peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take the same oath The like interpretation of the oath of Supremacy holdeth now vnder our K. Iames was of force vnder King Edward 6. and King Henry 8 whereby it appeareth that to imprison or execute any here for not taking the oath of Supremacy is all one as to imprison execute Traytors for not acknowledging their Kings Soueraigntie and for acknowledging the Popes Soueraignetie ouer their King in his prerogatiues Royall Crownes Kingdoms and life it selfe BECAN Exam. Page 154 YOu aske whether those 6. offices viz. to call Councels make Ecclesiasticall lawes confer Benefices create depose Bishops excommunicate the stubborne iudge controuersies Ecclesiasticall did properly belong to Peters Primacy or which of whose offices hoe exercised as Primate But this is not to the matter The Question is here whether your Writers agree that your king as supreme Gouernor may do those offices I say they Iarre therein Do you help them Touching the power total Councels D. Tooker iarres with himselfe with Hainric For Tooker saith that the calling of Councels doth primarily belong to Kings and from them is deriued to Bishops And yet he saith That the Apostles called Councels by Diuine right Therefore not from Kings right Therfore by Diuine right the Apostles successors that is Bishops and not Kings haue power to call Councels And this is against Hainric and Tooker himselfe Dr. HARRIS Reply OVR gratious King Iames in his booke of Apology c. vindicated and proued his rightfull Supreme Power or Gouernment in all Causes and ouer all Persons Ecclesiasticall within his Dominions Vpon that this Iesuite Becane inferred That then our King had power to call Councells To make Ecclesiasticall lawes To create and depose Bishops To conferre benefices To iudge Ecclesiasticall controuersies otherwise that he neither was nor could be Primate or Head of the Church because all those were offices properly belonging to the primacy Hainric in his Becano-Baculus denied that his consequent as Dr. Harris in his English Concord here doth because their chiefe Primate and Head Pope Peter did neuer as Primate challenge to himselfe or execute any of those offices and for that neither in Scripture nor any Ancient Father is found any of those offices properlie to belong to Peter as Primate or Head of the Church The Iesuits forces being too weake to grapple with Hainric therein Hainric tooke vp Becane his owne description And thence irrefragably concluded our King to bee Primate and Head that is Supreme Gouernour of this Church Which is all one as if he had taken from Becane his owne cudgell and beaten him soundly black and blew therewith as became Becano-Baculus to do Yet Christian Reader consider what iust cause Hainric had and I haue here to vrge the Iesuite to shew especially in this particular what generall Councell cell Peter did call as Primate or what Scripture or Ancient Father did attribute to Peter as Primate any power to call generall Councells All the Iesuites in the world with all the learning and reading they haue can not shew it Whence necessarily by Popish rule it will follow that Peter was not Supreme Primate of the whole Church and consequently that the Pope is not Supreme Primate of the said Church On the other side our Writers haue out of the Scriptures and Ecclesiastical Histories demonstrated that the most religious both Kings vnder the Law and Emperours vnder the Gospell haue called general Councels for which they are generally greatly and worthily commended The Iesuite knowing this to be most true and not able to answere it runnes into his starting hole and saith that it is not to the matter when inceed it sticks in the very bowels of the matter and hangs so fixedly in the Popes liuer as no Iesuiticall Dictamne can draw it forth In this one point of Regall Supremacy the Iesuite can not produce any two of our Writers who doe not fully agree As for Hainric and Dr. Tooker they both write vniformally that it belongeth to orthodoxall Kings and Emperors when any such are to call Councells Here therefore the Iesuite being at a non-plus and brought to his shifts faineth a Iarre betweene Dr. Tooker and himselfe Well then belike when Bellarmine in his writings differeth from himselfe that is at least an hundred times those discords must be stiled Popish Iarres but how doth Becane proue that Dr. Tooker is in this point against himselfe Forsooth because he faith that the Apostles viz. when there was no Christian Emperour by diuine right called a Councell Then the argument runneth thus All the Apostles ioyntly in time of Persecution lawfullie called one Councell onely of some few persons within one Citie Therfore in time of Peace not Christian Emperours but onely and all Bishops in the Christian vvorld ioyntly must call all generall Councells throughout the vvhole Christian vvorld What cable strong enough and long enough can the Iesuit get from all the Iesuiticall crue so to tye these together that the consequence may hold for good For heere is a manifold Non sequitur 1. From one particular act of Apostles to a generall rule of all Bishops 2. From times of Persecution to times of Peace 3. From times when there were no Christian Emperours to call Councells vnto times when there were some to call and indeed did call all euery one of the most renowned generall and orthodoxal Councells to weet the first six of them Becane dare not say that the 4. first generall Councells which Pope Gregory the great esteemed as the 4. Euangelists were vnlawfully or against diuine right indicted or called yet were they all called by Emperours and not by Popes viz. The first Nicen Councell by Constantine the great The first Councell of Constantinople by Theodosius the first The first Coūcell of Ephesus by the Emperor Theodosius the second The first Councell of Chalcedon by the Emperour Martian Vnto which Councells the Emperours by their Letters called as well the Popes of Rome as other Patriarchs If Pope Leo the first had knowne any such diuine right of calling generall Councells to be in him and not in the Emperour hee would neeuer have stooped so basely as suppliant vpon his knees to entreat the Emperour and the Empresse by himselfe and by others to call a generall Coūcell for what else had this beene but treacherously to request the Emperour to bereaue him of his Diuine right as Becane heere calls it and by usurped power to be practised by the call of generall Councells to extinguish that Diuine right Popish Primacy That is to extinguish their Catholick faith For now the Papall Supremacie is the very capitall and maine point of their Catholick faith To shut vp this chapter question Becane sitting vpon his Cathedrall Tripos should heere determine these two Questions following First whether Bishops onely or Archbishops onelie or onely Patriarches for these may not bee confounded as one and the same be the Apostles successors
as their right Primacy in earth Not onely ouer the whole Cleargy contrary to that Inhibition of S. Peter 1. Pet. 5. v. 3. Not as Lords ouer Gods Heritage but also ouer Kings and that not only in Spiritualls but also in their Temporalls viz. in their Goods Reuenews Crownes Kingdomes liberties and lines As their chiefest Iesuite Writers Bellarmine Suarius and this meane Iesuite Becane haue not beene ashamed to dogmatize in their late publike writings some whereof haue beene euen by State-Papists in their Parliaments censured and condemned as seditious pernitious against Kings prerogatiues royall crownes and dignities And some of them by vs here lately haue beene purged by fire and also most ambitiously haue and do desire and practise to get the Popedome and being opposed therein do by all euen bloudy meanes endeuour to retaine the same Onuphr in Chronie Rom. Pont. as the thirtie Schismes in the Church of Rome about the Popedom wherof the last worst lasted by the space of fiftie yeers together raysed and continued by the ambitious desire thereof in the Popes themselues euen to the shedding of the liues bloud of two hundred thousand christians caused by two Antipopes at once doth more then demonstrate To instance this ambitious desire in one but their principall one and chiefetaine Hildebrand the first who with brasen face did openly vndertake to depose the Emperour from his Empire The Cardinall Beno who liued with Hildebrand and knewe him too well writeth thus of him Hildebrand poysoned sixe Popes to make his waie to the Popedoma Nauclere reporteth that the clergy saide Pope Hildebrand was excommunicated by the Bishops of Italy as hauing defiled the Apostolike Sea with Simonie c. And Abbat Vrspergensis writeth Anno. Dom. 1080. that the Councell of Brixia censured Pope Hildebrand as an vsurper of the Sea of Rome not appointed by God but intruding by fraude money And to speak in general as Mantuan saith of Rome and Romanists Venalia nobis Templa Sacerdotes Altaria Sacra Coronae Ignis thura preces coelum est venale Deusque Where Church Priest Altar Masse Crowne for money tolde Also Fire Incense Prayer Heauen and God are solde Where all things come for money there is no probabilitie that the Popedom there more worth then all things else should come freely without money c. Rome is no changeling of which the Iesuites may read in the Canon law thus Roma fundata fuit a praedonibus adhuc de Primor dijsretinet dicta Roma quasirodens manus Roma manus rodit quos rodere non valet odit Rome was first founded by thieues and sauoreth still of her beginnings By th' hand Rome byteth States and whom shee cannot bite she hates If Rome bite all not giuing sans gifts shee popes none liuing Now since the Assumption is so plainely proued we may thus conclude Therefore the Popes of Rome shall finde confusion in Heauen Hence the Popish Antichrist is by the Apostle tearmed fitly Filius perditionis The sonne of perdition or confusion Moreouer from the words of Cyprian is this Syllogisme as canon-shot directed against the verie heart of the Popes Primacy thus If Peter did not ne could challenge to himselfe Primacy then the Pope hauing no Primacy but as Peters successour cannot challenge Primacy to himselfe But Peter could not challenge Primacy to himselfe as Cyprian here saith De Simple Praelator and else where proueth thus Hoc erant vtique c. The rest of the Apostles vvere the same that Peter vvas endewed vvith like fellowship of Honour and Power Therefore the Pope cannot challenge the Primacy This of Cyprian the Iefuit passeth ouer dry-foot and not without cause seeing hee could get no baulme from Gilead to cure this deadly wound giuen to the Pope by Saint Cyprians foresaid Canon-shot 3. The Iesuite doth here shamefully bely Chrysostom affirming that hee speakes promiscuously of both Primacies Secular and Ecclesiasticall whereas most distinctly hee writeth thus of them Dominus introduxit c. The Lorde brings in a diffeference betweene worldly or temporall Princes and Ecclesiasticalls because the Princes of the vvorld are therefore made that they might rule ouer their subiects and serue themselues of them 1. Sam. 9 ver 11. c. and spoyle them to their owne profit and glory according to the saying of God to Samuel This shall be the manner of your King hee will take your sonnes for his Chariot-driuers Captaines and Husbandmen and your Daughters for Apothecaries Cookes and Bakers he will take your fields and vineyardes and giue them to his seruants c. But the Princes Ecclesiasticall are therefore made that they may serue their vnderlings and minister vnto them all things which they haue receiued from Christ That they should neglect their owne profit and procure the profit of others and if neede be that they should not refuse to die for the safety or saluation pro salute of their inferiours Therefore if these things be so there is cause and profit to desire the Secular Primacy but to desire the Ecclesiacticall there is neither reason nor cause For what wise man would hasten vvillingly to submit himselfe to seruitude labour griefe and such a danger as to render an account for all the Church before the inst Iudge vnlesse peraduenture he thinke there is no iudgement of God or feares it not as one abusing his Ecclesiasticall Primacy secularly changeth the Ecclesiasticall into the Secular Than which words what could be written more distinctly and plainely against this lying Iesuite and his Popes Primacy to stop the mouth of the one and to plucke vp the other by the rootes I meane the Primacy Papall which is now become the highest temporall Primacy in the earth of which the Emperours as vassals holde their Imperiall crowns yea their liues and yet neither of these but during the Popes pleasure And this is with them become an article of the Romish faith Hence it is that his Maiesties subiects are forbidden by the Pope in their oath of Allegiance to sweare that what in them lieth they will preserue the life of their Soueraigne against the Papall and all other forrain power because as the Pope hath definitiuely set it down they should therein deny the faith Is not this his Ecclesiasticall Primacy become Temporall or rather Diabolicall Therefore euery good Christian from Chrysostome here is to learne That the Pope either thinketh there is no God or Iudgement of God to come or that the feare of God and of his Iudgement is not before his eyes Surely if the popish Primacy be that Ecclesiasticall here described by Chrysostome the Pope will no longer contend for it he will soon hate it worse than dogge or snake 4. The Iesuite here either very ignorantly or very impudently abuseth his Reader whom hee would make belieue that Chrysostome in that Homily so distinguisheth the Primacy of Honour to witte Ecclesiastical from the obtaining of that Primacy as though he
Celsus Mancinus Thomas Bozius Franciscus Bozius Isidorus Moscouius Laelius Zecchus Cardinall Baronius lastly Alexander Carerius who in his booke publiquely printed was not afraid to call Bellarmine and all who tooke part with him against the other forenamed Impious Politicks and Hereticks of our time I say in these points of the Popes Primacy and at this present time the Iesuits extreamely dissent from the Sorbonists and the Venetian and French from the Romane Papists On the other side all Protestant-English Writers with one vniforme consent agree in the Kings Supremacy as they who willingly haue taken the Oath of the Kings Supremacy which is set downe in these expresse words following viz. I A. B. doe vtterly testifie and declare in my conscience that the Kings Highnesse is the onely Supreme Gouernour of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries as well in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticll things or causes as Temporall And that no forraine Prince person Prelat State or Potentate hath or ought to haue any Iurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme And therefore I doe vtterly renounce and forsake all forrain Iurisdictions Powers Superiorities Authorities And doe promise that froÌ„ henceforth I shall beare faith and true alleagiance to the Kings Highnesse his heires and lawfull Successors And to my power shal assist and defend all Iurisdictions Priuiledges Preheminencies authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highnesse his heires and Successors vnited or annexed to the Imperiall crowne of this Realme So helpe mee GOD c. But by the lawes of England in these very words syllables Supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall or Power Spirituall is for euer vnited and annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of this kingdome These things then beeing so certainly and manifestly true let Becan himselfe iudge if he will iudge sincerely ingenuously according to this oath of Supremacy taken willingly by all Protestant English Writers without refusal of any one 1 Whether the King of England hath not Supremacy or Primacy in this Church 2 Whether that Primacy or Supremacy be not Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall viz. vvhich is in all things causes Ecclesiasticall Spirituall 3 Whether the King by his Primacy or Supremacy may be called Primat of the Church to weet as one is called a King of his kingdome a Bishop of his bishoprick or a Bailife of his Bailiwick 4 Whether by the same Supremacy or Primacy hee may not be called Head of this Church that is to say the onely supreme Gouernour in all things and causes Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall 5 Whether that Primacy or Supremacy do not consist in Power or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall to weet which consisteth in all things Ecclesiasticall and ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall and which is tearmed by the expresse words of the lawes of England Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction or power Spirituall seeing that the Oath of Supremacy respecteth the Kings authority Ecclesiasticall and the Oath of Fidelitie his authoritie Ciuil As our King IAMES in his Booke most accuratly distinguisheth them 6 Whether the King by his Primacy or Supremacy may not call Councells and presede in them viz. as the onely supreme Gouernor of this Kingdome in all things causes ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall Spiritual For do not all CouÌ„cells consist of persons Ecclesiasticall are not things Spirituall Ecclesiasticall handled in Councels 7 Whether the King may not make Ecclesiastical lawes to weet as the onely supreame Gouernour in all things ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall according to that of Saint Augustine Contra Crescon lib. 3. c. 51. Heerein Kings as it is from heauen prescribed vnto them serue God as Kings if in their kingdome they commaund those good things and forbid those euills which pertaine not onely to humane societie but also to Diuine Religion 8 Whether the King may not coÌ„ferre Ecclesiasticall Benefices As the only Supreame Gouernour in all causes ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall 9 Whether the King may not make and depose Bishops As the only Supreame Gouernour in all causes ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall 10 Whether the King may not compell his subiects to the oath of Supremacy As the only Supreame Gouernour in all causes ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall 11 Whether the King hath not his Supremacie by the right of his Crowne As the only Supreame Gouernour in all causes ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall As for ExcoÌ„munication if the Iesuit meane by it Retaining of sins that respecteth the Iurisdiction internall and all both Protestant and Popish Writers acknowledge that our King challengeth no such power But if he vnderstand the inhibiting froÌ„ the Communion other holy exercises performed by the Minister and faithfull people in the Church then in England where euery not only Archbishop but Archdeacon and his Officiall doe excommunicat we shal haue according to Becane his dispure heere so many Primats of the Church of England as there be in it Archdeacons or their Officialls But heere the controuersie is of one onely Supreame Primat or Supreame Gouernour Therfore this Question of Becane touching the Kings power to excommunicat is very idle and â—riuolous As touching the Iudge of Controuersies all Protestant Writers hold no mortall man to be Iudge of theÌ„ Notwithstanding Hainrik Salobrig and long before him Iewell in his Defence of the English Apologie Par. 6. c. 13. Dâ—uil 2. out of the Ecclesiasticall Writers especially out of Socrates and Cardinall Cusanus write That Christian Princes with good commendation haue heard and determined some Controuersies of faith According also to these words of Charles the Great produced by the reuerend Bishop of Ely viz. Wee doe decree and by Gods assistance haue decreed Tort Tort. Pag. 165. what is to be firmly holden in that cause or Controuersie It was a cause of Faith against Eliphandus vvho asserted Christ to be the adopted Sonne of GOD. Lastly who would heere regard the naked names of Sanders Genebrard Pol. Virgil and Thuanus which Becane doth heere muster Are these also Aduersaries to Becane or doe these as Aduersaries extreamely dissent touching these Questions As for Caluin Tortura Torti a good while since hath answered thus As Caluin did not allow the Pope to be King or the King to be Pope Pag. 379. so vve approue not that in the King vvhich we detest in the Pope But Caluin vvith vs and wee with him thinke that those things belong to the King in the Church Christian vvhich belonged to Iosias in the Church Iudaicall And we desire no more Now hauing passed these Rocks the remainder of our way is easie and all Becans Iarres heereafter obiected against vs may as it were with the blast of some few words bee eftsoones scattered and brought to nought For by this which is already demonstrated it is most manifest that all our English Protestant Writers doe fully and vniformely agree in the whole substance or
intestine Iarres and differences of Romane Writers about the Popes Supremacie and our full agreement in the Kings Supremacie What shall I neede to speake of the iniquity of his Cause For it fights against the Church of Christ in the behalfe of the honour and Soueraignetie of Antichrist after the manner and biasse of Icsuits And in this case what one of the forenamed hath he not iust cause to feare Againe your indifferent equitie wherein with the Venetians and the Parisian Sorbonists you detest the Iesuites who seeke to iustifie their Cause by the imprisonments bonds and deaths of Traitors suffered for their rebellions against their natiue Kings whose hands vnlesse they were the hands of this Becane would it not shake and cause to let fall the penne whose spirits though neuer so lofty would it not depresse infringe and dissipate saue onely of Becane But very impiously and impudently doth he apply to the Gun-powder Traitors that which Saint Paul 1. Cor. 4. wrote of the persecuted Saints viz. You are made a gazing stock to God to Angels and to Men. Let them be so since the Iesuite will haue it so 1. Agazing stock to God who beholding their trecherous and couert conspiracies against their most gracious Soueraigne his Anointed as the Iesuite here confesseth laugheth them to scorne enfeebling their forces for our victory and preparing hell fire for their eternall punishment 2. A spectacle to Angels who wondring there be any so much as stiled with the name of Christians that tremble not to call the royall Supremacies of Kings in the Church ordained by God himselfe grounded vpon Scriptures practised with commendation by the best both Kings of Israell and Emperors Christian Potentissimos Inferorum Principatus The most potent principalities of hell reioyce to beholde such infamous and execrable Traitors committed to the safe custody and torture of spirituall wickednesses Lastly A spectacle to men who being dispersed through the whole world and but hearing of these most inhumane and bloudie Iesuiticall conspiracies more sauage then cruelty it selfe are inflamed for the Lords Anointed to vndergo perpetuall combats with all these pestilent Emissaries of Antichrist Moreouer if you know not with what great varietie inconstancy and vanitie of opinions the popish Writers trauell and with what vniforme consent of all our Writers the Kings Supremacie is maintained listen and read-ouer but cursorily this little Booke which here I present to you and in it you shall finde particularly expressed before your eyes wherein and in what heads they differ among themselues about the Popes Supremacie and how we accord in the Supremacie of our King And heere it much concernes your desire of peace and tranquillitie to obscrue how gallantly this Becane presenteth himselfe to you with his counterfaite and childish wiles to entrappe you wherein he playeth his prizes so skilfully and subtilly to circumuent you that by his onely cunning hopeth to gaine no small praises But seeing he is ready for the combat I will so prouide that he shall not finde me vnprepared not only to meete with his blowes but also to repell them and to turne them backe againe vpon his owne head Of which our conflict I desire you to be Spectators In the meane time I beseech the most mercifull heauenly Father to grant you zeale according to knowledge c. The most desirous of your saluation Richard Harris Becan Exam. By the way of a lie and calumnie you write that I did vse that of the Apostle You are made a gazing stock to God Angels and Men of Traitors I did not vse it of Traitors but of those Catholikes who are with you imprisoned banished spoyled of their goods and fortunes or also put to death You knowe who they are Dr. HARRIS Reply I Knowe the Iesuite heerein belyeth this State most impudently by which none but traiterous or at least seditious obstinate Cacolikes not any one meerly for faith or religion haue been or are imprisoned exiled dispoyled or executed 2. The Iesuit here confesseth that those said traitors were Catholikes and themselues euen the Gun-powder-traitors confessed that their treason was vndertaken for their faith and religion So traiterous and dangerous to Christian States is the Iesuited Popery 3. This Becane in his cōscience thinketh that these words You are made gazing stocks were and are most fitly and truely to bee applyed to Garnett that cunning but arch-traitour viz. when hee was dismembred and his head and quarters fixed on high to be gazed on 4. The present Iesuited Romish faith is impious heresie and Idolatrous blasphemy the religion is grosse superstition and open rebellion against God and the King or rather an open profession of the lawfull killing of Kings Gods Anointed by the meanest vassals of the said Kings authorized by the Pope to kill them As it is plainely set downe by Suarez in his late booke against our King Lib. 6. chap. 4. imprinted by publike authoritie with priuiledge Therefore by all lawes diuine and humane why may not all such Iesuited Cacolikes be most iustly imprisoned dispoyled exiled or executed as guiltie of high treason for this their traiterous and rebellious faith and religion so stiffely maintained by them especially when as by their owne popish doctrine Hereticall obstinate Schismatikes such as indeede all those Cacolikes are may be imprisoned and dispoyled of goods lands and life it self and when as so many thousand deare Saints of the Lord meerely for their orthodoxall faith and pure religion haue beene in their bloudy Inquisition and other popish persecutions most sauagely tortured euen to death Therefore with great impudency doth he charge vs with shedding the bloud of Martyrs for faith and religion from which wee are as free as they therein are guilty 5. No small number of popish Martyrs so canonized and enrowled amongst them were in truth haynous and diabolicall Traitors against the King Queen and State heere and accordingly were here executed therefore indeede these words You are made agazing stock c. the Iesuite applied to Traitors to wit such popish Martyrs 6. Lastly the exceeding clemency of our King towards the now imprisoned seditious and treacherous Cacolikes is such that they fare more deliciously and liue more sportfully I might well haue said riotouslie then millions of his Maiesties good subiects doe who enioy their libertie This is too too well knowne And this forsooth is that hard-hard vsage and hot persecution which hath bred this Iesuiticall exclamation BECANVS Iarre THE Kings 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 Gospell said full well Omne regnum in se diuisum desolabitur Euery Kingdome diuided in it selfe shall be destroyed But what and how great these discords be I will shew in these
following You profit nothing I vvill teach you once againe It casilie appeareth that you neuer saw either the Glosses or Canons Such Glossators out of England are of no estimation Who would not admire the insolency of this Iesuiticall Bragadochio obiecting ignorance to the incomparablie learned Bishop Iewel vnto whom in the indifferent iudgement of any equall and indicious Readers of the writings of them both Becane is not worthy to holde the candle or to carry his books after him This I thought meete gentle Reader to signifie vnto thee in generall because this trifling disputer in his whole discourse following about Citations dooth nothing else but misspende the time in such emptie sopperies As for this Citation in particular viz. Dist. 9. ca. Innocent The very truth is it was onely the fault of the Transcriber for those very words D. 9. ca. Innocent written I expuncted with mine owne hand before any Iesuiticall censure passed ouer them The matter comprised in the words which I cited viz. That all power is giuen to the Pope as vvell in heauen as in earth was a thing so well knowne to all papists of any reading and also acknowledged as an article of popish faith that for proofe thereof I set downe no Citation in the Margine of my booke But now least this vnlearned Iesuite hauing read so little as by all his writings may appeare in the Canon law or popish Councells or Canonists should imagine that no proofes of the said matter are to be found in them I will direct him for his schooling sake first to the Canon law Dist 22. ca. Omnes Where Pope Nicholas speaketh thus Christ himselfe alone founded the Romane Church and erected it vpon the rock of faith when he gaue to Peter clauiger of eternall life the rights of the Empire earthly and also heauenly What is this else but more plainely translated into English thus He gaue to Peter and consequently to the Pope all power in heauen and earth But it may be the Iesuite would faine see the place where the very words are written Therfore Secondly I doe direct him to the popish Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Leo the tenth in which Councell Stephanus the Bishop of Petracha spake thus openly with great applause In the Pope is all power aboue all powers as well in heauen as in earth Thirdly I direct him to the most famous Canonist Abbot Panormitan who super prima primi de Electione cap. Venerabilem verb. Transtulit writeth thus The Pope may vpon very great cause transferre the Empire from one nation to another because he can doe vvhatsoeuer God can doe otherwise Christ had not beene so diligent a father of his family if he had not lest one on earth in his place vvho can doe all things that Christ himselfe can doe By this it is plaine that as All power in heauen and earth was giuen to Christ So all power in heauen earth is giuen to the Pope And consequently it is as plaine that as Christ is God so the Pope is God For better vnderstanding of which consequent I send the Iesuite to that learned and iudicious yet popish Writer Marsilius Patauinus who relateth out of Bernard thus All things were giuen to Christ because he was the eternall Sonne of God And Christ doth challenge to himselfe all things by the right of creation and merit of redemption And vvhosoeuer takes these vnto himselfe makes himselfe indeede God 2. Thes 2.4 That is as Saint Paul describeth him the popish Antichrist sitting in the temple of God as God shewing himselfe that he is God or rather exalting himselfe aboue all that is called God or worshipped Which may better appeare by Becanes solution of these two Questions following First whether as to Christ and Pope All power is giuen in heauen and earth so both Christ and Pope haue one and the same name giuen to them viz. The name aboue euery name that at the name of the Pope Phil. 1.9 as at the name of lesus euery knee should bow of things in heauen in earth and vnder the earth Vnto this former questioÌ„ I suppose Becane would say Respondetur quod sic that is affirmatiuely because in his Examen pag. 133. he saith The Pope Peter was receiued into the fellowship of the name and dignity of the indiuiduall vnity or Godhead Then the second questioÌ„ goes further thus whether at the name yea at the feete of the Pope all should not doe more than bow the knee since the greatest Emperours must fall downe flatte with their faces on the ground to kisse his feete and with their necks stretched out must receiue and entertaine his feete trampling vpon them and lastly as it is challenged at this time must offer readily their throats to be cut at the Popes pleasure Before I leaue this Straine I must set downe that which the Glosse out of the foresaide Canon Omnes D. 22. inferreth viz. thus Argumentum quod Papa habet vlrumque gladium et spiritualâ—m et temporalem This argueth that the Pope hath both the swords Spirituall and Temporall Euen as the Canonists also thence gather the Popes supreme power temporall euen ouer the Empire to conferre it to vvhom he will and to transferre it whence and whither he will And so the Pope falleth into the iust condemnation of God and Confusion in heauen whereof we heard before out of Chrysostome Here two great mischiefes are necessarily inferred pat vpon the Popes head the former That he is that Antichrist and his Primacy Antichristian The later That the Pope by reason of that his Primacy lieth deepely plunged into hellish confusion And yet here the Iesuite Becane is as mute as a fish so miserable a desendour of the Pope is he even that Becane who in the Preface to his Examen wished that he might be the kings valiant Champion to desend his Cause Now surely his Maiestie should be maincly wel holden vp through his great store of ignorance more grosse then euer I perceiued in any Iesuite Writer whatsoeuer English Concord BEcame in his Iarre Question 3. demanded Whether the King by reason of his Primacy may be called Primate of the Church And I in my Concord demand Whether the Pope by reason of his Primacy Anton. de Rosellis may be called as popish Writers call him King of Kings and Lord of Lords For example Boniface 8. vvho in time of solemne supplications vvent apparelled right as the Emperour himselfe Crowned vvith a golden Crowne Caesar like glistering in an embroidered gowne and a naked sword carried before him at his commandement Can ye Vide vit Dond in Sexco ô Academicks for the Iesuite often speakes to you beholding this spectacle forbeare laughing Vnto this the Iesuite saith no more but as followeth BECAN Exam. YOu cite out of the life of Boniface 8. vvhich is in the sixt booke of the Decretals these words Boniface 8. In time of solemne â—pplication but falsery There is no such
c. If he be so ignorant let him heare Cyprian in these his owne words Superest vt de hacipsa re singuli quid sentiamus proseramus neminem iudicantes aut à iure Communion is aliquem si diuersum senserit amouentes Neque enim quisquam nostrûm Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico timore ad obsequendi necessitatem colleg as suos adigit quando habet omnis Episcopus pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suae arbitriuÌ„ proprium tanquam iudicari ab alio non possit qui nec ipse potest alierum iudicare Let euery of vs vtter what vvee thinke of this matter iudging no man nor excommunicating any who shall think otherwise then we doe For there is none of vs that makes himselfe a Bishop of Bishops or by tyrannicall feare forceth his colleagues to obey sith euery Bishop may speak freely what he thinks iudged of none as he can iudge none Doth not the Iesuit knowe euen by the name Papa that the Pope ambitiously makes himselfe Bishoppe of Bishops in their popish Canons and tyrannicallie by oath enforceth all Bishops to the necessity of obeying him to say as he saith in their canonicall obedience If he know not let Aeneas Syluius afterward Pope Pius 2. schoole him in these words Bishops contradicting the Pope though they speake the truth yet they sin against their oath made to the Pope If this Iesuite were not ignorant that Cyprian spake those words in the Councell of Carthage what a friuolous Doctor is he misspending the precious time about trifling escapes of the Printer or Transcriber c. viz. of the word Constantinople for the word Carthage as though such escapes were not frequent in the Popes Canon law BECAN Exam. YOu cite these words Pag. 95. Plenitudo potestatis Papae c. with this citation Extra de Constitut Ecclesi Sanct. Mariae numero nono Againe falsely and ridiculously For neither are those words there neither haue you cited the place well Thus you should haue cited it Extra de CoÌ„stitutionibus cap. Ecclesia Sanctae Mariae Yet now at the last liarne somewhat that you be not alwaies a child and blockish in citing Dr. HARRIS Reply THe Iesuit here vndertaking to be my Schoolemaister proues himselfe to be a very blockish and a ludibrious Teacher To proue not as he imagineth The fulnesse of the Popes power to surpasse all Positiue lawes but that The temporall lawes with or against the Church extend not to the Church vvithout the Popes expresse allowance I cited the place rightly thus De Constitut cap. Eccles Sanctae Mariae nu 9. But the Iesuit after the depth of his shallow capacitie cites it thus De Constitut. Ecclesia Sanctae Mariae leauing out these words numero nono Wheâ— as those very words if he had but any smattering skill in the Commentaries vpon the Canon law might easily haue informed him that these words and syllables viz. Lex praeiudicialis Ecclesijs c. were the words of Panormitan vvriting vpon that chapter as indeed they are thus Paner de Constâ—r ca. E. cl Sáâ—â—e marae nu 9. Lex Principis praeiudicialis Ecclesiis non extenditur ad Ecclesias nisi expresse approbetur per Papam Si verò est Constitutio laicorum inferiorum fauorabilis Ecclesiis non extenditur aliquo modo ad clericos nisi sit approbata per Papam The lawes of Princes prerudiciall to the Church extend not to the Clergie except the Pope expresly allow them Though these words Lex praeiudicalis c. bee not in the Canon but in the Rubrick of the same and euen that is enough to make this Iesuit blush yet the matter is fully set downe in that Canon De constitut ca. Eccles S. Mariae And the case was between Iohn de Archea who appealed and the Church of St. Mary touching certaine possessions then in contiouersie before the iudge of appeale who by reason of a certaine statate of Rome spoyled the Monastery of the said possersions and transserred them to the Church of Saint Marie giuing corporall possession thereof This cause being brought to the Pope he sets down this decree We considering that layites hauing no power ouer the Church or Church-men if they make a law which may restect the good of the Church is of no validity vnlesse it be established by the Popes authoritie doe make void that vvhich is done in preiudice of the Monasterie and diffinitiuely doe sentence the possession to be restored vnto it These things beeing thus made plaine to the Iesuit it is meet now he should answere how those lawes indeed anciently made but lately reuiued and reen forced by the Venetians so exceeding preiudiciall to the Church and Church-men as the Pope in his late excommunicating Bull expresly and his two Cardinalls Bellarminus and Baronius particularly haue set downe stand still in force euen to the expulsion and extirpation thence of all Icsuits without any hope of their returne Whether because this said Canon hath lost his force or for that the roating Bull hath lost his hornes and is now become no more feared then a braying Asse BECAN Exam. Page 96. OVt of Gratian 9. q. 3. Neque ab Augusto you cite these vvords Sirotus Mundus sententiaret c. Richard you presit nothing Once againe I wili teach you thus you ought to haue cited cap. Nemo ludicabit 9. q. 3. For the beginning of the chapter doth not beginne vvith thesâ—â—ord Neque ab Augusto as you dreame but with these Nemo iudicabir And yet the words cited by you are not found there Dr. HARRIS Reply IT is not I who to prooue that if all the world would sentence against the Pope yet the Popes sentence should stand cite 9. q. 3. Neque ab Augusto but the incomparably learned Bishop Iewell as I expresly wrote in my Concorde page 8. Therefore the Iesuit fondly saith that hee will teach mee to cite better heerin thus cap. Nemo iudicabit 9. q. 3. because the chap. beginneth with these words Nemo iudicabit and not with these Neque ab Augusto Wherein the Iesuit bewrayeth his incredible rudenels ignorance who neuer read citations made in the Canon law by words after the beginning the midst or later end of the Canon but onely in the beginning thereof Therefore heere I must take him to schooling and read three lectures out of the Canon law viz. out of the Decrees the Decretalls and the Extrauagants vnto him thus In the Decrees Dist. 12. ca. No decet verb. Discretione and Dist 11. ca. Non nos verb. quis entm the Glosle citeth 17. q. 4. § Qui autem But those words are not the beginning of any chapter in 17. q. 4. In the Decretalls De Electione Electi potestate cap. Venerabilem verb. Transtulit The Glosse cireth 24. q. 1. § Sedillud and immediatly after 11. q. 1. § Sedsi quis but neither of those chapters begin with those words Sedillud or
in his Apology and monitory Préface to the Emperour c. endeuoureth to proue that himselfe in England and euery King in his kingdome is Head or Primat of the Church There you confound Head Primat as one thing heere by a two-fold question you sepatate them as diuerse things So the Mule scratcheth himselfe The King doth make no expresse mention of the word Primat yet as you say hee endeuoureth to proue and proueth demonstratiuely that he is Primat of the Church Therefore as the King wee and your lelfe understand it it is all one to have the Primacy of the Church and to be Primat of the Church Sith then weeagree in the thing why doe you wrafig be about the name heere of Primat as before of Primacy Doctor Tooker and Maister Burhill lume openlie professed subscribed and sworne that the King is the onely Supreme Gouernour in and ouer all causes and persons Eoclesiasticall vvithin his Realine that is â—hâ— Hainrick and Thomson and your selfe vnderstand it in one word Primat But Tooker and Burhill deny the King to be Primat of the Church They doe so that rightly to weet in your popish sense of Supreme Primat of the Church Sacer do tall or Episcopall By which distinction well vnderstood and vsed it appeareth that among vs there is no Iarre at all touching the Supremacy or Primat BECAN Exam. Pag. 120 YOu call mee an Asse because I said the English Protestant Writers Iarre in this point If I be an Asse by contend you with me Haue you learned to strine onely vvith Asses Belike you thought you had to doe vvith English Predicants I am not of that Tribe Neither am I contrary to my selfe for I doe not distinguish Primat and Head of the Church but I shevv the English Writers to dissent in both And that is very true because some afsirme and others deny the King to be either Primat or Head of the Church Dr. Harris Reply TO his quest I answere thus By Gods grace I haue learned to dispute and to grapple with the most learned Iesuit in the bunch And I am sory that it was my ill hap to meet with such a slug as this Icsuit is But sich it fulleth out so I must take vp this burden and proceedin answeting as Salomon saith a foole in his folly lest hee be proud I know by their books many Iesuits to be very learned and I knowe many English Preachers in learning to be nothing inseriour to their chiefest Iesuits Therefore this Iesuit Becane without all truth and good manners sets the Asses eares vpon so many learned English Preachers but they will nothing lesse then fit them hee must resume the eares to himselfe and carie them about with him as his owne Touching his assertion I did not say that he distinguished the Head and Primat of the Church as two things diuerse but that he confounded them as one Hcere as one that is at daggers drawing against himselfe hee confesseth hee did not nor doth distinguish them and yet heere with two disiunctiue particles hee separateth them Indeed with the Papists what is the Papall Primat of the Church but the Supreame Head of the Church Therefore iustly I found fault with the Iesuit for making two questions of one viz. I. Whether the King bee Primat of the Church 2. Whether the King be Supreme Head of the Church and not thus rather according to his words and meaning Whether the king be Head or Primate of the Church or Head that is Primate c. But in this his Examen the Iesuite doth increase and not lessen the Iarre with himselfe BECAN Exam. Page 121 I Do not inquire what Tooker and Burhill haue professed or sworne of the kings Supreme Gouernment but what they haue written of the Primate of the Church Both of them deny that the king may be called Primate of the Church Hainric saith be may be so called There is the Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply TRue it is in our English tongue as we doe not call the kings Supreme gouernment of this Church Primacy but Supremacy so doe we not cell the king Primate Ecclesiasticall or Primate at all But in respect that the English word Supremacy is translated into the Latine word Primatus as we in Latine ascribe vnto the king Primatum Ecclesiasticum or Primatum in omnibus causis et supra omnes personas Ecclesiasticas Primacy Ecclesiasticall or Primacy in and ouer all Causes and persons Ecclestasticall so wee in Latine call the king Primatem Ecclesiasticum Primate Ecclesiasticall to weet of his foresaid Regall not Episcopall Primacy or Supremacy Ecclesiasticall that is in and ouer all Ecclesiasticalls which Mr. Burhill is so far off to deny that hee hath expressely allowed them who assert it So that here is nothing but empty striuing about words which the Apostle condemneth I will therefore leaue this Iesuite snatching at syllables and catching of flics I say I will leaue him so striuing and with are him thus reasoning BECAN Exam. Page 121 〈…〉 Doctor Tooker and M. Burhill disputing against me who denied the King to be Primate of the Church doe denie it in that sense wherein I said the King vsurped the Primacy of the Church But I did not meane that the King vsurped the Primacy of the Church Sacerdorall for I elsewhere confesse that the King disclaimeth it Therefore they denying the King to haue Primacy Ecclesiasticall doe not meane that hee hath not Primacie Sacerdotall Dr. HARRIS Reply WHo taught this vnlearned Iesuite to dispute from all particulars Concerning the general do all disputers at all times reason according to the meaning of the Aduersarie which often times they vnderstand not Touching the Minor or later proposition or Assumption of Becane who would not thinke his meaning to be that the king by his confession disclaimeth all Primacy sacerdotall that is Episcopall Archiepiscopall or Patriarchall for all Bishops Archbishops and Patriarkes are Priests and therefore their Primacy Episcopall c. is Sacerdotall but this Iesuite meaneth nothing lesse For by Primacy Sacerdotall he meaneth here onely the power of inferiour Priests or Presbyters in Court internall onelie who haue no iurisdiction in Court externall as though all our dispute were not of Primates and Primacy As though any inferiour Priests who were not Bishops haue at any time bin called Primates feeling that by the Canon law Primates Patriarks are all one as though Primacy with the Papists doth not respect the externall Court only These are as plaine as the nose on Becanes face Therefore his face is hard who abuseth his Reader so grosly But I 'le returne this his argument vpon his owne head thus If Dr. Tooker and Mr. Burbill deny the King to be Primate or to haue Primacy in that dense than Becane saith The King vsurpeth Primacy and Becane saith The King vsurpeth Primacy Sacerdotall that is to say Episcopall Then it followeth that they deny the King to be Primate or
at Ierusalem whether did raigne Christian or Pagan Princes how idle is this when the question is only about Christian Princes what is there no difference here betwixt a Iesuite and a Sophister But if Peter was then the sole Primate of the Church why did he not alone call that Synode and why did Iames sit President in that Councell what meane these words Visumest nobis it seemed good vnto vs and not rather it seemed good to Peter or alone or with the addition of Primate or after this manner it seemed good to our holy father Pope Peter after him to the residue of the Apostles and Elders If Peter or the Pope bee Supreme iudge of all controuersies what meane these words Visum est spiritui Sancto It seemed good to the Holy-ghost and not rather it seemed good to Pope Peter the Supreme iudge of all controuersies This is a great mysterie as if no mortall man but only the Holy-ghost could be Supreme iudge of all controuersies in the Church And why may not prouinciall Councells becalled by the Metrapolitan Nouel constit 123. leg 13. et 133 Franc. and Dioecesan by the Bishops by vertue of Ecclesiasticall lawes made by Christian Princes especially seeing as Dr. Tooker rightly affirmeth their indiction primarily appertayneth to the King and from him may be deriued to the Bishops These things doe excellently agree together BECAN Exam. Pag. 152 YOu say our English Writers touching the Kings Supremacy differ only in words or names An ingenuous confession whence I conclude his Supremacy to be verball and titular only and not reall Yet the Bishop of Rochester died for not acknowledging it And others for the same causes are imprisoned which makes you labour so much to bring asleepe or to extinguish this Nominall Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply I Say as I haue aboundantly proued in this Replie and in my English Concord that all our English-Protestant-Writers doe with full and vniforme consent agree in the reall solide and substantiall Supreme Gouernment of the King in all Causes and ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill within his Dominions next vnder Christ Further that all the said Writers sully agree in the verie name of that Supreme Gouernment to weet the English name Supremacy Moreouer that all the saide Writers in the sense of this reall thing and of the name of this reall thing call the same Supreme Gonernment in Latine Primatum Primacy and Iurisdictonem Spiritualem vel Ecelesiasticam Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction Againe that all the saide Writers call and acknowledge the King to bee reallie Supreme Gouernour in all Causes and ouer all Persons Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill vvithin his Dominions next vnder Christ. And in this sense all the said VVriters call the King Supreme Primate and Head of this Church as hath been shewed expreslie out of their owne writings Whereby appeaâ—eth that in very truth here is no English Iarre among our Protestant Writers Reall or Nominall And so these figge leaues wherewith Becane endeauoureth to couer the shameful nakednes of the Popish sort denying to acknowledge the Kings Supremacy aforesaid are remoued and taken cleane away But alas for for this seely Iesuit who is confined now in his English Iarre to Iarre Nominall only and not Reall and hath no other twigge to hang by but this scattered consequent viz. The Protestant English Writers expresse the selfe same substantiall thing to weet the Kings Supremacy with varietie of names and phrases Therefore the thing it selfe is not reall but nominall Our Academian school-boyes would deseruedlie might hisse this Iesuite with his consequent out of the Vniuersitie Schools as exceeding foolish and childish Thus rather would the argument proceede The Iarres of some Writers about a thing or matter are Nominal only and not Reall Therefore their consent is reall and the thing it selfe Reall Touching Rochester-Bishop inculcated by this Iesuite our King in his Apology pag. 121. according to the publike Records writeth thus Roffensis in carcerem coniect us est priusquam in iudicium capitis de Primatu Pontificis vocaretur idque partim quòd tardior esset ad successionem Regiae prolis confirmandam cui iam antea Regni Ordines subscripserant partim quod implicatus eo negotio tenebatur quod de sancta Virgine Cantiana ill is temporibus forte inciderat adeo vt propter â—elatas Pseudoprophetiae illius fraudes reus iudicatus sit Maiestatis ob non detectam coniurationem The Bishop of Rochester vvas imprisoned and condemned not onely for acknowledging the Popes Supremacy but also for gaine saying the lawfull succession of the Kings progeny and for concealing high treason against the King And why might not the Bishop of Rochester then or why may not the Popish ones here now in like case be imprisoned or put to death for treason against their Soueraign Who can denie that it is treason for any subiects to deny their Soueraigne to be their lawfull Prince But since euery lawfull Christian Prince is Supreme gouernour of his owne subiects in things Spirituall and Temporall or which is all one is Custos vtriusque Tabulae Keeper of both Tables to deny that of their Soueraigne is to deny him to be their lawfull Prince Assuredly to acknowledge the Popes Supremacy here as now it is defined and conuerted from Spirituall to Secular is to acknowledge the King to hold his kingdome of the Pope in Chiefe and that also at his will and pleasure as it is plaine by their Canon law and Canonists yea to hold their liues also as Tenants of Life at the Popes will by Iesuiticall doctrine as before in this Reply and in Becano-Baculus was expresly shewed and prooued demonstratiuelie And what is this else but apparantly to denie the King and to assert the Pope to be their Soueraigne Lord and King indeed And is not this high treason in the highest degree why then may not such lawfully be imprisoned condemned and executed as Arch-traitors At least why may not our King require an oath and this saide oath of his subiects against the Pope vsurping his right 2. King ca. 11. v. 4 as well as Iehoiada the high Priest did of the men of Iuda for Ioas their King against Athalia that vsurped his state Queene Elizabeth in her Explanation of the Supremacy caused these words to be printed and published to all her subiects viz. That if any her subiects would accept the oath of Supremacy with this interpretation sense meaning viz. That the K. or Q. Maiesty of England vnder God is to haue soueraignetie and rule ouer all manner of persons borne within her Maiesties Realmes Dominions and Countries of what estate Ecclesiasticall or Temporall soeuer they be so as no forraine Power shall or ought to haue any superiority ouer them her Maiesty is well pleased to accept euery such in that behalfe as her good and obedient subiects and shall acquite them of all manner penalties contained in the said Act against such as shall
exteriour Court and the second that the King hath not all Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court 6. The third Aâ—gument is That whosoeuer is subiect to another in Ecclesiasticall inrisdiction of the exteriour Court hath not supreme most ample and full lurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the exteriour Court But the King is subiect to some other body in Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court to wit to the Bishop because he may by him be excommunicated by sentence and cast out of the Church as Maister Burhill doth confesse Ergo hee hath not supreme most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the exteriour Court c. Or if your will contrariwise thus Hee that is subiect to no other in Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction cannot by any man be excommunicated by sentence But the King now if he haue supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction is subiect to no other in Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall Ergo he cannot by any other be excommunicated c. I doube not but you marke well that these things doe not agree English Concord Pag. 68 IN good sooth by this precedent chapter I obserue my Aduerlary a bad Disputer by the good leaue of his fellow Iesuits For manifesting hereof let vs first handle the question You enquire whether the King may excommunicate his subiects The worthy Bishop of Ely pag. 151. Doctor Tooker pag. 15. Maister Thomson pag. 83. 84. affirme of all our Writers in these words Omnes fatemur regem excommunicandipotestatem nullam habere Wee all confesse that the King cannot excommunicate I pray tell me in so full a concord is heere any difference Surely no English Iarre except a fained Becanicall Iarre for the Iesuite followeth not the question Whether the King can excommunicate but whether the King may be excommunicated and so proceedeth as you see to discourse of the offices of supremacy that is to say Whether this be not numbred among the residue That a Primate may be excommunicated of his subiects But here like an idle Sophister he fighteth without the lists and first it is worth our labour to marke his admirable skill in Logick wherby he goeth about out of our most vniforme consent to wrest an English discord This is therefore his first reason The King cannot execute all the inferiour actions of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction that is to say He cannot excommunicate therefore he hath no supreame Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction I am ashamed of such childish Iesuiticall fancies Is the Iesuit become ignorant or forgetfull of the question Is not our controuersie about one supreame Gouernour of the Church in all matters Ecclesiastical and aboue all Ecclesiasticall persons Yes wee reason about the office of that one onely supreme Gouernor as supreme Gouernour according to Saint Augustine ad Bonifac Epist 50. Inhoc ergo seruiunt domino reges in quantum sunt reges cum eafaciunt ad seruiendum illi quae non possunt facere nisi reges In this Kings serue the Lord respecting onely their kingly office that is vvhen they doe those things to serue him which they cannot doe except they vvere Kings Now sir if excommunication belong onely to the primate or supreame Gouernour for in our question they are both one then it should follow that all Bishops and euery meane Archdeacon for both these haue power to excommunicate are also supreme Gouernours of the Church and so there must needs bee by this Iesuits Logick as many onely supreme Gouernours as there bee Bishoppes and Archdeacons Is any thing more absurd See you not in what a brake the Iesuit is caught But for the power of excommunication vnderstand thus much The King of himselfe can excommunicate no man yet notwithstanding by the consent of all the estates assembled in the Parliament he can make Ecclesiasticall lawes by force and vertue wherof this or that obstinate subiect ought to be excommunicated And besides it is in the Kings absolute power to commaund any Bishoppe within his dominion to absolue any man whom by appeale hee shall finde to be vniustly excommunicated Secondly the Iesuit reasoneth thus The King giueth to other power to excommunicate therefore he he himselfe may excommunicate The Iesuit might haue learned out of Bernard whò they take for a brother of their owne the vanitie and weakenesse of this argument who though his doctrine heerein be not orthodoxall yet to infringe this consequent doth very accuratly distinguish thus writing to Eugenius Conuerie gladium tuum in vaginam Tuus ergo et ipse two forsitan nuiu etsi non tua manu cuaginandus c. Put vp thy sword into thy sheath saith Christ to Peter Then saith Bernard to the Pope Yea that sword is thine yet not to be drawn by thy hand but at thy direction Both swords are the Churches that is to say the spirituall sword and the materiall sword but the materiall sword is drawn for the Church the spirituall sword by the Church one of them by the hand of a Priest the other by the hand of a Souldier but yet at the pleasure of a Priest and the commaund of the Emperour Thirdly hee argueth on this manner The King is subiect to the Bishop excommunicating the King as vvas Theodosius to Ambrose therefore hee is not the onelie supreme Gouernour in his dominion ouer all persons and causes Ecclesiasticall I aunswere that if this be a strong argument then shall not the Pope be Primate of the Church for the Pope is subiect to a Priest in his act of Confession So writeth Panormitan Papatenetur confiteri Extra de poenit etremiss et in illo actu Sacerdos est maior illo Sacerdos potest illum ligare et absoluere The Pope himselfe is bound to confesse to a Priest and in that action the Priest is greater then the Pope for he hath power tobinde and loose him It also appeareth by a Councellat Constance See the Councels of Coustance and Basil and another at Basil that many Popes haue beene subiect to Bishops and by them conuented iudged excommunicated and deposed from their Papacie according to that of your Canon law Cum again de fide Dist 19. Anastasius in glossa tum Synodus maior est quam Papa When a controuersie is concerning faith then a Councell is aboue the Pope Therefore the Iesuit deceiueth by Elench a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Wee teach that our Kings are not Primats but priuate men in respect of Sacerdotall functions and by that meanes not onelie are â—â—feriour to Bishops but also to euery other Minister According to that vvorthy saying of Valentinian the Emperour Egosemin sonil Plebis EtenÌ„ collocato in Pontisicale solio cui nos quoque maderatores imperij nostracapita submittamusâ—â— also an Emperor Sozome lib. 6. â—â— 7 The doâ—eâ— lib. 4. cap. 5. am like one of the common people Place such a man in the Bishops throne to whom we that are managers of the Empire may submitour necks The Popes excommunications of any the meanest subiects of
HARRIS Reply WHata malicious scoffing Sycophant is this who being perswaded in his coÌ„science that I euen in this straine ascribe too much to our Primate the King saith I detract too much from the King heerein First this rude and ignorant Iesuit must be taught that according to the lawes and customs of this kingdome though the King be heere immediatly next vnder Christ the supreme Gouernor Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill yet it pertaineth not to his Maiestie alone without consent of the Orders of the kingdom in Parlament to make any law euen ciuill thereby absolutely to binde all the subiects of his Kingdom which all Statutes made by the vniform consent of the said Orders in the Parliament with the approbation of the Kings Maiestie doe manifest Touching the supposed Iarre betweene Hainric mee Hainric writing generally of the power of all Christian Kings and Emperours to make Ecclesiasticall lawes asserted that the said Kings and Emperours laudably by their owne power made such lawes which I also auerre And I heere writing of the power of his Maiestie therein as it is vsed and limited by the lawes and customes of this Land assert that his Maiestie by consent of the Orders or States of the Kingdome in Parliament may make Ecclesiasticall lawes by force whereof such and such should be excommunicated which Hainric will averre to be very true So this seeming Iarte in the view of the goggle eyed Iesuit is in very deed a sound concord Further I reply that Queene Elizabeth of blessed memory by her own authority set forth Iniunctions as Ecclesiasticall lawes And our gracious King Iames by his owne authority confirmed the last Ecclesiasticall law-Canons made in the Conuocation house Lastly I say That by the lawes of this kingdom his Maiestie by his owne authoritie and letters Patents may authorize any persons beeing naturall borne subiects to his Highnes whom he shall thinke meet to exercise vse occupy and execute vnder him all manner of Iurisdictions priuiledges preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdictions within his Reasmes to visit reforme redresse order correct and amend all such errors heresies schismes abuses offences contempts and enormities whatsoeuer which by any manner sprituall or Ecclesiasticall power authority or Iurisdiction can or may lawfully be reformed ordered redressed corrected restrained or amended to the pleasure of Almightie GOD for increase of vertue c. Will the vile Iesuite call this vilifying of our Ecclesiasticall Gouernour Questionlesse it grindeth his hart that our Church the true visible Church of Christ Iesus ascribeth so much vnto his Maiestie BECAN Exam. Pag. THat which you adde is a new Paradox viz. That Ecclesiastic all lawes made by the King haue force to excommunicate and yet that the King cannot excommunicate It is the most certaine rule of Lawyers that vvhoseuer hath power to make apenall law hath also power to punish This common rule holds in matters Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall vvhy exempt you your King from the common rule confine him into such straights Dr. HARRIS Reply TO an vnlearned Iesuit plaine vulgar things seeme Paradoxes Date the Iesuit deny that Clergie men haue power to make lawes for putting to death of Hereticks and against such such erroncous obstinate persons as hereticks and dare he affirme that Clergy men may giue the sentence of death or shed the bloud of any heretick sith by their triuiall and vulgarly known popish Canon they may not sit vpon the bench when the sentence of death is pronouÌ„ced by the ciuil Iudges That most certain rule of his Lawyers is most plainly false viz. That whosoeuer hath power to make a penall law hath power to punish vnlesse the meaning be of power to punish by commaunding such Officers to punish vnto whom the inflicting of such punishment appertaineth In which sense our King also may be said to excommunicate or absolue that is to coÌ„mand Bishops to excoÌ„municate or absolue men according to the lawes prouided in that behalfe Yea further the Kings writ of prohibition absolueth that subiect of his which is wrongfully excommunicated by Ecclesiasticall censure And this is not to straighten but to enlarge much more then the Iesuit would haue it his Maiesties supreme power heerein Who knowes not that Christian Kings and Empeperours haue made Ecclesiasticall lawes by vertue whereof such and such Priests should be suspended depriued degraded and others chosen and instituted into their Benefices and yet it pertained not to those Emperours to suspend depriue degrade choose or institute the same in their own persons And that this rule holdeth not in ciuil matters was shewed before BECAN Exam. Pag. 196 MY second Argument was this The King giues vnto another power to excommunicate therefore himselfe hath power to excommunicate or if he haue not that power he cannot giue it to another You deny the Argument alleaging Bernard to shew the invalidity thereof But Bernard rather hindereth then helpeth your cause for he reasâ—noth as I doe thus Peter had no temporall possessions therefore he could not giue them to another Hee had care of the vvhole Church therefore he gaue it to his successor Bernard saith nothing of this consequent but of a double power of the Pope the one temporall indirectly all offices of which power Bernard denieth that the Pope by himselfe way execute the other his power spirituall directly vvhich hee granteth may be executed by the Pope himselfe This Position viz. No man can giue to another that which hee hath not himselfe Bernard and I assert to which you answere nothing Dr. HARRIS Reply THe Iesuit is heere ensnarled by the testimony of Bernard as one fallen into a quagmire who the more hee struggleth to get out plungeth himselfe deeper into it Bernard asserteth the right and power of both swords equally to be in the Pope for that of Directly and Indirectly is not Bernards distinction but the Iesuits vaine and new found fiction and therefore be may giue power to others ad nutum ipsius to execute the Materiall sword yet by himselfe cannot vse or draw out the same What is this else but that one may giue power to another to doe that which hee cannot doe himselfe The Iesuit is intolerably ignorant if he know not that by their Canon law the Pope is made Lord of the whole vvorld in temporalibus by vvhom Kings raigne and of vvhom they hold their Scepters In popish books printed and allowed They who hold the materiall sword to be in the Pope not directlie but indirectlie are censured for Politilian Hereticks these times-seruers But what if I should vse the same distinction heere and say that supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall were it the King indirectly to weet in or dine ad custodiam vtriusque tabulae to pronide and procure that all Ecclesiasticks performe their duties according to the prescript of Gods law Were not this Iesuits Argument according to his owne dispute heere dasht in peeces For as the Pope
if the Turke should commaund them to follow the Alcoran The King of Spaine force them to heare Masse The Pope to pray for the dead and some heathen King perhaps compell them to Idolatry Shall they then obey these Princes commaund But then should they doe against their consciences Shall they refuse to obey Then farewell Primacie of the Church Perhaps they vvill aunswere that they vvill obey vvhen they thinke good Shall therefore subiects be Iudges of their King May then the Catholicks in England say after this manner If it please your Maiestie in this point we think good to obey your Maiesties commaund but in that not English Concord IN this place either the Iesuit is beside himselfe or else hee hath much forgot himselfe For euery where in his other Questions hee affir meth that no King either Pagan or Christian hath any Primacy in the Church and yet heere hee enquireth from whence and by what title hee hath his Primacie in the Church Therefore by his owne learning hee beateth his braines to find the originall of nothing If he take away this supposition that the King hath a Primacie in the Church either precisely as hee is a King or else because hee is a Christian King hee is a foolish Sophister For his dispute runnes not thus The King if he haue Primacy of the Church he hath it either as he is a King or as a Christian King but hee hath it in neither of the said two respects therefore hee hath it not at all If hee let that supposition stand then because it is manifest that our most gracious King Iames is by birth a King and by religion a Christian King he is a brainsick wrangler For sith by his supposall heere The King hath the Primacie of the Church vvhat matter is it whether he haue it as hee is a King or as hee is a Christian King if so bee he haue it at all Wherefore there is no cause that we should much stand vpon this idle and beggerly question wherein is onely a shadow of a question Furhermore I would haue the Iesuit vnderstand that this Primacie of the Church hee standeth vpon is not deriued from the title of a King but from God himselfe For Moses was adorned with this dignitie in the Church of Israel And yet we neuer read that hee was stiled with the title of a King But certainly that you may knowe heere is no iarre or odds among vs respecting the maine the worthy Bishop of Ely in his Tortura pag. 377. hath soundly and according to the very truth manifested That the Primacie of the Church belongeth not to Ethnicke Kings as Ethnick but vnto Kings as they are Christian Kings or Defenders of the Diuine truth His words are these Et sunt ista quidem ex Testamento veteri satis solida fundamenta non quod ad reges infideles Primatum pertinere probent c. And those things before related out of the old Testament are so solid and substantiall grounds as Tortus shall neuer bee able to shake Not that they proue this Primacie of the Church to belong to Pagan Kings no surely wee in the new Testament giue no more vnto such Princes then vvas giuen in the old vnto Ahasucrus and Nabuchodonosor Wherfore in this point Tortus is beside himselfe but yet if Caesar become a Christian as in Constantine then presently he hath the same right ouer the Church of the new Testament vvhich Iosias had in the old Reditus statim fit ad iura regum Israel there is a present possession of the ancient rights of the Kings of Israel as soone as euer they are made Kings of the Israel of God giuen vp their names to Christ. Wherefore this is not our purpose that the Persecuters of the Church such as vvere Cains and Tiberius should be the Gouernours of the Church vvho would not receiue that title although a man would giue it them because they employ their vvhole strength to ruine and roote vp the Church but let them then take superiority in the Church vvhen they are vnfainedlie converted to the faith thereof There are due to Caesar the things of Caesar and there belong to the Christian Caesar vvhatsoeuer duties vnder the old Law were either payd or payable by the people of God to their Kings vnto vvhom were then due and yielded all manner of subiection and obedience not onely in the affaires of the couill state but also of the Church These things so expressed are very true and fitting our purpose for in them we haue learned that Pagan Kings as they are Pagans haue no Primacie in the Church But what if almighty God so guide and gouern the hearts of Pagan Kings as that they would stand for the worship of God against error and make lawes for the same let the Iesuit tell mee in that case vvhether God doth not hinde our cōscience to obey pagan Princes And let him take heed how he deny it least Bellarmine fall on his Iack for it because he hath resolued the matter in the very same words De pont Rom. lib. 5. cap. 2. But yet if he doubt lot him resort to Saint Augustine in his 166. Epistle to the Donatists who writeth on this manner Quando Imperatores veritatem tenent c. When Emperours stand for the truth and giue out a commaundement for the same against errour vvhosoeuer shal despise the same encreaseth his owne damnation For euen among men hee suffereth punishment but before God hee shall not dare to appeare vvhich refuseth to doe that which truth it selfe commaundeth by the hart of the King And according to this opinion our reuerend B. in his Tortura Torti pag. 381. most truly writeth Quodcunque in rebus religionis c. Whatsoeuer the Kings of Israel did in matters of religion neither did they anything vvithout commendation vvherein they had power authority to enact Lawes as that GOD should not be blasphemed vvhich you will not deny the King of Babel also did Dan. 3.29 And the King of Nineuch Ionas 3.7 that vvith a publique proclaimed fast God almightie might bee satisfied Andaccording to this sentence wrote Saint Augustine many yeares before him in his 50. Epist to Bonifacius the Souldiour Sed illud propheticum iam impletur Psal 2. Et nunc reges seruite domino in timore c. But now is the propheticall Oracle fulfilled vvhich speaketh in the 2. Psalm Now ô yce Kings serue the Lord in feare And how shall Kings scrue the Lord in feare vnlesse they prohibite and punish those enormities with religious seueritie and iustice vvhich are daily committed against the Lords will and commaundement And because hee is a King he serueth as a seruant by making Lawes vvith force and vigour to commaund things that are righteous and to forbid the contrarie Euen as Ezekias serued by destroying the Temples of Idols and cutting downe the groues Euen as King losias serued by dooing the like Euen as the King of
Niniuch serued by compelling the vvhole Citie to pacifie the Lord. Euen as King Darius serued by breaking the Idol in pecces Euen as King Nabuchodonosor serued by making a godly and laudable lawe that vvhosoeuer blasphemed the God of Sydrach hee should be destroyed and his house razed In this therefore Kings serue the Lord in that they are Kings vvhen they doe those things for his seruice which they cannot doe but as they are Kings If therefore the Iesuit had seriously knowen how to distinguish these things hee might haue acknowledged that Maister Burhill and Maister Thomson agreed with the reuerend Bishop in this point Especially when Maister Thomson in pag. 78. writeth thus expresly and distinctly Omnes principes etiam pagani c. All Kings yea very Pagan Kings objectiuely haue supreme power ouer all the persons of their subiects both in sacred and ciuill things especially to attemper their measure and permit their exercise vvhich thing is witnessed by the Chronicles of all Nations Although the Pagans vsed that their power against the Lord yet vvas it a fault of the men abusing their power giuen them of God to a good end and not any fault of the power at all But yet by a farre more speciall regard did this power in Ecclesiasticall matters of old belong to the good Kings of Israell and now also to Christian Princes For they as bceing of the lewish Synagogue and these as beeing of the Church haue a greater and more speciall right in all causes of the Church then if they were meerely and onely Kings Wherefore in one respect it was said to Cyrus Pastor incusestu Thou art my Shepheard and in another respect to Dauid Tu pasces populum meum Israel Thou shalt feed my people Israel Which thing Iremember our reuerend Bishop hath admonished in another place And speaking to Becan himselfe pag. 94. hee concludeth with these words Haec facilia sunt intellectu miror te tantum Theologum hic haesisse These things saith hee are easie to be vnderstood and I cannot but vvonder that Becane vvho is magnified by the Papists for so great a Diuine should faile in a point of such facilitie Heere you may perceiue Readers that there is a constant English concord and no Iarre among vs at all wherein these two things offer themselues to bee considered First the Logick and secondly the plainnesse or rather ignorance of this Iesuit or at the least a Iesuiticall iarre or the Primacy of Kings established by the Iesuits themselues 1. Thus he reasoneth out of Maister Thomsons and Maister Burhills opinion All Kings yea popish and pagan haue a primacy in their Kingdoms Ergo saith the Iesuit it must needs follow that all persons liuing in those Kingdoms are bound to doe all things though neuer so vvicked which are by them commaunded Is this the Diuinitie of the Iesuits Math. 23. 2. Our Sauiour speaketh thus to his Disciples The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire all things therefore vvhich they commaund you to doe that obserue and doe Acts 4.18 There the same Pharisees out of the same chaire forbid the Apostles that they speake and preach any more in the Name of Iesus Therefore may not the Iesuit as Logically conclude that the Apostles are bound to obey them and then no more teaching in the Name of Iesus But Peter and Iohn answered them other wise Whether it be more iust vvee obey GOD or man iudge yee And after this manner writeth Isidore in the Canon law Si is qui praeest 11. q. 3. out of Basil St is qui praeest prohibet vobis quod a Domino est proeceptum c. If hee that sitteth chiefe forbid you that vvhich is commaunded of the Lord or on the contrary commaund that vvhich is forbidden of the Lord let him bee accursed of all them that loue God and reckoned a false vvitnesse and sacrilegious person The Romane Catholiques of Venice of Sorbona many other Noble-menan France acknowledge the Popes supremacy in the church but if the Pope should commaund them to become his subiects in temporall things etiam in ordine ad spiritualia in behalfe of spirituall causes or if hee should authorise the Alcoran and commaund them to follow it would they thinke you obey his vvill Then must they doe against their conscience If they doe not obey him then what shall become of the Popes Primacie I will beate you with the scourge of your owne tongue Perhaps they vvill aunswere They vvill obey vvhen they thinke good Shall therefore the papislicall Catholiques in France and in Venice take vp this saying Heere O Pope wee thinke good to obey your Holinesse commaund in this point and not in that and then farewell the Popes supremacy Thus much of the Logicke of Becane Now for his plainenesse or plaine ignorance these are the words of the Bishoppe of Ely in Tortura Torti pag. 39. Dominia non fundantur in fide sic infidelitate non euertuntur Quin rex quinis cum de Ethnice Christianus fit non perdit ius terrenum sed acquirit nouum Gouernments and principalities are not founded vpon belieuing and therefore are not ouerthrowne by infidelitie But vvhen any King is made a Christian of a Pagan hee loseth not the earthly right he had before but acquireth a new right Thus farre our vvorthy Bishoppe Now saith the Iefait in these words The Chaplaine teacheth that Pagan Kings haue no Primacie in the Church but they receiue it by their conuersion to Christianitie But I say that these are not the words of the Bishop of Ely onely but before him of Cardinall Bellarmine De Roman Pont Lib 5. cap. 2. et 3. Dominium non fundatur in gratia aut fide Christus non abstulit regna ijs quorum erant c. Lordshippe and principalitie is not grounded on grace or belieuing Christ tooke not away Kingdoms frons them to vvhom they belonged for hee came not to destroy things vvell established but to perfect them Therefore vvhen a King is made a Christian which vvas a Pagan hee loseth not his earthly Kingdome which hee had obtayned by right but acquireth nouum ius a nevv right Which nevv right if Becane may be belieued as an Interpreter or Concluder or Iudge is the Primacie in the Church And so we haue him crying guiltie confessing the question let vs sound the victory For if there be no iarre heere betwixt the Iesuits about this Primacie then haue wee plainly confirmed and euicted them that Christian Princes haue a Primacie in the Church For so Bellarmine expresly and dogmatically affirmeth That Ethnick Kings becomming Christians acquire a nevv right Which new right by confession of Becane is the Primacy in the Church Therefore Christian Kings haue a Primacie in the Church But vvhat is the Primacie of Pagan Kings as Pagans I leaue it to the Papists themselues to consider BECAN Exam. Pag. 212 I Doe not take away the Supposition out of mine ovvne opinion
THE ENGLISH CONCORD IN ANSVVER TO BECANE'S ENGLISH JARRE Together with a Reply to Becan's Examen of the English Concord By Richard Harris Dr. in Diuinitie 2. Tim. 2.16 Stay profane and vaine babblings for they will encrease vnto more vngodlinesse AT LONDON Printed by H. L. for Mat. Lownes and are to be sold in Paules Church-yard at the signe of the Bishops head 1614. TO THE KINGS MOST EXCELLENT Maiestie Iames by the Grace of of God King of Great Britain France and Ireland Defender of the true auncient Catholick and Apostolike faith and Supreme Gouernour in all Causes ouer all persons Ecclesiacticall within his Dominions So ordained to be by the Diuine Masestie Most Gracious Soueragine THat busie pack-horse Iesuit Becan maintaining what in his small power lyeth diametrall opposition to your Maiesties rightfull supereminet power Ecclesiastical To make the same seem ludibrious in the eyes of his adherents as King Dauid dauncing before the Arke seemed to be in the eyes of prophane Michal in his printed empty pamphlet stiled Dissidium Anglicanú brought as it were vpon the vvorlds Theatre fiue English Protestant Writers in defence of your Maiesties said Supremacy namely the most learned Reuerend Bishop of Ely with his two Chaplaines Maister Thomson and Maister Burhill also Maister Doctor Tooker and my Selfe as iarring among our selues in many and materiall points of the said Supremacy and therevpon hee concluded that your Maiestie hath no iuct cause to vrge the taking of the Oath of Regall Supremacy vpon your subiects sith the defenders thereof in writing cannot agree in the main reall and essentiall parts of it Which pernitious proiect of the Aduersarie caused me in my most humble dutie loyall seruice to your Maiestie eftsoones to write my booke of English Concord therein shewing and prouing the sweet harmonie whereby all the fore said fiue Writers vtter the rightfull Supremacy of your sacred Maiestie Now because some of your Maiesties Popish and English subiects haue turned the said pamphlet of Becan out of Latin into English thereby to cause that poisonfull canker to spread further and that Roman leprosie to ouerrun the outward faces and inward hearts of English Papists on this side and beyond the Seas To countermine that serpentine plot viz. to suppesse or at the least to stay the further progresse of that running Canker it seemed good vnto your Maiestie to commaund the translating of my said booke into English which was done accordingly But before it could be printed Becan had written and sent to the last Frank-fort Mart his EXAMEN of my booke of English Concord which forced me to annex my REPLY and Refutation of his Examen in the Interim in English also because the other are in English intending with all conuenient speed to send the same Reply augmented beyond the Seas in Latin that this importune Aduersary may see his reed Examen shaken downe and shinered all to peeces and also may behold the English Concord fully maintained and iustified in euery part and parcell of Regall Supremacie I humbly confesse vnto your excellent Maiestie that it grieued me at my very hart to spend so many good houres in refuting the Almanack-pamphlets of this shallow and in very truth vnlearned Iesuit wherein is not to be found any learning reading or indicious discourse fitting a Father-Iesuit but onely boy-like wranglings about either seeming Iarres in vvords or syllables or escapes of the Transcriber Printer or Corrector in some abcedary letters in numerall figures in quoting the middle paragraph-word for the first vvord of the selfe same Canon vvhereas the very expresse words or the very substantiall matter according to the meaning of the Author and the purpose in hand was faithfully set downe These trifles which with his shamelesse calumniations vntruthes and scurrilities make vp the very bulke of his triobulare booke though they might well haue been let passe as things of nought or buried in silence yet because wise Salomon aduiseth Sometimes to answere a foole in his foolishnes least my silence heerin should cause this Iesuit to growe more insolent or the Popish sort in their vngrations and rebellious deniall of this Oath more confident I haue made this Reply to giue him more matter to vvorke vpon It beeing my setled resolution through Gods assistance whiles I breath to iustifie in vvriting against this Iesuit both the rightfulnesse of your Maiesties Supremacie and also the vniforme agreement of the said Writers therein The rather because though this Iesuit by his sillie scribblings brings shame and disgrace to the Pope whose cause he vndertaketh to defend yet is thought not the vnmeetest Emissary of his Vnholinesse for that this Popeparasite with his hard forhead dare set forth in print any thing for his Lord God the Pope against your sacred Maiâ—stie be it for the matter neuer so impiously grosse and for the manner neuer soimpudently sourrilous Wherfore having tasted of your Highnes most Gracious patronage in my former labours I am emboldned to present these also vnto your royall view beeing more desirous of your Maiest sole iudgement to approue the lines defending regall iurisdiction then of a whole Colledge or councell of our Aduersaries Because such is the desert of your royall minde and penne as vvas by Sabellicus attributed to Cicero Pulchriùs illi multo fuit Latinum sermonem quà m Romanum Imperium auxisse So is it more honour to your excellent Maiestie if such a Prince bee capable of accesse of Honour that you haue by writing propagated the religion of Christ then if by battell you had enlarged your Dominions and Great Britaines Monarchie The one beeing the price of the death of Iesus the other your most lawfull patrimony by the death of your royall fore-fathers Which the Lord graunt you may so long enjoy as your owne royall heart desireth and all your louing subiects doe say Amen Your Maiesties most humble and loyall subiect RICHARD HARRIS A PREFACE TO all English Papists who approue not the Gun-powder Treason aunswering the Preface of BECANE For as much as Becane hath discoursed of an English Iarre about the Supremacie I am willing to vse a few words vnto you but in no case to be troublesome with any tedious Oration About two yeares since Becane wrote two Libel-pamphlets touching the Kings Supremacie th' one against the Apologie and monitorie Preface of our most mighty and gracious Soueraigne IAMES King of great Britanne Th' other against a booke called Tortura Torti or rather against the author thereof the most reuerend Bishop of Ely The smoaky fumes of which Pamphlet for they contained no solide matter in them were dispelled by Dr. Tucker Mr. R. Tomson Mr. Rob. Burhill and by Hainricus Salo-brigiensis Notwithstanding Martin Becane abideth conceitedly obstinate although there be many things which might haue cooled his heate and taken from him all lust of further brawling And principally these First the iniquity of his Cause Then your indifferent equitie Lastly the manifolde