THE ENGLISH IARRE OR DISAGREEMENT AMONGST the Ministers of great Brittaine CONCERNING the KINGES Supremacy VVritten in Latin by the Reuerend Father F. MARTINVS BECANVS of the Society of IESVS AND Professour in Diuinity And translated into English by I. W. P. ¶ Imprinted Anno M. DC XII THE PREFACE TO the Catholikes of England GOD saue you Right HONOVRABLE and most worthy Champions Giue me leaue awhile to interrupt your patience And if it be not troublesome vnto you heare me a word or two I will not hould you long Two yeares agoe I wrote two little bookes concerning the Kings Primacy the one against the Apology and Preface Monitory of the High and Mighty Prince Iames King of Great-Brittaine the other against the Torture of Tortus or the Kings Chaplayne This thing your Academickes tooke heauily and preseÌ„tly waged warre against me in their Kings quarrell especially M. VVilliam Tooker M. Richard Tompson M. Robert Burhill and M. Henry Salclebridge Yet for all this I do not fly or feare Nay there be many reasons which make me more couragious First the equity of the Cause Then your Faith and Constancy And lastly the Iarres and deadly Discords of my Aduersaryes one against another Concerning the right of the Cause which I am to defend what need I say any thing I am to fight for the Church of Christ for the honour and Obedience of Prelates and for the example and custome of my Forefathers And heerin shall I feare any man Hath not your faith and constancy which is testified to the whole world by your daily imprisonments fetters punishmeÌ„ts yea death it self suffered for Christ already shakeÌ„ off my drowsinesse Whome would it not animate and spurre forwards seing that in this case I may with good reasoÌ„ apply that saying of the Apostle vnto you Spectaculum facti estis Deo Angelis Hominibus you are made a spectacle to God Angels and Men To God who behouldeth your Combats giueth you strengh to get the victory and prepareth a Crowne for your Triumph To Angells who admire that liuing in this frayle flesh you do not feare the mighty powers of Hell and withall reioyce that so valiant Champions are coÌ„mitted to their charge You are made a spectacle to men who throughout the whole world are wonderfully incensed and styrred vp by your example vertue and patience to vndergoe the like combats and conflicts for Christ. Besides this the disagreements and iarrings of my Aduersaries amongst theÌ„selues are so many and their forces so scattered disordered that I do not esteeme them to be greatly feared If perhaps you know not these their discords heere I offer and dedicate this little Booke vnto you wherin it is particulerly shewed in what points they disagree If your leasure serue you read it and hope well of the issue In the meane while I will prepare my selfe to the Combat and when it is tyme I shall intreat you to be the Spectators Fare ye well and take in good part I beseech you this mâ— Interpellation From Mentz this moneth of Nouember 1611. Your most louing friend Martin Becanus THE ENGLISH IARRE CONCERNING the Kings Supremacy THE Kinges Supremacy in the Church of England is a new thing It began vnder King Henry the 8. continued vnder King Edward the 6. and Queene Elizabeth and now vnder King Iames the same is rent and torne in peeces with so many domesticall iarres and diuisions that long it cannot stand So as Christ in the Ghospell said full well Omne regnum in se diuisum desolabitur Euery Kingdome deuided in it selfe shal be destroyed But what and how great these discords be I will shew in these few questions following I. VVhether the King of England haue any Primacy in the Church or no II. VVhether the Primacy of the King be Ecclesiasticall and spirituall III. VVhether the King by this Primacy may be called the Primate of the Church IIII. VVhether by vertue of the same Primacy the K. may be called Supreme Head of the Church V. VVhether this Primacy consist in any Power or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall VI. VVhether the King by reason of his Primacy can assemble or call togeather Councels and sit as President therin VII VVhether he can make Ecclesiasticall Lawes VIII VVhether he can dispose of Ecclesiasticall liuings or Benefices IX VVhether he can create and depose Bishops X. VVhether he can excommunicate the obstinate XI VVhether he can be Iudge and determine of Controuersies XII From whence hath the King this his Primacy XIII VVhether he can force his Subiects to take the Oath of Supremacy In these QuestioÌ„s do our Aduersaries extremely differ and disâ—gree but especially these M. Doctor Andrewes in his Tortura Torti M. William Tooker Deane of Lichefield in his Combat or single Fight with Martin Becanus M. Richard Tompson in his Reproofe of the Refutation of Tortura Torti M. Robert Burhill in his Defence of Tortura Torti and M. Henry Salclebridge in his Refutation of Becanus his examen Besides these as opposite vnto them I will also cite Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of EnglaÌ„d Genebard in his Chronology Polydor Virgil in his History of England Iacobus Thuanus of Aust in the History of his tyme Iohn Caluin in his Commentary vpon the Prophet Amos and others The I. Question vvhether the King of England haue any Primacy in the Church 1 THE first Iarre or contention then is concerning the Name of Primacy Many of our Aduersaries admit this Name but M. Richard Tompson had rather haue it called Supremacy then Primacy His reason is because Primacy doth signify a power of the same Order Now the King hath not power in the Church of England of the same Order with Bishops and Ministers but a power of higher and different Order from them Ergo he hath not the Primacy but the Supremacy The words of M. Tompson pag. 33. of his booke are these Nos in Anglico nostro idiomate belliores longè sumus quà m per inopiam Latini sermonis nobis Latinè esse licuit Non enim dicimus The Kings Primacy Regis Primatum sed The Kings Supremacy Regis Suprematum Quo vocabulo nos quoque deinceps vtemur Multùm enim disserunt Primatus Suprematus Illud enim Potestatem eiusdem Ordinis videtur significare hoc non item We in our English tongue do speake much more properly then we can do in the Latin speach through the penury therof For we do not say The Kings Primacy but The Kings Supremacy which word we will heerafter vse For that Primacy and Supremacy do greatly differ Primacy seeming to signify a power of the same Order but Supremacy not so 2. Out of which words we gather two things The one that all Englishmen who vse the Name of Primacy do eyther erre or speake improperly if we belieue M. Tompson For if they speake properly seing that the word Primacy doth properly signify a Power of the same Order they do plainely vnderstand that the
Primatemque confingas It may seeâ—e to â—auour of malice and cry out vpon your sausines when as you feigne the King Head and Primate of the Church c. And M. Burhill pag. 133. Nec Primatem quidem omnino Regem nostrum dicimus multò vâ—rò minù◠Primatem Ecclesiasticum Neyther do we at all call our King Primate and much lesse Ecclesiasticall Primate c. 3. â—eere hence do I frame a twofold Argument One out of M. Tookers words in this manner He that aâ—â—irmeth the King to be Primate of the Church is a sausy and malicious fellow But M. Salclâ—bridge affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church Ergo he is a sausy and malicious fellow The other argument I frame out of M. Salclebridges words thus He that denyeth the King to be Primate of the Church doth offend against the publicke Profession of the Truth receyued in England But M. Tooker denyeth the King to be Primate of the Church of England Ergo he offendeth against the publicke profession of the Truth receyued in England So I wâ—s one Mule claweth another 4. But now it may be demaunded whether of them doth iudg more rightly in this case M. Salclebridge who affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church or M. Tooker that denieth it This controuersy dependeth vpon another question to wit whether these two Names Primate and Primacy are necessarily coÌ„nexed or as they say Coniugata M. Salclebridge thinketh that they are Therfore because he hath once affirmed the King to haue the Primacy of the Church he consequently auerreth that the King is Primate of the Church For that with him this argument hath force à Coniugatis The King hath Primacy Ergo the King is Primate As also this The Chaplaine hath a Bishopricke Ergo he is a Bishop 5. Now M. Tooker he thinketh the contrary For pag 6. of his booke he expressely saith That the King hath the Primacy of the Church but yet he is not the Primate of the Church And contrariwise The Archbishop of Canterbury hath not the Primacy of the Church and yet is he Primate of the Church So as he denyeth these two consequeÌ„ces à Coniugatis to wit 1. The King hath the Primacy Ergo he is Primate 2. The Archbishop is Primate Ergo he hath the Primacy And perhaps he will deny these in like manner 1. The Chaplayne hath a Bishopricke Ergo he is a Bishop 2. M. Tooker is a Deane Ergo he hath a Deanery IIII. Question VVhether 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 aduersaryes do testifie For thus wryteth Iacobus Thuanus in his first booke of the Historyes of his times Henricus post diuortium se Caput Ecclesiae constituit K. Henry after his diuorce from Q. Catherine 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 antè temporibus visam induit Henricus enim Rex Caput ipsius Ecclesiae constituitur In the meane while to wit after his forsaid diuorce a Councell was held at London wherin the Church of â—ngland 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 booke of his Chronology hath these words Henricus anno 1534. in publicis Comitijs se Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae appellauit King Henry in the yeare of our Lord 1534. in publicke Parliament called himselfe Head of the Church of England c. Also Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England saith Ex qua dicendi formula primam occasionem sumptam aiunt vt Rex Supremum Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae diceretur By which manner of speach 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 cis noua Comitiorum Decreta iuâ—â—bantur iurciurando affirmare Regim Supremum Ecclesiae esse Caput The new Laws or Statutes of the Parliament were propounded vnto them to wit to the Kings subiects and they were commaunded to sweare that the King was head of the Church c. Iohn Caluin in like manner vpon the 7. Chapter of the Prophet Amos wryteth thus Qui tantopere extuâ—erunt Hâ—nricum Regem Angliae certè fucrunt homines inâ—enâ—â—derati Dedâ—runt enim illi summam rerum omnium petestatem hoc me grauiter semper vulnerauit Erant enâ—m blasphemi cùm vocarent cum summum Caput Ecclesia sub â—hristo Those who so greatly did extoll K. Hâ—nâ—y of Enâ—land were men void of consideration For they gaue vnto him the chiefe power of all things and this point did euer gall me grieuously For that they were blasphemers when they called him the chiefe Head of the Church vnder Christ c. 2. The same Title did K. Edward Sonne to K. 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 tam in causis spiritalibus quà m temporalibus Caput Reuerendo Thomae Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo salutem Edward by the Grace of God King of England France and 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 wrytten to other Bishops subiect vnto him thus Thomas permissione diuina Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus per Illustrissimum in Christo Principem Edouardum Regem sextum supremum in terris Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae Hybernicae sufficienter legitimè authorizatus Tibi Edmundo Londinensi â—piscopo omnibus fratribus Coëpiscopis vice nomine Regiae Maiestatis quibus in hac parte fungimur mandamus vt Imagines ex â—cclesijs cuiusque dioecesis tollantur c. We Thomas by Gods permission Archbishop of Canterbury being sufficiently and lawfully authorized by our most gratious Prince in Christ King Edward the sixt supreme Head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland do in his Maiesties Name and place which herein we supplie commaund you â—dmund Bishop of London and all the rest of our Brethren Bishops that Images be taken out of the Churches of euery Diocesse c. And Doctor Sanders also in his booke of the Schisme of England saith thus Quamprimùm visum est Henrici octaui mortem diuulgare statim Edouardus Henrici filius nonum aetatis annum agens Rex Angliae proclamatur summum â—cclesiae Anglicanae in terris Caput proximè secundum Christum constituitur
King hath Power of the same order with the Bishops and Ministers of his Church But this now according to M. Tompsons opinion is an error wherefore eyther they doe erre or speake improperly 3. The other is that a Coniecture may be made of the thing signified from the word signifying The word Supremacy is a new and lately inuented word vnknown to the Ancient Fathers not vsed in Scriptures vnheard of in the Christian world Moreouer what doth it signify The Supreme power forsooth of the King in the Church Wherefore this is new also Surely if the ancient Fathers eyther Latin or Greeke had knowne this power they would haue found out at least some word wherby to haue expressed the same properly But this it seemes none of them did II. Question vvhether that this Primacy which the King hath in the Church be Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall 1 THIS is now another Iarre Vnder King Henry the 8. and King Edward this Primacy was alwaies called Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall as it appeareth out of Doctor Sanders whose words are these Caluinus Henrici Primatum Ecclesiasticum oppugnauit Caluin did oppugne King Henryes Ecclesiasticall Primacy Againe Episcopus Roffensis quòd Henrici Primatum Ecclesiasticum nollet confiteri ad mortem producitur The Bishop of Rochester because he denyed King Henryes Ecclesiasticall Primacy was brought forth to dye c. And againe Multi in custodijs propter negatum Ecclesiasticum Regis Primatum detenti Many were kept in prison for denying the Kings Ecclesiastical Primacy In like manner Henricus mandauit vt filius in fide Catholica educarâ—tur excepto Primatus Ecclesiastici titulo quem ei râ—liquit King Henry commaunded that his Sonne Edward should be brought vp in the Catholick faith excepting the title of Ecclesiasticall Primacy which he left vnto him And yet more Stephanus Wintoniâ—nsis Edmundus Londinensis Cuthbertus Dune mensis Nicolaus Wigorniensis Daius Cicestrensis â—piscopi timidè restiterunt puâ—ri Regis Primatui spirituali imò simpliciter subscripserunt The Bishops of Wincâ—ester London Durham Worcester and Chichestâ—r did fearfully withstand the Spirituall Primacy of the Child King nay they absoluâ—ly subscribed therunâ—o c. 2. Vnder Queene Mary that succeeded to her brother King Edward in the Crowne this Title of Primacy was taken away in a Parliament held at London as witnesseth Iacobus Thuanus in the 9. booke of the History of his tyme in these words Antiquatus ijsdem Comitijs Primatus Ecclâ—siastici titulus The title of Ecclesiasticall Primacy was abolished in that Parliament The same was againe restored vnder Queene Elizabeth as testifieth the same Author in his 15. booke c. 3. But now in these our dayes vnder King Iames this matter is called into question Some not daring to call it Primacy Ecclesiasticall and spirituall but only Primacy belonging to Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall mattâ—rs amongst whom is M. Doctor Andrewes or the Kings Chaplaine in his Torture of Tortus pag. 90. where he writeth thus Nâ—que vâ—rò quoad spiritalia alium nos Regi Primatum tribuimus neque quoad temporalia alium Pontifici detrahimusâ— quam dâ—bâ—mus Prior ille Regibus omni iure posâ—erior hic Pontifici nullo iure debetur Neyther do we attribute one Primacy concerning spirituall matters vnto the King nor do we take from the Pope any other Primacy concerning temporall matters then we ought to do The first is due vnto Kings by all right the later no way pertayneth to the Pope c. I when I first read these wordes in the Chaplaynes booke did thinke that he had taken these two to wit Primacy spirituall belonging to spirituall as also these other Primacy temporall belonging to temporall for one and the same thing But now it seemes that the Defenders Interpreters of the Chaplaine to wit M. Tompson and M. Burhill do take it otherwise For so writeth M. Burhill pag. 55. of his Booke concerning this point Non dicit Primatum spiritualâ—m sed Primatum quâ—ad spiritualia dâ—bâ—ri Regibus omni iure He the Chaplaine doth not sâ—y that Spirituall Primacy but Primacy belonging to Spirituall is due vnto Kings by all right c. And then againe pag. 133. in fine Eâ—si â—nim Râ—gi tribuimus Primatum in â—cclesia non tamâ—n Primatum spiritualem aâ—t Ecclesiastiâ—um â—i tâ—ibuâ—mus sâ—d potâ—us â—rimatum quoad res personas spirituales Ecclesiasâ—â—cas For although we giue vnto the King Primacy ouer the Church â—et do we not giue vnto him Primacy spirituall or Eccleâ—iâ—â—ticall but rather Primacy belonging to things and persons spirituall and Ecclesiasticall c. And M. Tâ—mpson pag. â—â— of his Booke also saith Non dixit Primatum Ecclesiasticum aut Spiritualem quasi formaliter intelligat sed quoad Spiritualia id est obiectiuè materialiter The Chaplaine said not the Primacy Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall as though he vnderstood it formally but for so much as it belongeth to Spirituall that is to say obiectiuely and materially c. In which sense the same Author pag. 95. saith Dicimus Regem gubernare quidem Ecclesiastica sed non Ecclesiasticè We say indeed that the King gouerneth Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically 4. So as if you aske in England whether the King hath Primacy Ecclesiasticall or no It wil be answered you thus King Henry K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth had Ecclesiasticall Primacy K. Iames hath not Primacy Ecclesiasticall but only so far forth as it belongeth to Ecclesiasticall things Hath then his Maiesty that now is lesse then they had So it seemes Is then the Kings Primacy in England so nipped and pared in so short a space So they say Is it then almost decayed and at an end I doubt not but it is What is the cause Hearken to the coÌ„mon saying What 's quickly got is quickly lost as also to that of the holy Scripture Si est ex hominibus consilium hoc aut opus dissoluetur Act. 5.38 If this deuise or worke be of men it will be dissolued III. Question VVhether the King by vertue of this Primacy may be called Primate of the Church MAISTER Henry Salclebridge doth absolutely affirme it For thus he writeth pag. 140. Dico Regem Angliae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Primatem esse I say that the King of England is Primate of the Church of England Nay he will haue this point to be so certayne and out of all doubt that he thinketh whosoeuer should deny it to offend against the publike Profession of England For so he saith pag. 177. Angliae Regem Anglicanae Ecclesiae Primatem esse in professione publica Anglicana Veritatis saâ—ris litteris nixae ponitur That the King of England is Primate of the Church of England is founded in the publicke English Profession of Truth grounded vpon the Sacred Letter 2. M. Tooker and M. Burhill do absolutely deny it For thus wryteth M. Tookâ—r pag. 3. Olere autem malitiam ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud videtur cùm Regem Caput Ecclesiae
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