando affirmare Regem Ecclesiae supremum esse Caâ—ut The new decrees of the Parlament were propounded vnto them they were commaunded to sweare the King to be supreme Head of the Church c. 3. Now that Queene â—lizabeth the danghter followed heerin her Father K. Henry it is manifest by the forme of Oath that she exacted of her subiects which is this â—go A. B prorsus testificor declaro in conscientia mea Reginam â—sse solam supremam Gubernatricem istius Regni Angliae alioruÌ„ omnium suae Maiestatis dominiorum regionum non minùs in omnibus spiritualibus atque Ecclesiasticis rebus vel causis quà m temporalibus Et quòd nemo externus Princeps Persona Praelatus Status vel Potentatus aut facto aut iure habet aliquam iurisdictionâ—m potestatem superioritatem praeeminentiam vel authoritatâ—m â—cclesiasticam aut spiritualem in hoc Regno Ideoque planè renuntio repudio omnes forinsecas iurisdictiones potestates superioritates atque authoritates c. I A. B. do verily testify and declare in my conscience that the Queene is the only supreme Gouernesse aswell of this Kingdome of England as of all other her Maiesties dominions and countâ—eys aswell in all spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters and causes as in temporall And that no forrayne Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath eyther by fact or right any Iurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority Ecclesiasticall or spirituall in this Kingdome And therfore I do vtterly renounce and abandone all forrayne Iurisdictions powers superiorities and authorityes c. 4. The very same also doth now King Iames who byndeth his subiects not with one Oath alone but with two to wit of Supremacy and Allegiance The former Oath of Supremacy beginneth thus Ego A. B. palà m testor ex conscientia mea declaro quod Maiestas Regiaâ— vnicus est supremus Gubernator huius Regni omniumque aliorum suae Maiestatis dominiorum territoriorum tam in omnibus spiritualibus siue Ecclesiasticis rebus causis quà m in temporalibus Et quòd nullus extraneus Princeps Persona Praelatus Status aut Potentatus habet aut habere debet vllam iurisdictionem potestatem superioritatem praeeminentiaÌ„ vel authoritatem Ecclesiasticam siue spiritualem intra hoc Regnum c. I A. B. do publikely testify and in my conscience declare that the Kings Maiesty is the only supreme Gouernour of this Kingdome and of all other his Maiesties dominions and territories as well in all matters and causes spirituall or Ecclesiasticall as in temporall And that no forraine Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to haue any Iurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within this Kingdome c. The later Oath called of Allegiance beginneth thus Ego A. B. verè sincerè agnosco profiteor testificor declaro in conscientia mea coram Deo Mundo qùod supremus Dominus noster Rex Iacobus c. I A. B. do truly and sincerely acknowledg professe and testify in my conscience before God and the world that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames c. 5. Boâ—h these Oathes are set downe at large in his Maiesties Apology and in both of them his subiects are required publickely and openly to professe acknowledgeâ— that King Iames is the supreme Gouernour and Lord of all England not only in politicke and temporall matters but in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall also And that neither the Pope nor any other forrayner hath any power or Iurisdiction in or ouer the Church of â—ngland Againe the former of these Oathes was brought in by King Henry the 8. as his Maiesty confesseth in his Apology in these words Sub Henrico octauo primùm introductum est Iuramentum Primatus sub eoâ—ue Thomas Morus Rofâ—ensis supplico afâ—â—cti idque partim ob eam causam quòd Iuramâ—ntum illud recusarent Ab eo deinceps omnes mei Praedecessores quotquot sunt hanc Religionem amplexi idem sibi aut non multò secus asseruerunt c. The Oath of Primacy was first brought in vnder K. Henry the 8. vnder whome Syr Thomas More and the Bishop of Rocâ—ester were beheaded and that partly because they refused that Oath From him all my Predecessours downward as many as haue imbraced this Religion did retayne the same Oath or not much different vnto themselues c. Now the later Oath was inuented by K. Iames himselfe The second Poynt 6. The Question then is whether all
statuchatur vt si quae pâ—rsonae in Lâ—uitico non prohibitae solo consâ—nsu per verba de praesenti matrimonium nulla carnis copula subsecuta contraxerintâ—eae verò ambae postea vel earum altera nuptijs cum altera persona in Lâ—uitico non prohibita contractis caâ—nali copula easdâ—m consumma â—erint hae postâ—riores quas firmasset copula non priores illae quas solus consâ—nsus staâ—uâ—ssâ—t ratae atque legitimae haberâ—ntur adeo vt cùm olim iuris Gentium fuissâ—t Regula Nuptias non concubitus sed consensus facit â—am deinâ—â—ps Hâ—nrici râ—gula esse coeperit Nuptias non consenâ—us sed concubitus facit Et tamâ—n ipsâ— Legis-lator contra suam ipsius regulam vxorem Annam Cliuâ—nsâ—m cuius nuptias non solo consensu sed septâ—m etiam mensium concuâ—itu firmauâ—rat eo solùm praetextu râ—iccit iâ—saque viuâ—nte aliam superinduxit quòd altâ—ri nesâ—io cui consâ—nsum antea praebuisse finâ—â—râ—tur Huius ergo legis tantopâ—re postea puduit ipsos Protâ—stantâ—s vt mortuo Henrico eam ipsi râ—uocauerint atque irritam fâ—câ—rint c In these dayes the most vigilanâ— Pastor of the Church K. Hâ—nry that it might be knowne to posterity what woman were lawfully married to another enacted a perpetuall law concerning Marriage authorizing the same by publicke Decree of Parlament wherin it was ordaâ—ned that if any persons not prohibited in the Leuiticall law should contract marriage by only consent and by words de praesâ—nti no carnall copulation following the same and that the said persons or eyther of them â—hould afterward contraâ—t with another person not prohibited in the Leuiticall law consummâ—te the same by carnall copulation that then these later contractes which were consuÌ„mated by carnall copulation not the former that were agreed vpon by only consent should be accompted for good and lawfull In so much thaâ— wheras the rule of the law of Nations in old tyme was That consent not carnall copulation did make the marriage lawfull now heereafter by the law of K. Henry it began to be a rule That carnall copulation not consent did make marriage lawfull And yet for all this the law-maker himselfe K. Henry did against his owne proper rule and law reiect Anne of Cleeue his wife whose marriage was not only contracted by consent alone but consummated also by seauen moneths carnall copulation vpon this only pretence that she had giuen her consent to another before I know not whome and vpon this fiction he married another she yet remayning aliue And of this law afterward the Protestants themselues were so much ashamed that after K. Henryes death they recalled and disanulled the same c. 2. Concerning his Vicar Generall Cromwell thus wryteth also the said Doctor Sanders in the same booke Septembri mense authoritate sua Vicaria Canones quosdam Ecclesiasticos quos Iniunctiones vocabat sigillo Vicariatus sui munitos Archiepisâ—opis Episcopis Abbatibus reliquo Clero praescripsit in quibus praeter cetera iubeâ—antur Parochi sub grauissimis poenis vt Orationem Dominicam cum salutatione Angelica Symbolum item fidei decem Decalogi praecepta aliaque huiusmodi Anglicè in posterum in Ecclesijs docerent In the moneth of September K. Henryes Vicar Generall by the authority of his Office prescribed certayne Ecclesiasticall Canons which he called Iniunctions signed with the seale of his Office of Vicar-Generall to the Archbishops Bishops Abbots and the rest of the Clergy wherin amongâ—t other things the Pastors of Câ—urches were comâ—â—nded vnder most seuere punishmeÌ„t herafter to read in their Churches the Lords prayer the Aue Mary the Creed and ten Comaundements in English c. 3. Now our English Aduersaries that wryte in these daies of the Kings Supremacy do not agree in this point For that some of them say that the enacting of decreeing of Ecclesiasticall lawes doth by diuine right belong vnto Bishops others say that it belongeth to Kings and Emperours The first opinion holdeth M. Tooker pag. 42. of his booke where he saith that the Apostles in the first Councell at Hierusalem did enact this Ecclesiasticall law Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis nihil vltra imponere vobis oneris nisi haec necessaria vt abstineatis vos ab immolatis simulachrorum sanguine suffocato It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and to vs to lay no further burthen vpon you then these necessary things that you abstayne froÌ„ the things immolated to Idols and from bloud and that which is strangled c. And this saith he the Apostles did by diuine right The other opinion holdeth M. Tompson pag. 80. where he affirmeth that Bishops and Councels cannot enact or decree any Ecclesiasticall law which hath the force of law vnlesse Kings and Emperours consent therunto His words are these Decreta Conciliorum Patrum Ecclesiasticis Censuris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantùm stetissâ—nt nisi legum vim Caesarea aura ipsis afflasset The Decrees of the Councels and of the Fathers had bene held but only for Ecclesiasticall censures and penalties vnlesse the Emperours fauour had imparted the force of lawes vnto the said Decrees c. 4. Heere now the Iarre is euident For without doubt that Ecclesiasticall law which the Apostles decreed had the force of a law for that so much is gathered out of these words Visum est nihil vltra imponere vobis oneris nisi haec necessaria It hath seemed good to lay no further burthen vpon you then these necessary things c. But this Ecclesiasticall law had not it force from any fauour of the Emperor seing that neither Tyberius nor Pilate nor Herod nor any other fecular Prince which then liued did by his fauour authorize the force of the law but that it came from the Apostles themselues For that they by their Apostolicall authority and power which they had receiued from Christ did decree and promulgate that law And the same power authority haue Bishops now a dayes not Kings nor Emperours VIII Question vvhether the King by his owne proper authority may conferre collate or bestow Ecclesiasticall benefices 1. THAT the King may conferre Ecclesiasticall liuings M. Henry Salclebridge affirmeth pag. 121 in these wordes Christiani Principes in suis Râ—â—ni◠〈…〉 authoritate benâ—ficia contulâ—runt 〈…〉 in their owne Kingdomes by their owne proper authority haue giuen or bestowed benefices and that to their praise c. And then againe pag. 150. Audin Iâ—suita non modò collationes benâ—ficiorum ad Angliae Regâ—s spâ—câ—are sed ad eosdâ—m illos spectare vti Ecclesiae Anglicanae Primates vel supremos Ordinarios c. Do you heare Iesuite the collation of benefices doth not only belong to the Kings of England but also it doth belong vnto them as they are Primates or supreme Ordinaries of the Church of England c. And yet more Rex ratione supremae suae Ecclesiasticae iurisdictionis praesentabit ad liberas Capellas
the Kings subiects in England are bound in conscience to take both these Oathes as often as the King shall exact the same Or whether they should suffer imprisonments torments and death it selfe rather then sweare Concerning the former point the Catholikes doubt nothing for that they haue certainly and firmly determined rather to loose their liues together with the glorious Martyrs Syr Thomas More and the Bishop of Rochester then to adâ—it the Kings Primacy and abiure the Popes Now concerning the later Oath there hath byn some doubt made these yeares past For that some Catholikes who perceaued not the force and scope of that Oath did a little stagger at the beginning whether they might with a safe coÌ„science sweare therto or no. Which doubt of theirs notwithstanding did not last long but was soone taken away by Pope Paul the fifth and Cardinall Bellarmine For the Pope forthwith directed two Apostolicall Breues to the Catholikes of England and the said Card. wrote a letter to M. Blackwell then Archpriest of this affaire Both Pope and Cardinall do deny that the said Oath may be taken with a safe Conscience And their reason is this Because no man with a safe conscienceâ— can deny the Catholicke faith But he now who should take this Oath proposed by the King should deny the Catholicke faith though not generally yet in â—art so far forth as beloÌ„geth to some one article therof Ergo no man with a safe coÌ„science can take this Oath 7. This reason being very sound all good Catholicks admit but our aduersaries do not I in fauour and consolation of the Catholicks haue determined to adioyne heerunto two other reasons especially against the Oath of Supremacy which by the Aduersaries cannot be reiected The first is this No man is bound in CoÌ„science to sweare that which is eyther apparently false or at leastwise doubtfull But that the King is Primate and supreme head of the Church and for such to be obeyed not only in temporall but also in Ecclesiasticall matters is eyther apparently false or at leastwise doubtfull Ergo no man is bound in Conscience to sweare the same The Maior is euident of it selfe for that it is not lawfull to affirme any thing which is eyther false or doubtfull and much lesse to sweare the same The Minor is proued thus For that is it iudged apparently false aswell amongst the Caluinists as amongst the Catholicks that the King is Primate and supreme head of the Church But now amongst the Caluinists of England who adhere vnto the King the same is called into doubt For that some of them affirme others deny these points following 1. That the King is Primate of the Church 2. That he is supreme head of the Church 3. That he hath Ecclesiasticall Primacy ouer the Church 4. That he hath power iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall 5. That the K. by his owne proper Authority may assemble Councells or Synods and sit as chiefe Head or President therin 6. That he can confer benefices or Ecclesiasticall liuings 7. That he can create and depose Bishops 8. That he is Iudge in Controuersies of faith c. So as truly if these and the like points be doubtfull and vncertaine amongst those who adhere vnto and fauour the King seing that some deny them some affirme them it followeth necessarily that the Kings whole Primacy is an vncertaine thing What rashnes then and imprudency is it to go about to bynd Catholicks in their Consciences to sweare that which they themselues do affirme some of them to be false some others to be doubtfull 8. I will explicate more distinctly that which I haue said The Oath of the Kings Primacy doth contayne so many parts as there be or are thought to be Offices and functions of the Kings Primacy The offices then eyther are or are thought to be diuers as we haue seene before to wit to assemble Synods to enact and decree Ecclesiasticall lawes to conferre benefices to creâ—te Bishops to determine controuersies of faith and the like Therfore diuers are the parts of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy Of these parts then let vs take one of them by it selfe to wit this I A. B. do sweare in my conscience that I will be faithfull and obedient vnto the King as often or whensoeuer he shall by his owne proper authority create Bishops whom he will and againe depose from their office or dignity whome he will c. If this part only of the Kings Offices should be exacted of all his Maiesties subiects in England what do you thinke would be done Would all trow you yea they who most adhere now vnto the King sweare this Let them sweare that would M. Tooker I am sure if he be a constant man would not For that he denyeth the creation and deposition of Bishops to belong any way vnto the King And if so be that he who otherwise acknowledgeth the Kings Primacy at least in words would not sweare heerunto how then should Catholicks be compelled to do the same who doe in no wise acknowledge it And what I haue said concerning this point the same may be also said of the rest 9. My other reason is this King Iames doth often protest that he claymeth no more right or Inrisdiction ouer the Church then did the Kings in the old Testament in ancient times and therfore that this his Primacy must be contayned within the same lymits termes that theirs was in the old TestameÌ„t But the Kings in the old Testament could not compell their subiects to sweare such an Oath as this I A. B. do openly testiâ—ie and in my conscience declare that Ieroboam is the only supreme Gouernour of this Kingdome of Israel aswell in spirituall as temporall matters And that no forrayner hath any iurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority in this Kingdome c. Ergo neyther King Iames can inforce his subiects to take such a like Oath The Maior is manifest out of his Maiestyes owne words in his Apology The Minor I thus explicate After the death of King Salomon his Kingdome God so disposing was deuided into two parts wherof one conteyned ten Tribes the other two So as by this meanes they became two distinct Kingdomes afterwards therin raigned two distinct Kings one wherof had no dependance of the other in temporall gouerment One was called King of Israel the other King of Iuda and both of theÌ„ had successours in their kingdomes The first Kings that ruled after the diuision of the kingdome made were Ieroboam King of Israel Roboam King of Iuda In eyther kingdome were Priestes and Leuites But the high or Chiefe Priest could not reside in both Kingdomes but only in one and that ordinarily in Iuda yet notwithstanding he was Head of all the Priestes Leuites that remayned in both Kingdomes Neither could Ieroboam lawfully say vnto his Priests and Leuites You shall not obey the High Priest that resideth in the Kingdome of Iuda but you shall obey me
c. As soone as it was thought good to diuulge King Henryes death by and by Edward his sonne being of the age of nyne yeares was proclaymed King of England and ordayned supreme Head of the Church of England on earth next vnder Christ c. 3. Queene Elizabeth although she were a woman yet she thought her selfe no way inferiour to her Father or Brother She therfore would be also called supreme Head of the Church of England For so wryteth Iacobus Thuanus in his 15. booke of the Historyes of his time Elizabetha recepto à Patre fratre titulo Ecclesiae Caput per Angliam coepit appellari Q. Elizabeth hauing receaued the former Title from her Father Brother began to be called Head of the Church throughout England c. 4. But now adayes vnder K. Iames this title is put in ieopardy The Chaplaine to wit M. Doctor Andrewes doth admit the same in his Tortura Torti but M. Tooker and M. Burhill do reiect it M. Tookers words which a little before I recited are these Olere autem militiam clamitare audaciam tuam videtur illud cùm Regem Caput Ecclesiae Primatemque confingas It may seeme to sauour of malice and cry out vpon your sausines when as you feigne the King to be Head and Primate of the Church c. And in like manner doth M. Burhill pag 133. reprehend a certaine person of ouer much wantonnes and boldnes for calling the King Head Pastour and Primate of Bishops 5. In this debate and Iarre then what shall the King do If he admit the Title of Supreme head of the Church of England M. Tooker M. Burhill will no doubt murmure shrewdly If he reiect it what then will the Chaplaine say Perhaps this contention may be mollified if the King as he gaue to the Chaplayne the Bishopricke of Ely so he would giue to M. Tooker and M. Burhill two other Bishopricks For then least they might seeme vngratefull they would easily graunt this Title to the King and a far greater too V. Question VVhether the Kings Primacy do consist in any Power or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall HEERE now is there a great Iarre and debate amongst our English Aduersaries nor can the same be easily vnderstood vnlesse it be first well distinguished Ecclesiasticall Power is threefold as the Deuines do teach One of Order another of interiour Iurisdiction the third of exteriour Iurisdiction To the first belongeth to effect or consecrate and administer Sacraments to the second to gouerne the Church in the interiour Court or Court of Conscience and to the third belongeth to gouerne the Church in the exteriour Court Now certaine it is that the King hath not the Power of Order by reason of his Primacy For this doth M. Tooker confesse pag. 14. where he saith Reges non habent potestatem administrandi Sacramenta Kinges haue not power to administer Sacraments It is also certaine that he hath not Iurisdiction of the interiour Court or Court of Conscience For this in like manner doth M. Tooker confesse pag. 63. Omnis iurisdictio saith he in foro interiori Sacerdotum est nulla Regum All iurisdiction in the interiour Court or Court of Conscience belongeth to Priests not any way to Kings c. 2. All the question then is whether the King hath IurisdictioÌ„ Ecclesiastical in the exteriour Court or no About this point are the Englishmen at a great iarre and variance amongst themselues some affirming it some denying it others distinguishing M. Tooker affirmeth it pag. 305. in these words Qui habet plenissimam amâ—lissimam iurisdictionem in foro exteriore potest eamdem dare auferre Rex eam habet Ergo potest eamdem dare auferre Totum hoc liquet ex V. N. Testamento He that hath most full and ample Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court can giue and take away the same at his pleasure But the King hath this Iurisdiction Ergo he can giue and take away the same Al this is manifest out of the old new Testament c. With him agreeth also M. Salclebridge pag. 140. Reges oleo sacro vncti capaces sunt Iurisdictionis spiritualis Kings saith he annoynted with holy oyle are made capable of spirituall Iurisdiction c. And then againe in the same place out of the Lawes of England Râ—x saith he est persona mixta vrpote qui â—cclesiasticam temporalem iurisdictionem habet quidem Supremam The King is a person mixt to wit that hath both Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall and Temporall and that in the highest degree c. And yet more pag. 144. Per leges â—cclesiasticas in hoc Regno approbatas vnus Sacerdos duo benâ—ficia haâ—ere non potest nec Bastardus Sacris initiari Vâ—rùm Rex â—cclesiastica potestate iurisdictione quam habet in vtroque dispensare potest By the Ecclesiasticall Lawes approued in this Kingdome of â—ngland one Priest may not haue two Benefices nor a Bastard be made Priest But the King by the Iurisdiction and Power Ecclesiasticall which he hath can dispense in both c. 3. M. Tompson and M. Burhill do absolutely deny it M. Tompson pag. 80. of his booke wryting thus â—rimatus â—cclesâ—ae non est dâ—â—iniendus per iurisdictionâ—m Ecclesiasticam sed per gubernationâ—m suprâ—mam The Primacy of the Church is not to be defined by Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall but by supreme Gouerment c. And againe pag. 95. Diximus Regâ—m gubâ—rnarâ— quidâ—m Ecclesiasticaâ— sâ—d non Ecclesiasâ—iâ—è We haue said before that the King indeed doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically And why I pray you Because forsooth he hath not Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall but only temporall And hereunto agreeth M. Burhill pag. 234. granting this negatiue proposition Rex saith he nullam habet Iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam nec in foro interiori nec in exteriori The King hath no Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall neyther in the interiour nor exteriour Court c. 4. Now my Lord of Ely he distinguisheth in this case as may be seene in M. Tookers Booke pag. 305. in these wordes Habet Rex omnem iurisdictioneÌ„ spiritualem in foro exteriori exceptis quibusdam Censuris The King hath all Iurisdiction spirituall in the exteriour Court except in certaine Censures c. So as now to this question to wit whether the King as he is Primate and Head of the Church haue any Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall or spirituall in the exteriour Court we must answere thus First with M. Tooker and M. Salclebridge That he hath most ample most full and supreme Iurisdiction Secondly with my Lord of Ely That he hath indeed some but not all And lastly with M. Burhill and M. Tompson That he hath none no not any one iote at all VI. Question VVhether the King of his owne Authority can assemble or call togeather Councells 1. NOv follow the Iarres and debates of our Aduersaries concerning the Offices and Functions of the Kings Primacy they â—re six in number which may be
disputed of The first is of assembling or calling togeather of Synods The second of enacting of Ecclesiasticall lawes The third of coÌ„ferring or bestowing of benefices The fourth of creating deposing of Bishops The fifth is about Excommunication The sixt and last is about the decision and determining of Controuersies The question then is whether these offices belong to the Kings Primacy I will speake a word of ech in order 2. First it may be demaunded whether the King by vertue of his Primacy may of his owne authority call or assemble togeather Synods and therin sit as chiefe and head This was certainly persuaded that it might be done in the tyme of King Henry K. Edward and Queene Elizabeth but now vnder King Iames the matter is called into question M. Salclebridge pag. 121. affirmeth that he can do it in these words Christiani Principes in Regnis suis cum laude propria auctoritate Synodos conuocarunt Constitutiones condideruÌ„t causas audierunt cognouerunt Christian Princes haue with great praise assembled Synods by their owne authority in their Kingdomes haue made Constituâ—ions heard and examined causes c. And againe pag. 146. Rex Angliae potest Synodos indiâ—â—re omnium Ordinum Oecumeniâ—as in ijsdem praesidere The King of â—ngland saith he may asâ—embâ—e Generall Councells of all Orders or degrees and therin sit as President or Chiefe c. And pag. 155. he saith in like manner Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate de iure Synodos conuocarunt The Kings of â—ngland haue by thâ—ir owne supreme authority and by â—â—ght assâ—mbled Synods c. 3 Now M Toâ—ker in this poynt is very variable one while contradicting himselfe another while others And this is manifest out of the diuers testimonies he produceth The first is pag. 37. where he hath these words A quibus magis aequum est indici Conciliaâ— quà m ab illisâ— penes quos semper â—uit authoritas â—a congregandi Cùm autem communitâ—r triplex ponâ— soleat Concilium Generale Prouinciale Dioecâ—sanum Concilium Gâ—nâ—rale solius Papae iussu celebrari vultis sed neque illud nisi ab Impâ—ratoribus Regibus simul consentientâ—bus hodie indici debet Prouinciale à Metropolitaâ—o cum suis Suffragancis Dioecesanum ab Episcopo cum Curatisâ— Râ—ctoribus Clericis Dioeceseos c. By whome is it more fit that Councells should be assembled then by those in whose power hath alwayes authority byn to call them togeather For wheras commonly there be 3. sortes of Councells Generall Prouiâ—ciall of a particuler Diocesse the Generall Councell you will haue to be celebrated only by commandment of the Pope but yet not so neyther now a dayes vnlesse Emperors Kings do agree therunto also A Prouinciall Counâ—ell is to be assembled by the Metropolitan and his Suâ—fragans thâ—t of the Diocesse by the Bishop therof togeaâ—her with the Curates Rectoâ—s and Clarkes of â—he same Bishopricke c. Out of which testimony we may gatâ—er that the K. of England cannot assemble a Councell of his owne authority Not a geneâ—all because that belongeth to the common consent of Kings and Emperours Not a Prouinciall because that pertayneth to the Metropolitan Not of the Dâ—ocesse because that belongeth to the Bishop therof What then I pray you is left vnto the King 4. Another testimony heerof is out of the same M. â—ooker pag. 41. in these worâ—s Abundè liquet ex CoÌ„cilijs ipsis historia Ecclesiastica â—râ—uincialâ—a Concilia Nationalia ab Imperatoribus aâ— Regibus fuisse congregata It is abouÌ„dantly manifest out of the CouÌ„â—els themselues and the Ecclesiasticall Historyes that Prouinciall and Nationall Councels haue byn assembled by Emperours and Kings c. This now is plainely repugnant to his former testimony For there he affirmeth that Prouinciall Councells are to be assembled by the Metropolitans therof heere he saith â—hat they must be assembled by Kings and Emperours There is distinguished oâ—ly a threefould Councellâ— to wit Generall Prouinciallâ— â— and that of the Diocesse heere now is added a fourâ—h to wit Nationall 5. His third testimony is set downe pag. 42. where he propoâ—eth this question Quo igitur iure tantam sibi potestatâ—m arrogat Pontifâ—x solus Num diuino â—y what right then I pray you doth the Pope challenge vnto himselfe alone so great power Doth he do it by diuine right c. And a little after he addeth Erat Apostolorum omnium non vnius tantâ—mmodo indicere Concilium statuere cum verborum solennitate Visum est Spiritui sancto Nobis c. It belonged to all the Aposâ—les not to one alone to assemble a Councell and with solemnity of words to ordaine It seemes good vnto the Holy Ghost and Vs c. As if he would say That as by diuine right not S. Petâ—r alone but all the Apostles togeather with equall power did assemble the fiâ—st CouÌ„cell at Ierusalem therin decreed that law about eating of bloud and strangled meates so in like manner by diuine right not the Pope alone but all Bishops with equall power must assemble Councells and decree Ecclesiasticall lawes Surely if it be so then without doubt it followes that the power to call or assemble Councells doth not belong by the law of God to secular Kings and Princes but to the Apostles and their successâ—urs c. 6. His fourth testimony is pag. 63. where he saith Mixtum autâ—m ius râ—suitâ—ns â—x vtâ—oque iure Regio Episcopali est Legum sanctio Synodorum indictio praesâ—dendi in ijs praerâ—gatiuâ— controuâ—rsâ—aruÌ„ decisio aliorumque actuum qui his finitimi sunt exâ—rcitium quae fâ—rè ab origine Primaâ—us Râ—gij descâ—ndunt communicantur Sacâ—râ—otiâ—u c The decreing or enacting of Lawes the assembling of Synodes Prerogatiue of â—itâ—ing therin as chiefe or head as also the exercise of all other offices in this kind is a certaine mixt Right proceeding from both Kingly and Episcopall power which things do in a manner come downe or descend from the origen of the Kings Primacy and are communicated or in parted vnto Priests c. This now againe as you see is contrary to that which he said next before For there he will needs haue the assembly of Synods or Councels to belong by diuine right to the Apostles heere forsooth he will haue the same chiefely to belong to Kinges and from them to be deriued vnto Bishops These things do not agree one with another VII Question VVhether the King can enact Ecclesiasticall Lawes or no 1. IT is cleere that K. Henry the 8. did aswell by himselfe as by his Vicar Generall Cromwell enact Ecclesiasticall Lawes For so saith Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England His diâ—bus vigilantissimus hic Ecclesiae Pastor Henriâ—us quo in posterum sciretur quae cui rite nupta esset legem ediderat perpetuam de Nuptijs Comitiorâ—m etiam auctoritate â—onfirmatam qua