Egypt And hee put one of them in Bethel and the other in Dan. Also hee made a house of the high places and made bim Priests of the lowest of the people vvho were not of the sonnes of Leui. And Ieroboam made a feast in the fifteenth day of the eight Moneth like vnto the feast that is in Iudah and sacrificed on the Altar So did hee in Bethel and offered vnto the Calues that hee had made And hee constituted in Bethel the Priests of the high places which hee had made And you may read in the 13. chapter That beeing rebuked by a Prophet for this matter yet hee departed not from his euill way but turned himselfe and made him Priests of the high places de saece populi of the dregs of the people and vvhosoeuer pleased him hee consecrated him and made him a Priest of the high places And againe 2. Chron. II. chap. 13. verse And the Priests and the Leuites that vvere in all Israel resorted to him out of all their coasts meaning Roboam the sonne of Salomon For the Leuites left their suburbs their possessions and came to Iudah and to Ierusalem for Ieroboam and his sonnes had cast them out from ministring in the Priests office before the Lord. But thus writeth the King and his learned Interpretour the Bishoppe of Ely in Tort. Tort. pag. 381. Quodcunque in rebus religionis reges Israel fecerunt nec sine laude fecerunt id vt et Regi Iacobo faciendi ius sit atque potestas Whatsoeuer the Kings of Israel did vvith commendation in the maters of Religion the same power and iurisdiction now hath King Iames. Let this therefore be the Proposition or first part of the second reason which Becane himselfe acknowledgeth in his Refuration cap. 8. pag. 124 and then I will assume the Minor But the Kings of Israel not without commendation by their royall authoritie in matters of Religion 1. Haue enacted lawes 2. Delegated of their subiects to iudge of such lawes 3. Haue bound all their subiects both Clergie men and Lay-men by oath of Allegiance 4. Haue pumshed the transgressors of such lawes 5. Haue called assemblies or Councells 6. Haue ruled all estates as the Heads of the Tribe of Leui as vvell as of the other Tribes and vvere as much Kings of the Clergie as of the Laitie 7. If any Abiathar or High Priest vvexed proud they bridled him by their censure and if there were cause deposed Abiathar from the High Priesthood 8. They abolished all strange worship as when they razed the high places brake in peeces the golden Calues and the brasen Serpent c. To conclude they gaue order for things indifferent which appertained to the outward splendour comlinesse of the house of G O D And by their authoritie cut off idle and curious questions in religion vvhich were wont to be the mother and breeder of schismes as the Scriptures expresly witnesse whereof you may read in Tort. Torti pag. 381.382 Therefore I will conclude that King Iames hath the same power and iurisdiction and therfore may binde his subiects by an oath I A. B. doe openly testifie and declare in my conscience that King Iames is the oneliâ— supreme Gouernour of this Realme and of this Church of England c. as was Dauid and Salomon of the Church of Israel and Asa Ezekias and Iosias of the Church of Iuda and that no forrainer hath or ought to haue any iurisdiction power c. within this Kingdome as they had none in Iuda and so may lawfully say to the Priests subiects Obey not the high Priest which dwelleth in any forraine kingdome but obey me alone as the onely supreme Gouernour of this Church You are all exempt from his power and iurisdiction For so Dauid Salomon Asa Ezekias and Iosias might lawfully commaund their Priests Leuits and therefore so may King Iames commaund his Clergie These things thou maiest perceiue learned Reader are collected out of the pure fountaines of sacred Scriptures and so conclude our cause solidly and beyond all exception But Becane his Sillogisme is a monstor in Logick running vpon some feet yet halteth For King Iames speaketh of godly religious Kings and not schismaticall either of all Israel or onely of Iuda and of their Ecclesiasticall gouernment the very patterne and exemplary primacy commended vnto Christian Kings in the Scriptures But Martin the Sophister that is the Iesuit assumeth impious schismaticall Kings of Israel rent from Iuda among whoÌ„ neuer any one is remembred in scripture to haue handled Ecclesiasticall matters with commendation And heere I intreat the ingenuous Reader to obserue the Iesuiticall and serpentine subtilty of Becane who to decciue his Catholiques passeth by all the godly Kings of Iuda and onely bringeth Ieroboam on the stâ—ge a schismaticall King the first head of that iniquitic and the ring-leader of all them that are branded with notes of infamy in the holy booke as 1. King 15.29 And Baasa strooke all the house of Icroboam hee left no soule aliue because of the sinnes where-with Icroboam sinned and made Israel to sinne And 2. Chron. 13.5 Ought you not to know that the Lord God of israel hath giuen the Kingdome ouer Israel to Dauid for euer euen to him and to his sonnes by a Couenant of Salt And Icroboam the sonne of Nebat the seruant of Salomon the sonne of Dauid is risen vp and bath rebelled against his Lord c. Loe this is that most impious rebellious and schismaticall Ieroboam vvhich must comfort and confirme the Romish Catholiques But seeing our Iesuit is conuersant among schismes and schismatiques let him assume and make his instance those three Antipopes who troubled the world about the time of the Councel of Constance Or let him take any one of them and tell me 1. Who was then the Primate of the Church 2. Who was then the supreme head of the Church 3. Who had then the Ecclesiasticall Primacy 4. Who did then exercise the supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction 5. Who could then by his owne authority call a generall Councell and sit therein President 6. Who had power to conserre that fat benefice of the Papacy it selfe 7. Who could then create Popes and depose the Antipopes 8. Who was then the supreme Iudge of all Controuersies especially of papall or popish questions But I will yet presse the Iesuit more necrely What if the French so called Catholique Church should create to it selfe a Patriarch leaue the See of Rome seeing the Pope Paul the fist claimeth temporall iurisdiction ouer the King of Fraunce What if other Kings both Protestants all those which call themselues Catholiques seeing the Pope claimeth iurisdiction ouer all in a common cause that so much concerneth their Crownes and royall dignities should ioyne hands and harts and establish a Patriarch in their seuerall Kingdoms who should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take and exercise the same iurisdiction that the old Roman Patriarch had did
to haue Primacy Episcopall But the first is true according to Becane viz. That the deny as Becane meaneth and Becane meaneth that the King vsurpeth Primacy Episcopall Therefore the later is true also viz That Dr. Tooker and Mr. Burhill denying the King to be Primate or to haue the Primacy deny him to be Primate or to haue Primacy Episcopall as all Protestants doe So that here is among vs all a full and settled Concord and the Iesuites Iarre as empty chaffe is blowen cleane away ⧠Becans Iarre IIII. Question Whether the King by reason of his Primacy may be called Head of the Church THis Title first began to be vsurped of King Henry the 8. as all Authors aswell our owne as our aduersaries do testifie For thus writeth Iacobus Thuanus in his first booke of the Histories of his times Henricus post diuonium se Caput Ecclesiae constituit K. Henry after his diuorce from Q. Katherine made himselfe Head of the Church c. And Polydor Virgil lib. 27. of his History of England saith Interea habetur Concilium Londini in quo Ecclesia Anglicana formam potestatis nullis ante temporibusvisam induit Henricus enim Rex Caputipsius Ecclesiae constituitur In the meane while to wit after his foresaid diuorce a Councell was held at London wherein the Church of England tooke to it selfe a forme of power neuer heard of before For that King Henry was appointed Head of the same Church c. Genebrard also in the fourth books of his Chronologic hath these words Henrieusanno 1534. in publicis Comitijs se caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae appellauit King Henry in the yeare of our Lord 1534. in publike Parliament called himselfe Head of the Church of England c. Also Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England saith Exquâ— licendiformula primam occasionem sumptamatunt vt Rex Supremum Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae diceretur By which manner of speech it is said the first occasion was taken of calling the King supreme Head of the Church of England c. And againe in the same booke Proponebantur eis noua Comitiorum Decreta iubebantur iureiurando affirmare Regem Supremum Ecclesiae esse Caput The new Lawes or Statutes of the Parliament were propounded vnto them to wit to the Kings subiects and they were commanded to sweare that the King was head of the Church c. Iohn Caluin in like manner vpon the 7. Chapter of the Prophet Amos writeth thus Qui tantopere extulerunt Henricum Regem Angliae certè fuerunt homines inconsiderati Dederunt enim illi summam rerum omnium potestatem hoc me grauiter semper vulnerauit Erant enim blasphemi cùm vocarent eum summum Caput Ecclesiae sub Christo Those who so greatly did extoll K. Henry of England were men voide of consideration For they gane vnto him the chiefe power of all things and this point did euer gall me grieuously For that they were blasphemers vvhen they called him the chiefe Head of the Church vnder Christ c. 2. The same Title did K. Edward Sonne to King Henry and his Successour vsurpe as it may be seene by his Letters to Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury which begin thus Edouardus Dei gratia Angliae Franciae Hyberniae Rex supremum in terris Ecclesiae Anglicanae Hybernicae taÌ„m causis spiritalibus quà m teÌ„poralibus Caput Reuerendo Thomae Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo saluteÌ„ Edward by the Grace of God K. of England France Ireland supreme Head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland as well in Causes Ecclesiasticall as temporall to the Reuerend Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury greeting c. The same Title also did Bishop Cranmer giue vnto the said King as appeareth by his letters written to other Bishops subiect vnto him thus Thomas permissione diuina Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus per Illustrisimum in Christo Principem Edouardum Regem sextum supremum in terris Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae Hybernicae sufficienter legitimè authorizatus Tibi Edmundo Londinensi Episcopo omnibus fratribus Coepiscopis vice nomine Regiae Maiestatis quibus in hac parte sungimur mandamus vt Imagines ex Ecclesijs cuiusque dioecesis tollantur c. We Thomas by Gods permission Archbishop of Canterbury being sufficiently and lawfully authorized by our most gratâ—ous Prince in Christ King Edward the 〈◊〉 supreme Head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland do in his Maiesties Name and place which berein we supply command von Edmund Bishop of London and all the rest of our Brethren Bishops that Imaves be taken out of the Churches of euery Diccesset c. And Doctor Sanders also in his booke of the Schisme of England saith thus Quamprimum visum est Henrici octaui mortem diuulgare statim Edonardus Henrich filius nonum aetatis annum agens Rex Angliae proclamatur sumurn Ecclesiae Anglicanae in terris Caput proximè secundum Christum constitutel it c. As score as it was thought good to diuulge King Henries death by and by Edward his sonne being of the age of nine yeares was proclaymed King of England and ordained 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 Shee therefore would be also called supreme Head of the Church of England For so writeth Iacobus Thuanus in his 15. booke of the Histories of his time Elizabetha recep to à Patre fratre titulo Ecclesiae Caputper Angliam coepitappellati Queene Elizabeth hauing receiued the former Title from her Father Brether began to be called Head of the Church throughout England c. 4. But now aduyes vnder K. Iames this title is put in Repardie 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 malitiam clamitare audaciam tuam videturillud cum Regem Caput Ecclesiae Primatemque confingas It may seems to sauour of malice and try out upon 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 want onnes and boldnes for calling the King Head Pastour and Primate of Bishops 5. In his debate and Iarre then what shall the King do If he admit the Title of Supreme Head of the Church of England M. Tooker and M. Burhill will no doubt murmure streadly If he rerect it what then will the Chaplaine say Perhaps this contention may be mollified if the King as he gaue to the Chaplaine the Bishopricke of Ely so he would giue to M. Tooker and M. Burhill two other Bishopricks For then least they might seeme ungratefull they would easily grant this Title to the
matter Ridiculously because vvhen as in the sixt of the Decretalls are found these vvordes Extrauag Cum inter de verborum significatione you out of meere ignorance and sluggishnesse sette downe these vvords Extrauag Cum inter Page 22. What is Iohn and Page all one with you Truelie children cannot be more foolish in citing then thus Vnlesse you profit better the Doctours of the Canon law vvill neuer admit you to the degree of a Batchelour Dr. HARRIS Reply EXcuse mee Christian Reader vttering the truth of this scornefull Iesuite in more tart manner here and there than otherwise is vsuall with me or fits my disposition If euer there were or be an ignorant slug trifling lie friuolous boyish lie scurrilous a lying forsooth Father Iesuite this Becane is one among such may bear the bell as I wil make it appeare before I dismisse him His boyish scurrilities are two In the former hee asketh whether Iohn and Page be all one with mee A question fitter to be made by a Petite school-boy to his fellow then by a Father Iesuite to an ancient Diuine In the second hee would cut-off all my hope to attaine the degree of Batchelour The Iesuite may knowe that I am a Doctour in Diuinity of 19. yeares standing it may bee as ancient Doctour as himselfe Howsoeuer that I dare boldly auerre this that Becane in comparison of Doctour Harris is in manner but an Abecedary scholler in the varietie of all good literature diuine and humane in all the liberall sciences and in all the learned tongues as he shal find to his shame if therein hee dare grapple with mee I must confesse and say with Saint Paul I vvas a foole to boast my selfe But the scurrilous disgracings of this seelie Iesuite haue enforced mee As his scurrilities so his lies are also two The former That I cited out of the Chapter Cuminter nonnullos Pag. 22. whereas in my paper book it was cited thus in short Extrauag 22. ca. Cum inter nonnullos But the transcriber corrector or compositor put-in Page And is not this a boyish feather for the boyish father-Iesuite to play withall As though such ouersights in printing are not vsuall This Iesuite himselfe Exam. pag. 98. will haue an escape of farre greater moment to passe in the printed books of Tertullian against Praxeas His second vntruth is That I cited it so falsly not of ouersight but of meere ignorance and dulnesse Alas for this feely ignorant and here impudently lying Iesuite vnto whom vpon pawne of all my books I will vndertake and performe it to read Lectures out of the Canon law in the studie whereof I haue spent more weeks yea moneths then this Iesuite hath bestowed houres His extreame ignorance in the Canon law is made Here apparant in these 3 points following First in that he confoundeth the 6. book of the Decretals with the Extrauagants whereas they are distinct parts of the Canon law which law is diuided into these 6. generall parts 1. The Decrees gathered by Gratian. 2. The Decretals compiled by Gregory 9. 3. The Sixt of the Decretals made by Boniface 8. 4. The Clementines by Pope Clement the fist 5. The Extrauagants of Iohn 22. 6. The Extrauagants common made by diuers Romane Bishops after the Sixt of the Decretals The second point of his ignorance is in confounding cap. Cum inter with cap. Cum inter nonnullos viz. as like as an apple is to an oyster The third point who in his ignorance is apparant is in citing thus Extrauag Cum inter Ioan. 22. Deverborum significatione When as the Canon or chapt Cum inter is to be found neither in that Title Deverborum significatione nor in all the Extrauagants of Ioan. 22. Now therfore the Iesuit is to answere mee to those fine questions touching the three points of his verie grosle ignorance in the Canon law heere manifested 1 Whether the Decretalls Extrauagants be all one with him 2 Whether Boniface and Iohn be all one with him 3 Whether 8. and 22. be all one 4 Whether cap. Inter. and cap. Inter nonnullos be all one 5 Whether a chapter of a Title extant and a chapter of the same Title not extant be all one with him And then let the indifferent Readr iudge whether any child could be more foolish in citing than he and how vndeseruedly he obtained his degree of Doctorship The truth is that place viz. Extrauag Ioan. 22. cap. Inter nonnullos in gloss was cited by mee to shew that Kings receiue their power non simply of the Pope but more then so viz. of the Romish Bishop as of Their Lord God the Pope The Iesuit Eudaemon Ioannes writing in defence of the Iesuit-traytor Garnet saith he could not find in any printed booke of Extra Ioan. 22. those words Our Lord God the Pope Yet afterwards finding those verie words he ingenuously confessed the same I knowe not neither doe I much care whether Becane haue like ingenuitie in him but sure I am these verie words are in that Gloss Printed in folio at Paris Auno 1513. Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam conditorem dicti decreti non potuisse statuere proat statuit hareticum censeretur To belieue that our Lord God the Popo c. Is not this pretie heathenish blaspnemie The heathen called their Emperour Our Lord God Domitian The Papists call their Primar Our Lord God the Pope English Concord BEcane in his Iarre and sixt Question demaunded Whether the King by his Primacie may call CouÌ„cells and presede in them And I in my sixt Question demaund Whether the Pope by his Primacie may call Councells and prese de in them I instanced in two generall Councells the one of Constance wherein three Popes Iohn 24. Gregory 12. and Benedict 13. were deposed The other of Basil in which Pope Eugen. 4. was depriued of his Popedom and another chosen in his roome But this the Iesuit silently passeth ouer though it may happely rend the Popes hart-strings in-sunder English Concord Becane in his Iarre and 7 Question demanded Whether the King can make Ecclesiasticall lawes And I in my Concord 7 Question demand Whether the Pope can make lawes Ecclesiasticall disannull lawes Temporall Heerein I produced 4 Ecclesiasticall lawes against the Pope and his Primacy The first Dist 99. ca. Primae That the Bishop of the first Sea or Seat be not called Prince of Priests or high Priest or any such like but onely The Bishoppe of the first Sea neither let the Bishop of Rome himselfe be called Vniuers all Bishop The second Cyprian in Concâ—lio Carthagi Concil CoÌ„stantin 6. cap. 36. Concil Afric ca â—2 That no Bishop should make himselfe Bishop of Bishops or Papa that is Pater Patrum The third That the Bishop of Constantinople should haue equall authority with the Bishop of Rome The fourth That they should not be receiued to the CoÌ„munion of any within Africk who held Appeales lawful to any Iudgements beyond
embraceth it as orthodoxall Heere first the minor is false for Tooker denieth that the King can create and depose Bisoops for hee saith that the institution and destitntion of inseriour Priests belongs to Bishoppes and not to Kings therefore the King hath not solidly proued it Secondly it may thus bee returned All Academichs willingly approur all things soundly prooued by the King But the King hath soundlie prooued the Pope to be Antichrist Therefore the English Academicks willingly erâ—braec it as orthodoxall The consequenâ—â— is faise For Powell verily belioueth that the Pope is Antichrist and the King is nor cortaine of it The Syllogisticall form is goods therefore one of the premisses is false Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere haue we the picture of a very vnlearned Iesuit whose lineaments are drawn with his owne pensill and which is depainted with his owne liuely colours First ignorantly hee confoundeth as one a single narration with a double ratiocination and the institution and destitution of inferior Priests with the creation and deposition of Bishops Secondly he answereth two Syllogismes and those produced from his owne forge onely with denying the conclusions of both Thirdly he reasoneth from one indiuiduall Doctor Tooker to all our Vniuersitie Academicks Lastlie hee brings in Maister Powell disallowing that which hee chiefely approueth The single natration set downe in the English Concord was thus Doctor Tooker reading and well approuing his Maiesties solidarguments especially that from exemplary act of Salomon commended in Scriptures viz. in deposing Abiathar and placing Zadock chiefe Priests was so farre from denying the power of Kings to depose Bishops that he grounding himselfe vpon the said act of Solomon concluded with the King and Hainric That Emperours may lawfully depose Popes and so made vp the harmony of all good concord heerein The Iesuit transformeth this single narration into a double Syllogisme the former thus All which the King hath soundly prooued Tooker doth not deny but embrace as orthodoxall But that Kings may depose Bishoppes the King hath soundly proued Therefore Doctor Tooker doth not deny that Kings may depose Bishoppes To this hee answereth thus Doctor Tooker denyeth that Kings may depose Bishops therefore the King hath not solidly prooued it Then briefely and plainly his aunswer heere vnto is thus The conclusion of this syllogisme is false Therefore the minor is false Which answer proceedeth from extreame ignorance in the very principle of Logick But how proues hee for hee dare not be Respondent heere the conclusion to be false Because Doctor Tooker denieth the institution and destitution of inferiour Priests to belong to Kings as beeing proper to Bishops As though inferiour Priests and Bishops were all one As though institution and destitution of Priests were all one with election deposition of Bishops or Popes One Bishop may institute and destitute an hundred Priests but one hundred Bishoppes cannot choose or depose one Bishoppe especially an Archbishoppe or Pope Heere are some lineaments liuely colours of this Iesuits grosse ignorance moe are to be seene in the second Syllogisme following thus All things soundly prooued by the King all English Academicks approoue That the Pope is Antichrist was soundly proued by the King therefore all English Academicks allow as orthodoxall the Pope to be Antichrist To this hee answereth thus The conclusion is false and the forme good therefore the maior or minor is false It skilleth not whether so that one of them be false What is this else but to his vtter shame to display his intolerable ignorance to the world and to expose it as ludibrious to the meanest Academick Sophisters who should be well lashr or iustly exploded if they would aunswere right formed syllogismes by denying the conclusions But how doth this Iesuit proue this later conclusion to be false Because Gabriell Powell belieueth this doctrine viz. that the Pope is Antichrist which the King hath soundly prooued to be orthodoxall Wherein behold the strange blockishnes of this Iesuit who should haue instauced in one Academick denying that which the King had soundly proued viz. the Pope to be Antichrist but hee brings in Maister Powell allowing with all his 〈◊〉 what the King therein had soundly proued Moreouer if the King did not prooue soundlie the Pope to be Antichrist then the Iesuit takes away the suppositum and so she weth himselfe to be a frivolous Disputer If the King did solidly proue the Pope to be Antichrist why should not Maister Powell belieue it as orthodoxall The Iesuit saith The King doth not hold it as certaine Reply first that is nor ad idem it is no aunswere to the Syllogisme many part thereof Secondly though his Maiestie doth not hold those arguments so certain which 〈◊〉 from that mysticall booke of the Reuelation 〈◊〉 his Maiestie solidly evinceth the same from other places of holy Writ the meaning whereof is more certaine cleare and euident Thirdly Saint Paul teacheth the Iesuit that the spirits of the Prophets are subiect to the Prophers That the Lord reuealeth some things to one which he doth not to another To conclude this straine the Iesuits maior proposition of this later syllogisme doth manifest the great store of ignorance in him arguing a general of all English Academicks from the individuall Dr. Tooker BECAN Exam. Pag. 184 THe second argument Tooker asserteth the King of England to haue the primacie of the Church Therefore he confesseth that he may depose Bishops The consequence is not good with you for some of you asserting the Primacy dony the power of deposing Bishops Yoâ— take that ai granted vvhich should be prooned What is this but to begge that vvhich is questioned Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere also the ignorance of this Iesuit sillily mistaketh the meaning of the English Concord in this point Becan out of Doctor Tooker asserting the King to be a foster-child and disciple of the Bishops doth conclude that therefore Doctor Tooker denied the Kings power to rule or depose Bishops The English Concord to proue the weakenes of that consequence shewed out of Doctor Tooker that thogh Kings were not Bishops but subiect vnto them in regand of their Episcopall duties as in hearing the word preached by them in receiuing of the Sacraments administred by them yet in respect of supreame Ecclesiasticall government they were rulers ouer Bishope and might depose them As King Edward the sine did who though he disclaimed Episcopall function yet he claimed and vsed the primacy But let the argument runne from the primacie of Kings to conclude their power to depose Bishops I say it holdeth good considering that all Papists make the power of deposing Bishops a part of the primacie And that not one English Protestant Writer ascribing the primacie to the King denieth him the power to depose Bishops Heere is then no begging of that in question but a solid putting that out of question which is contrauersed and soundly concluding the power of Kings to depose Bishops BECAN Exam. Pag. 185 YOur
our Kings much lesse of the King himself many yeares before King Henry the eight was borne were of no force by the common lawes of England as is manifested by Hainric in Becano Baculus Where also he hath taught you out of the same lawes that the King of England is the supreme Ordinary of his Kingdome On as it is in the oath of Supremacy The onelie supreme Gouernour of the Church of England And yet wee doubt not but he may besuspended from the Eucharist by a Bishop to whom hee himselfe hath committed Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction as Theodosius was by Ambrose that is by resnsall to giue him the holy CoÌ„munion but not in any iudiciall or coÌ„sistorian form of citation appearance and sentence to be cast out of the Church The Iesuit is deeply deceiued if he imagine that the action of Ambrose was solemne and canonicall or that it was excommunication in a strict and proper sense which thing I will when need requireth convince by many solid arguments And in the meane season let him shew mee whether Theodosius was canonically cited vnto the consistory of Ambrose or whether the Emperour did answere for himselfe either in person or by his Proctor Or whether the sentence of excommunication was pronounced vpon the Tribunall of the Bishop Or whether it were canonically denounced in the open Church before hee was forbidden to enter into the Temple And againe by whose commaundement and by what example did Saint Ambrose alone without his fellow Elders or the counsell of other Bishops excommunicate the Emperour of so many kingdoms espceially seeing Ambrose was neither Pope nor Patriatch And let the Iesuit giue some good cause why Ambrose should â—am â—â—e vpon so humble and godly an emperour by his excommunicating him who erred onely in one fact and not once blame or touch Constantius a most proud godlesse and hereticall Arian Lastly whether it were the custome at Millan to excommunicate all murtherers or else Theodosius had wrong for Iassure you murtherers are not excommunicated in England and I thinke very few are so censured at Mentz where Becane liueth BECAN Exam. Pag. 191 YOu aunswere that heere is no Iarre because all your Writers vniformly agree in this That the King cannot excommunicate But heere is the greatest Iarre Because all English Writers who confesse it doe manifestly differ from themseluss as these three Arguments proue First Whosoeuer hath all mannet supreme most ample full Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical in any Kingdome he may exercise all acts vvhich pertaine to IurisdioÌ„tion Ecclesiasticall in that kingdome And so be may excommunicate to wit by a power vndependant of any man such as the Pope hath the rest hauing it from him who may giue it to them and take it away Enen as the King who hauing supreme most ample Iurisdiction ciuill in his kingdome may exercise allciuill acts of that Iurisdiction in his kingdome But the Writer's assert the Kings all manner supreme most ample and full iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall Therefore they assert the Kings power to excommunicate Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere is but an idlerepetition of the selfe same Argument which the English Concord had answered before by denying his maior Proposition Which deniall was grounded vpon the testimony of Saint Augustine whereunto this Iesuit answereth not one word The substance whereof vvas this That attacts of Ecclesiasticall gouernment and onely all those acts which the King alone may doe as King belong vnto him but Excommunication belongs to euery Archdeacon therefore that belongs not to the King The Iesuit beeing put vnto his shifts hath fansied this new starting hole viz. That power vndependant of any other to excommunicate is proper onely and to euery supreme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall Therfore if the King be supreme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall hee hath that vndependant power to excommunicate Whereunto Ireply first that no Scripture no nor ancient Father for the space of 600. years after Christ doth assert this vndependant power of excommunicating to belong to the supreme gouernment Ecclesiasticall Secondly that the ancient Fathers deny this vndependant excommunicating power to belong to Peter much lesse to the Pope but with one vniforme consent dogmatize according to the Scriptures that all the Apostles receiued from Christ immediatly not from Peter power to excommunicate equall vvith Peter Thirdly that the very principall Schoolemen as Peter Lombard the Maister of the Sentences Thomas Aquine the Doctor Angelicall Alexander Ales the Doctorirrefragable and Iohn Scot the subrle Doctor deny the same First they all foure define the keyes by the power to open and shut to binde and loose See Lombard Sent. l. 4. dist 18. et 19. Alexander SuÌ„ma Theolog. part 4. q. 20. memb 2. et 5. Aquin as in Sent. l. 4. dist 13 q. 1. art 1. Scot. in Sent. l. 4. dist 19. art 5. Secondly Alexander in Summa p. 4. q. 20. memb 5. et 6. Tho in 4. Sent. dist 24. q. 3. art 2. Scot. in Sent. l. 4. dist 19. art 1. affirme that the keyes promised to Peter in the 16. chap. of Mathew were giuen to the Apostles in the 20. chap. of Iohn Fourthly Bellarmine himselfe denieth this vndependant power of excommunicating to be proper to Peter and proueth by foure sound arguments the said power to be common to all the Apostles thus de Ro. Pontif. l. 4. cap. 23. That the Apostles receiued immediatly froÌ„ Christ their Iurisdiction First by these words of our Lord Iohn 20. As my Father sent mee so send I you Which place the Fathers Chrysostome Theophylact so expound that they say plainly The Apostles by those words were made the Vicars of Christ yea and receiued the very office and authority of Christ Cyrill vpon this place addeth that The Apostles by these words were properly created Apostles and Teachers of the whole vvorld And that wee should vnderstand stand that all power Ecclesiasticall is contayned in authoritie Apostolicall therefore Christ addeth As my Father sent mee seeing that the Father sent his Sonne endued with chiefest or highest power Cyprian in his booke of the vnity of the Church saith The Lord speaketh to Peter I vvill giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen and after his resurrection said to him Feed my Sheepe And although after his resurrection he gaue to all the Apostles equall power and said As my Father sent mee so I send you yet to manifest vnitie hee constituted one chayre Where you see the same to be giuen to the Apostles by those words I send you which was promised to Peter by that I will giue thee the keyes and after exhibited by that Feed my sheepe Now it is manifest that by those words I will giue thee the keyes and by that Feed my sheepe is vnderstood the most full euen exteriour Iurisdiction Secondly the election of Matthias vnto the Apostleship sheweth the same For we read Acts. I. that Matthias was not chosen by the Apostles nor any authoritie giuen vnto him but that his election being craued and