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
of the thing it selfe Dr. HARRIS Reply I Did not say our Writers did striue about the namer but I asked the Iesuit why he would brawl about the name when the thing it selfe was fully agreed vpon Here then in the beginning of this Iesuits examination wee haue him taken in a grosse vntruth For in my English Concord chap. 1. I prooued an vniforme consent of all not onely in the matter that is the kings Supreme Gouernment ouer all persons and in all Causes Ecclesiasticall or ciuill within his dominions but also in the very English name thereof to weet Supremacy vnto which selfe same thing and selfe same name of the same thing all our Protestant English Writers haue sworne and in our publike prayers in pulpit we solemnlie professe our allowance thereof and our concord therein as being our Kings most iust title As for the Latine name Primatus into the which the English word Supremacy is translated we all agree therein also For Becane Question 12. page 43 brings in Mr. Thomson calling the kings Supremacy in Latine Primatum and the king in respect thereof Primatem How hard then is this Iesuites forehead affirming that I granted discord in the name to be among vs Indeede Mr. Thomson in regard of the Papists who vnderstanding no Primacy but Sacerdotall that is Episcopall for by their Canon law all Patriarks are Primates and all Primates Patriarks so all Primates Sacerdotall clamour that we ascribing Primatum Primacy to our King yeeld him Iurisdiction Sacerdotall that is Episcopall to reforme their misconceit therein wisheth there were made some Latine word as Suprematus or the like to expresse fully our English word Supremacie thereby to cut off all Popish and childish cauills and to let them vnderstand that we by Primacie after the Latin word as it is now translated or Supreme Gouernment of the Church called in our English tongue Supremacy meane not Ecclesiastical Supreme gouernment Sacerdotall or Episcopall but onely Regall In England our two Archbishoppes are called Primates as being superiour gouernours Sacerdotall ouer all the Bishoppes and other inferiour clergie men within their Archbishopriks in causes Ecclesiasticall but because our king is supreme gouernour euen ouer those archbishops and all other persons Ecclesiasticall and Temporall and in all causes Temporall and Ecclesiasticall within his dominions wee call in English that his supreme gouernment not Primacy but Supremacie as if it were Supre-Primacy or aboue Primacie Therefore I had iust cause to aske the Iesuite why his friuolous fatherhood wold contend about names when there was and is so full agreement in the verie thing it selfe In regard whereof S. Paul depainteth this Becane as hee sheweth himselfe here to be in his orient colour thus 1. Tim. 6.4 He is puft vp and knoweth nothing but doteth about questions and strife of words vvhereof commeth enuy strife rayling and euill surmising euerie word falling so pat vpon the Iesuites head as it S. Paul had pointed him out with the finger Indeede Becane in asking me how I vvill concord them in the matter vvhen I see and grant varietie of the names prooueth those words of S. Paul to fit him well viz. That he is puft vp and knowes nothing For here he knoweth not which countrey swaynes do know that there may be and is identity of matter or person when there is variety of names of that matter or person But because I doe commiserate his fatherhoods ignorance herein I will vouchsafe to teach him this one lesson taken out of their owne Canon law which in Dist. 80. ca. Loca in the Gloss schooleth him thus Idem est Primas et Patriarcha sicut et dicit lex differentia tantum nominis est inter pignus et Hypothecam A Primate and a Patriarke is one and the same as the law faith the difference is onely in the name of Pignus and Hypotheca in Latin in English of pledge and pledge and so of these two words in Latine Primatus and Suprematus in English as wee in England vnderstand it Supremacy and Supremacy And the saide Canon law Dist. 99. ca. de Primatibus in the very text it selfe schooleth him more fully thus De Primatibus quaeritur quem gradum in Ecclesia obtineant an in aliquo a Patriarchis differant Primates et Patriarchae diuer sorum sunt nominum sed eiusdem officy Primates and Patriarks haue diuers names but one office so the kings Supremacy may in Latine haue diuers names but it is one and the selfe same Regall office BECAN Exam. Page 106 BVt if Thomson be heard They who say the king hath Primaâ—â—â— Primacy of the Church signifie that hee hath power of the same order with Bishops and Pastors But this is a great errour not onelie in the word but in the thing it selfe Therefore they erre not onely in the word but in the very thing who speake so What answere you to this you plainely dissemble Dr. HARRIS Reply I Answere plainely and truely first that Mr. Thomson said that the word Primatus did signifie power of the same order with Bishops onely in the Papists sense and vnderstanding but nothing lesse then so in the Proâ—estants sense who meane by Primatus Primacie power Regall only and not Episcopall In whose sense Mr. Thomson himselfe calleth that Regal power Primatum as was shewed by Becane himself producing Mr. Thomsons owne words Q. 12. Pa. 43. Therfore they who speake so erre neither in word nor in the thing it selfe Secondly I answere plainely without dissimulation that the Iesuites mouth here runnes ouer with a palpable vntruth since it is most certainely true that not any one Protestant English Writer calling the kinges Supremacy in Latine Primatum signifieth or would haue signified thereby that the king hath power Sacerdotall with Bishops and Pastors Indeede the Papists did and doe seeke thereby openly to scandalize vs as though we ascribed to our King Queen power Sacerdotall or Episcopall in the Church which moued Queen Elizabeth of blessed and famous memorie in the later end of her Iniunctions to commaund this explanation following to be published in Print with this Title AN ADMONITION TO SIMple men deceiued by the malitious Her Maiestie forbiddeth all her subiects to giue eare or credit to such peruerse and malitious persons which most sinisterly and malitiously labour to notifie to her louing subiects how by the words of the oath of Supremacie it may be collected that the Kings or Queens of this Realm possessioners of the Crown may challenge authority and power of Ministery of Diuine offices in the Church wherein her said subiects be much abused by such euill disposed persons For certainely her Maiestie neither doth ne euer will challenge any other authoritie then that which was of ancient time due to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme That is to say vnder God to haue the Soueraignety rule ouer all maner persons borne within these her Maiesties Dominions Countries of what estate
to haue Primacy Episcopall But the first is true according to Becane viz. That the deny as Becane meaneth and Becane meaneth that the King vsurpeth Primacy Episcopall Therefore the later is true also viz That Dr. Tooker and Mr. Burhill denying the King to be Primate or to haue the Primacy deny him to be Primate or to haue Primacy Episcopall as all Protestants doe So that here is among vs all a full and settled Concord and the Iesuites Iarre as empty chaffe is blowen cleane away ⧠Becans Iarre IIII. Question Whether the King by reason of his Primacy may be called Head of the Church THis Title first began to be vsurped of King Henry the 8. as all Authors aswell our owne as our aduersaries do testifie For thus writeth Iacobus Thuanus in his first booke of the Histories of his times Henricus post diuonium se Caput Ecclesiae constituit K. Henry after his diuorce from Q. Katherine made himselfe Head of the Church c. And Polydor Virgil lib. 27. of his History of England saith Interea habetur Concilium Londini in quo Ecclesia Anglicana formam potestatis nullis ante temporibusvisam induit Henricus enim Rex Caputipsius Ecclesiae constituitur In the meane while to wit after his foresaid diuorce a Councell was held at London wherein the Church of England tooke to it selfe a forme of power neuer heard of before For that King Henry was appointed Head of the same Church c. Genebrard also in the fourth books of his Chronologic hath these words Henrieusanno 1534. in publicis Comitijs se caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae appellauit King Henry in the yeare of our Lord 1534. in publike Parliament called himselfe Head of the Church of England c. Also Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England saith Exquâ— licendiformula primam occasionem sumptamatunt vt Rex Supremum Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae diceretur By which manner of speech it is said the first occasion was taken of calling the King supreme Head of the Church of England c. And againe in the same booke Proponebantur eis noua Comitiorum Decreta iubebantur iureiurando affirmare Regem Supremum Ecclesiae esse Caput The new Lawes or Statutes of the Parliament were propounded vnto them to wit to the Kings subiects and they were commanded to sweare that the King was head of the Church c. Iohn Caluin in like manner vpon the 7. Chapter of the Prophet Amos writeth thus Qui tantopere extulerunt Henricum Regem Angliae certè fuerunt homines inconsiderati Dederunt enim illi summam rerum omnium potestatem hoc me grauiter semper vulnerauit Erant enim blasphemi cùm vocarent eum summum Caput Ecclesiae sub Christo Those who so greatly did extoll K. Henry of England were men voide of consideration For they gane vnto him the chiefe power of all things and this point did euer gall me grieuously For that they were blasphemers vvhen they called him the chiefe Head of the Church vnder Christ c. 2. The same Title did K. Edward Sonne to King Henry and his Successour vsurpe as it may be seene by his Letters to Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury which begin thus Edouardus Dei gratia Angliae Franciae Hyberniae Rex supremum in terris Ecclesiae Anglicanae Hybernicae taÌ„m causis spiritalibus quà m teÌ„poralibus Caput Reuerendo Thomae Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo saluteÌ„ Edward by the Grace of God K. of England France Ireland supreme Head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland as well in Causes Ecclesiasticall as temporall to the Reuerend Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury greeting c. The same Title also did Bishop Cranmer giue vnto the said King as appeareth by his letters written to other Bishops subiect vnto him thus Thomas permissione diuina Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus per Illustrisimum in Christo Principem Edouardum Regem sextum supremum in terris Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae Hybernicae sufficienter legitimè authorizatus Tibi Edmundo Londinensi Episcopo omnibus fratribus Coepiscopis vice nomine Regiae Maiestatis quibus in hac parte sungimur mandamus vt Imagines ex Ecclesijs cuiusque dioecesis tollantur c. We Thomas by Gods permission Archbishop of Canterbury being sufficiently and lawfully authorized by our most gratâ—ous Prince in Christ King Edward the 〈◊〉 supreme Head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland do in his Maiesties Name and place which berein we supply command von Edmund Bishop of London and all the rest of our Brethren Bishops that Imaves be taken out of the Churches of euery Diccesset c. And Doctor Sanders also in his booke of the Schisme of England saith thus Quamprimum visum est Henrici octaui mortem diuulgare statim Edonardus Henrich filius nonum aetatis annum agens Rex Angliae proclamatur sumurn Ecclesiae Anglicanae in terris Caput proximè secundum Christum constitutel it c. As score as it was thought good to diuulge King Henries death by and by Edward his sonne being of the age of nine yeares was proclaymed King of England and ordained supreme Head of the Church of England on earth next vnder Christ c. 3. Queene Elizabeth although she were a woman yet she thought her selfe no way inferiour to her Father or Brother Shee therefore would be also called supreme Head of the Church of England For so writeth Iacobus Thuanus in his 15. booke of the Histories of his time Elizabetha recep to à Patre fratre titulo Ecclesiae Caputper Angliam coepitappellati Queene Elizabeth hauing receiued the former Title from her Father Brether began to be called Head of the Church throughout England c. 4. But now aduyes vnder K. Iames this title is put in Repardie The Chaplaine to wit M. Doctor Andrewes doth admit the same in his Tortura Torti but M. Tooker and M. Burhill do reiect it M. Tookers words which a little before I recited are these Olere autem malitiam clamitare audaciam tuam videturillud cum Regem Caput Ecclesiae Primatemque confingas It may seems to sauour of malice and try out upon your sausines when as you feigne the King to be Head and Primate of the Church c. And in like manner doth M. Burhill pag. 133. reprehend a certaine person of ouer much want onnes and boldnes for calling the King Head Pastour and Primate of Bishops 5. In his debate and Iarre then what shall the King do If he admit the Title of Supreme Head of the Church of England M. Tooker and M. Burhill will no doubt murmure streadly If he rerect it what then will the Chaplaine say Perhaps this contention may be mollified if the King as he gaue to the Chaplaine the Bishopricke of Ely so he would giue to M. Tooker and M. Burhill two other Bishopricks For then least they might seeme ungratefull they would easily grant this Title to the
our vniforme agreement in truth touching the kings Supremacy to be a seeming discord So that a short Reply to all the rest will be sufficient with reference vnto this yea euen to this one distinction of Regall and Sacerdotall rightly vnderstood ⧠Becans Iarre II. Question Whether 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 Doctour Sanders whose words are these Caluinus Henrici Primatum Ecclesiasticum oppugnauit Caluin did oppugne King Henries Ecclesiasticall Primacy Againe Episcopus Roffensis quòd Heurici Primatum Ecclesiasticum nollet confiteri ad mortem producitut The Bishop of Rochester because he denied King Henries Ecclesiasticall Primacy was brought forth to die c. Andagaine Multi in custodijs propter negatum Ecclesiasticum Regis Primatum detenti Many were kept in prison for denying the Kings Ecclesiasticall Primacy In like manner Henricus mandauit vt filius in fide Catholica educaretur excepto Primatus Ecclesiastici titulo quem ei reliquit King Henry commanded that his Sonne Edward should be brought vp in the Catholike faith excepting the title of Ecclesiasticall Primacy which he left vnto him And yet more Stephanus Wintoniensis Edmundus Londinensis Cuthbertus Dunelmensis Nicolaus Wigorniensis Datus Cicestrensis Episcopi timide restirerunt pueri Regis Primatui spirituali imò simpliciter subscripserunt The Bishops of Winchester London Dutham Worcester Chichester did fearefully with stand the Spirituall Primacy of the Childe King nay they absolutely subscribed thereunto 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. book of the History of his time in these words Antiquatus ijsdem Comiths Primatus Ecclesiastici titulus The title of Ecclesiasticall Primacy was abolished in that Parliament The same was againe restored vnder Queen 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 matters amongst whom is M. Doctor Andrewes or the Kings Chaplaine in his Torture of Tortus pag. 90. where he writeth thus Neque verò quoad spiritalia alium nos Regi Primatum tribuimus neque quoad temporalia alium Pontifici detrahimns quà m debemus Prior ille Regibus omni iure postertor hic Pontifici nullo iure debetur Neither doe we attribute one Primacy concerning spirituall matters vnto the King nor doe wee take from the Pope any other Primacy concerning temporall matters then vvee ought to doe The first is due vnto Kings by all right the later no way pertaineth to the Pope c. I vvhen I first read these vvords in the Chaplaines booke did thinke that hee had taken these two towit Primacy spirituall and belonging to spirituall as also these other Primacy temporall and belonging to temporall for one and the same thing But now it seemes that the Defenders and 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 spirituatem sed Primatum quoad spiritualia deberi Regibus omni ture He the Chaplame doth not say that Spirituall Primacy but Primacu belonging to Spirituall is due vnto Kings by all right c. And theeag une pag. 133. in fine Etsi enim Regi tribuimus Primuth in Ecclesia non tamen Primatum spiritualent aut Eâ—â—â—siassicum ei tribuimus sed potius Primatum quoad les personas spirituales Ecclesiasticas For although we giue vnto the King Priâ—acy ouer the Church yet doe wee not gine vnto him Primacy spirituall or Ecclesiasticall but rathor Primacy belonging to things and persons spiritual and Ecclesiasticall c. And M. Tompson pag. 31. of his Booke also saith Non dixit Primatum Ecclesiasticum aut Spiritualem quasi formaliterintelligat sed quoad Spiritualia idest obiectiuè materialiter The Chaplaine said not the Primacy Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall as though hee vnder stood it form ally but for so much as it belong eth to Spiritual 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 indeede 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 will be answered thus King Henry K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth had Ecclesiasticall Primacy K. Iames hath not Primacy Ecclesiasticall but onely so far forth as it belongeth to Ecclesiasticall things Hath then his Maiestie 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 anend I doubt not but it is What is the cause Hearben to the common saying What 's quickly got is quickly lost as also to that of the holy Scritture Si est ex hominibus consilium hoc aut opus dissoluetur Act. 5. 38. If this deuise or worke be of men it will be dissolued English Concord THE Primacy or Supremacy Regall Page 14 vnder K. Henry 8. K. Edward 6. Q. Elizabeth and K. Iames hath been is and will be one and the same That is to say Supreme Power Regalin the church Iewel Defons par 6 ca. 9. Duasi 1. et 2. wherby Kings may not Burne incense as Ozias did nor rush vpon Episcopall function nor preach the Gospell nor administer the Sacraments to the people nor bind nor loose The which with som of our Writers spoke of by Becane in this Question is to gouerne Ecclesiasticall things Ecclesiastically but execute those things only which belong vnto them as kings to performe that kinglie function therein which Dauid Salomon Ezechias Tortura Tort. pa. 381 Iosias and other of the most noble and most religious kings haue done and which was euer lawfull fora king to doe or particularly if you had rather thus The right and power by Regall authoritie to make Church lawes as that GOD should not be blasphemed a Dan. 3. 29 That God should be pacified in a fast b Iona. 3.7 and honoured in a festiuall day c Ester 9.26 and all such as we read to haue been made in the Code Authentiks and Capitulars by Constantine Theodosius Iustinian and Carolus Magnus Moreouer to delegate such as should iudge of the lawes so made d 2. Chr. 19.8 Further to binde his subiects by oath to keep those lawes e 2. Chro. 15 14. et 34. 32 yeain
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
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
enough for a Christian King towards the obtaining of eternall life or as Bellarmine speaketh of Gods eternall kingdome to serue the Lord as a Christian King that is by executing his Primacy Ecclesiasticall as hee that is Custos vtriusque Tabulae The graund or Cause-keeper of both the Tables and so holding his nevv right to life eternall According to that of Saint Paul vnto the same sense though in another case 1. Tim. chap. 2. ver 15. Women through bearing of children shall be saued if they continue in faith and loue and holinesse vvith modestie so Christian Kings shall be saued by well vsing their Primacy Ecclesiasticall if they continue in faith loue and holines Thus are all these seuerall examinations Iesuiticall as Potters sheards shiuered to nothing thus haue we this Iesuit acknowledging the Ecclesiasticall Primacie of Christian Kings Why then vnlesse the Iesuit haue somwhat to say in arrest of iudgement shold not we as we haue obtained so openly proclaime the victory ⧠Becans Iarre XIII Question Whether the King may constraine his Subiects to take the Oath of Primacy or no 1. HItherto haue wee treated of the Iarring and disagreement of our Aduersaries about the nature offices origen of the Kings Primacy Now there remaineth a certaine practicall question vvhich toucheth the Conscience to the quick to vvit Whether the King may constraine or force his subiects to sweare that they acknowledge his kingly Primacy vvhereof wee haue spoken before Or vvhether they will acknowledge the King as Primate supreme Head of the Church of England vnto vvhom as vnto their Primate and supreme Head they vvill promise fidelity no lesse in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall matters then in Politick temporall This question hath two points The first whether the King of England doth defacto 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 mean to speake a vvord or two The first Point 2. The first point then is Whether the King of England doth exact or at any time hath exacted such an Oath of his subiects It is manifest that King Henry the 8. did For so writeth Doctor Sanders In his booke of the Schisme of England Laurentius Cocchus Prior Coenobij Dancastrensis vnà cum tribus Monachis duobuslaicis Aegidio Horno Clemente Philpotto quòd nollent Ecclesiasticum terrent Regis Primatum iuratò confiteri excluâ—i èterris ad caelestem aeterni Regis gloriam transmissi sunt Laurence Coch Prior of the Monasterie of Dancaster together vvith three Monks and two Laymen Giles Horne and Clement Philpot for that they would not sweare to the Ecclesiasticall Primacie of a tempor all King beeing excluded from â—arth vvere translated to a celestiall glory of the eternall King c. And then againe Proponebantur cisnona Comitiorum Decreta iubebantur inreinrando affirmare Regem Ecclesiae supremum esse Caput The new decrees of the Parliament were propounded vnto them and they were commaunded to sweare the King to beesupreme Head of the Church c. 3. Now that Queene Elizabeth the daughter followed heerein her Father K. Henry it is manifest by the former Oath that shee exacted of her subiects which is this Ego A. B. prorsus testificor declaro in conscientia mea Reginam esse solam supremam Gubernatricem et istius Regui Angliae aliorum omnium suae Maâ—estaus dominiorum regionum non ninùs in omnibus spiritualibus atque Ecclesiasticis rebusvel causis quam temporalibus Et quòd nemo externus Princeps Persona Praelatus Status vel Potentatus aut facto aut iure habet aliquam iurisdictionem potestatem superioritatem praeeminentiam vel authoritatem Ecclesiasticam aut spiritualem in hoc Regno Ideoque planè renuntio repudio omnes forinsecas iurisdictiones poâ—esâ—ates superioritates atque authoritates c. â— A. B. doc verilie testifie and declare in my conscience that the Queene is the onelie supreme Gonernesse as well of this kingdom of England as of all other her Maiesties dominions and Countries as well in all spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters causes as in temparall And that no forraine Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath either by fact or right any Iurisaiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall in this kingdome And therefore I doe vtterly renounce and abandone all forraine Iurisdictions powers superiorities and authorities c. 4. The very same also doth now King â—ames vvho bindeth his subiects not with one Oath alone but with two to wit of Supremacie and Allegiance The former Oath of Supremacy beginneth thus Ego A. B. palam â—estor ex conscientia mea declaro quòd Maiestas Regia vnicus est supremus Gubernator huâ—â—s Regni omniumque aliorum suae Maieslatis dominiorum territoriorum tam in omnibus spiritualibus sine Ecclesiasticis rebus causis quà m in temporalibus Et quòd nullus extraneus Princeps Persona Praelatus Status aut Potentatus habet aut habere debet vllam iunsdictioâ—eÌ„ poteslatem superioritatem praeeminentiam vel authoritatem Ecclesiasticam siue spiritualem intra hoc Regnum c. I A. B. doe publiquely testifie in my conscience declare that the Kings Maiesty is the onely suprewe 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 turisdiction power superiority preheminenci or authority Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within this Kingdome c. The later Oath called of Allegiance beginneth thus Ego A. B. verèâ—t sincerè agnosco profiteor testificor declaro in consctentia mea coram Deo Mundo quòd supremus Dominus noster Rex Iacobus c. I A. B. doe truly and sincerely acknowledge professe and testifie in my conscience before God and the vvorld that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames c. 5. Both these Oathes are set downe at large in his Maiesties Apology and in both of them his subiects are required publiquely and openly toprofesse and acknowledge that King Iames is the supreme Gonernour and Lord of all England not onely in politick and temporall matters but in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall also And that neither the Pope nor any other forrainer hath any power or Inrisdiction in or oner the Church of England Againe the former of these Oathes was brought in by K. Henry the 8. as his Maiestie confesseth in his Apologie in these words Sub Henrico octauo primùm introductum est Iuramentum Primatus sub eoque Thomas Morus Roffensis supplicio affecti idque partim ob eam causam quòd Iuramentum illud recusarent Ab eo deinceps omnes mei Praedecessores quot quot sunt hanc Religionem
doubtfull that the King is Primate or supreme Head of the Church who must be obeyed both in all temporall and Ecclesiasticall matters as hee that hath 1. an Ecclesiasticall Primacy 2. an Ecclesiasticall Iuris diction first to call Councells by his ovvne authoritie and secondly to create and depose Bishops for euery meane person may conferre a benefice and no mortall man may be supreme Iudge in controuersies of faith therefore these two last rehearsed are no branches of Ecclesiasticall Supremacy Therefore concludeth the Iesuit this Oath must not be taken I answer The Antecedent of this reason is most false For all Protestants in England acknowledge it to be certainly true none doubteth thereof namely that the King of England is the onely supreme Gonernor or as the Papists expound it Primate and supreme Head of the Church of England vvhom wee must obey in all causes both Ecclesiasticall and ciuill as him that hath the gouernment ouer all Ecclesiasticall persons and in all spirituall causes or as they expound it which hath the Ecclesiasticall Primacy or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall and therefore hath power to call Councells and to create and depose Bishops All our men with one consent thinke speake and swear this And so the Iesuits first reason with small adoe and no labour is put to flight But yet the Iesuit vrgeth the matter more articulately saying That the oath of the Kings supremacie hath so many parts in it as are thought to be distinct offices of the Kings supremacy and thereupon culleth out one of them which hee deemeth most absurd writing thus I A. B. doe sweare in my conscience that I will be faithfull and obedient vnto the King as often or vvhensoeuer hee shall by his owne proper authority create Bishops whom hee will and againe depose from their of fice vvhom hee will c. Whom he vvill Nay that is the proper speech of popish Antichrists Stat proratione voluntas Extrauag de trans Episc quanto My will standeth for a law But Christian Princes say thus Idpossumus quodiure possumus Wee can doe nothing but that which we can doe by law and right Therefore any Christian subiect and by name Dr. Tooker may sweare in this manner I A. B. doe sweare in my conscience that I will be faithfull and obedient to the King as often or whensoeuer he shall by his own proper authority depose Bishops for iust causes as Salomon did Abiathar But let Martin Becane put on the thoughts of an honest and sober man awhile and tell me Whether the oath of Supremacy containe so many parts as are supposed to be the offices or functions of the Primacie He saith putantur as are thought or supposed vvhat of any triobular or meane Writer of the English or Romane partie Fie fie who can abide this Nay rather the oath of the Kings Supremacy comprehendeth no more then those offices of the royall Supremacy which is manifest that the Kings of Israel in holy Scripture executed with commendation and so doth the Kings Maiestie write in the same expresse tearmes All which offices are articularly and exactly set downe by him in his Apology pag. 127. 128. And by the Bishop of Ely in his Tortura Tort. pa. 377. 378. collected out of confirmed by the vvord of God But heere I would desire the Iesuit to tell me vvhether the oath of the Popes Supremacy containe as many parts as are the offices and functions of the said Supremacie thought to be by the Iesuits Canonists Popes Parasits Popes themselues Then the Pope of Rome must be Vniuersall Primate and Bishop a in Concil Constanticâ—s paral Vspergen Denecessitate salutis of the necessity of saluation b Extra de Appel vt debitus glossa The Ordinary of all men c Harding in Iewel Def. par 5. cap. 6. diuis 4. Whose diocesse is the vvhole vvorld d Lib. 1. Ceremon Who beeing invested Pope ruleth the Citie the world e Francis Zabarella Who possesseth all the rights of all inferior Churches f Durand de Ordin et ministris Of vvhose fulnesse all Bishops receine g Hard. Iew. part 5. ca. 6. D. 7. Who may not be iudged either by Kings or the vvhole Clergie or the vvhole vvorld h Pet. de Palu de potest Pap. art 4. Who in no case for any crime vvhatsoeuer may be deposed either by the vvhole Church or by a Councell or by the whole vvorld i Ioh. de Parisijs de potest Regia Pap. 9. q. 3. Nemo All vvhose actions though as euill in themselues as theft and adultery we must so interprete as done by diuine inspiration So that k Di. 40. â—oÌ„ nos glossa it vvere a kinde of sacriledge to call the Popes fact into question who is free from all humane lawes Whose deeds although euill in themselues are to be excused as the murthers of Samson the thefts of the Iewes in Egypt and the adulterie of Iacob l Concil Tom. 1. in purga Sixti 9. q. 3. cuÌ„ta Whom to accuse is to sinne against the holy Ghost which shall neuer be forgiuen in this vvorld nor in the world to come as freed from the law of man Then is the Pope of Rome not as a meere m De Elect. et elect fundamenta in glossa Et CleÌ„ â—n prooemio in glossa man but Christ. n Hard. Iew. pag. 2. cap. 3. Di. 2. The Bridegroome of the vvhole Church So as by Panormitan De Elect. cap. licet the Pope and Christ make but one Consistory o Herue de pot Pap. ca. 23. Hee is alone the vvhole Church p Felin de const statut canon A vice-God q Ext. Ioh. 22. cumint nonnullos gloss Our Lord God the Pope r Dist 96. satis culdenter A God Å¿ Fran. Zaba Hard. Iew. p. 5. c. 6. D. 6. More then GOD. t Hauing diuine power to whom all power is giuen in heauen and in earth u Extra de transl Epis ca. Quanto Hostiensis Who sinne onely excepted can doe all that God can doe x Paschalis Papa De Elect et elect potest ca. Significasti He shall be aboue generall Councells y Angel Paris Hard. Iew. p. 5. c. 6. Diuis 14. Purgatâ—ry z Pet. de Palud de poâ—est Pap. art 4. The whole Church aa Nic. Cuâ—an The Scripture bb Extra de const stat Canon Felinus Angels cc CoÌ„câ—tl Lat. sub Leone sessio All power dd De Maior vnam Sanctam All things ee 15. Q 6. Authoriâ—â—te in glossa So as hee can dispute against the law of nature ff 16. Q 1. Quicunque in glossa Against the law of God gg Panor de diuortij Against the new Testament hh Summa Angel dict Papa And all the commaundements of the old and new Testament ii De translâ—t Epis Quanto Hostiensis So as he can doe as
few Questions following I. Whether the King of England haue any Primacy in the Church or no II. Whether the Primacy of the King bee Ecclesiasticall and spirituall III. Whether the King by this Primacy may be called the Primate of the Church IIII. Whether by vertue of the same Primacy the King may be called Supreme Head of the Church V. Whether this Primacy consist in any Power or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall VI. Whether the King by reason of his Primacy can assemble or call together Councels and sit as President therein VII Whether he can make Ecclesiasticall Lawes VIII Whether he can dispose of Ecclesiastical liuings or Benefices IX Whether he can create and depose Bishops X. Whether he can excommunicate the obstinate XI Whether hee can be Iudge and determine of Controuersies XII From whence hath the King this his Primacy XIII Whether he can force his Subiects to take the Oath of Supremacy In these Questions doe our Aduersaries extreamely differ and disagree but especially these M. Doctor Andrewes in his Tortura Torti M. William Tooker Deane of Lichefield in his Combat or single Fight with Martin Bucane M. Richard Tomson 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 Becane his Examen Besides these as opposite vnto them I will also cite Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England Genebard in his Chronology Polydor Virgil in his History of England Iacobus Thuanus of Aust in the History of his time Iohn Caluin in his Commentary vpon the Prophet Amos and others English Concord THe Regall Primacy in the Church of England is much more ancient then the Popish Primacy in the Romane Church The Regall Primacy had his beginning from the * Daniel chap. 7. v. 6 Ancient of Dayes vnder the most ancient Patriarchs It flourished magnifically vnder the Orthodoxall Kings Israeliticall and Euangelicall and now in England it flourisheth most of all vnder King Iames soundly sounded vpon the rock and built vpon the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets permanent for euer so that by the fall of raines the comming of flouds and the wine-blasts of any Iesuits whatsoeuer it cannot be so much as moued much lesse remooued and least of all rent and torne in peeces But of the Popish Primacy rightly saide Christ in the Gospell Euery Kingdome diuided in it selfe shall be desolate Now what and how great their Iarres and discords are I am to shew in handling these few Questions following English Concord BEcane in his booke of English discord and in his first Question demanded Whether the King of England haue any Primacy or Supremacy in the Church And I in my book of English Concord demaunded Whether the Pope haue anie Primacy in the Church considering that Saint Cyprian asserteth that Peter did neuer challenge or assume any such thing Epist ad Quintum 71. sect 3 as to say that he held the Primacy and that Chrysostome dogmatically writeth thus Whosoeuer desireth or affecteth the Primacy in earth as all Popes doe shall finde confusion in heauen Homil. 35 in Matth. Whereunto the Iesuite in his late book entituled Examen Concordiae Anglicanae The examination of the English Concord answereth or obiecteth thus BECAN Exam. THat they are not the words of Chrysostome Pag. 92 but of some other author ioyned with him 2. That these words are against our King desiring Supremacie in earth 3. That the Author speaketh promiscuously of both the Primaces Secular and Ecclesiasticall 4. but distinguisheth betweene the desiring and obtaining of the Primacy referring the one to vanitie and the other to the iudgement of God Dr. HARRIS Reply 1 I Doe commiserate the seely ignorance of this Iesuite Becane who knoweth not that these very words aforesaide are not onely canonized but also expresly fathered vpon Chrysostome in the Popes Canon law which the Iesuite dare not affront Dist 40. ca. Multi The wordes of the Canon are these Also Iohn Chrysostome Not euery one is a true Priest which is named a Priest Many Priests and few Priests Many in name but few in work Take heede therefore brethren how you sit vpon the Chayre because the Chayre doth not make the Priest but the Priest the Chayre c. The same Chrysostome Whosoeuer shall desire Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heauen neither shall he be numbred among the seruants of Christ Qui de Primatu tractauerit Who handleth or ambitiously speakes of or challengeth Primacy De Scriptor Ecclesiasticis And according to that Canon the most profound and famously renowmed Canonist euen by Bellarmine in his late booke to witte Henry Cardinall Hostiensis vpon the 15. Chapter of Penitency and Remission Cap. Cui Papa ascribeth these words vnto Chrysostome as to the Author of them thus And so in the Penitentiall Court the Pope is made lesse and his Confessor greater and this Chrysostome insinuateth Dist 40. Multi Wherefore the Iesuite may take from mee thus cleared this falsity vnto himselfe or else hee must returne it ouer To the Authoritie of their Apostaticall Church To their authentike and ordinary glosses and explanations of the Gospell To the decrees of the Romane Bishops To their chiefest Canonists and Diuines for in the writings of all those he may finde sentences written in that Worke called the Imperfect Worke alleaged as out of Chrysostom 2. By the expresse words of the foresaid Canon it is manifest that the words of Chrysostō are by their Canon law referred vnto Priests and Priests onely who sit vpon the Chayre in expresse tearmes often repeated Whereby it appeareth what a seely and vnmannerly Sophister this Iesuite is who thence frameth his Argument against our King drawne thus into form syllogisticall as indeed from thence it can be drawne no otherwise What Priest soeuer desireth Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in Heauen The King of England is a Priest desiring Primacie in earth Therefore he shall finde confusion in heauen Were this Iesuite in our Vniuersitie Schooles he wold be hist out as an absurd Dunse for arguing Our gratious King is no Priest but detesteth their Priests and Priesthood as Antichristian Hee is by the grace of God the high and potent Monarch of Great Britanne France and Ireland and vnder Christ made of God without any ambitious desire of his Primate or Supreme Gouernour ouer all persons and in all causes Ecclesiasticallor Temporall within his Dominions maugre the beard of the Pope and all his Shauelings But if the Iesuite will rightly assume out of the Maior proposition set down in the said Canon law he must take the triple crowne of Primacy from the Popes head and wrap it vp in the dust of Confusion thus What Priest soeuer though it were Peter himselfe doth challenge or ambitiously desire Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heauen But the Popes of Rome haue and now most of all doe challenge
* Deu. 13 10 Leurt 24.23 matter of religion and by Regall authoritie to punish the transgressors of them To call Councells of Synods by his authoritie f 1. Câ—ton 13.3 for reducing of the people to Gods worship h 2. Chr. 19.4 and purifying of the Templepolluted Touching persons To administer iustice vnto all of all sorts i 2. Chr. 29.5 who should be To speake as the Scripture doth The head of the Tribe of Leuie k 1. Sa. 15.17 no lesse then of the other Tribes The king no lesse of Clerkes then of Laikes To depriue the high Priest if he do deserue of his high Priesthood l 1. Reg. 2.27 In matters of Religion To breake down the high places To abolish strange worship m Exo. 32.10 to breake in peeces the brasen Serpent which Moses erected n 2. Reg. 18.4 In matters of Order To ordaine such things as pertaine to the comlinesse o 2. Chro. 24 12 Socrat. lib. 2 ca. 17 of GODs house and to suppressefriuolous and vnprofitable questions These by Dinine right are the rights of Regall Primacie To weet wherby the king may 1. Be called p Tort. Tort. p. 339 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Supreme head of the Church 2. Call Councells and presede in them 3. Make Lawes Ecclesiasticall 4. Constitute and depose the High Priests 5. Binde his subiects by oath to keep the lawes by him made To conclude hereby may the Aduersaries see that Regall Primacy is founded in the Scriptures and propagated from the first religious kings vnder the olde to the first religious Emperours and kings and so to our Soueraigne Lord King Iames vnder the new Testament and in that long distance of time nothing impaired or diminished What then neuer to decay I doubt it not What 's the reason Heare it out of Gods booke not out of triuials Iesuiticall q If it be of God Acts 5.39 you can not dissolue it Goe now Icsuite and play with your sooleries and very childish questions In the meane time let mee aske and answere in your owne words The Primacy Iesuiticall hath it lesse power in France for in Venice it hath none at all than it hath had there or else where So it appeareth Is it then in so short a time abated and diminished in France So men say Is it therefore neere his end I doe not doubt it What 's the reason Heare it from the Iesuites triuiall That which suddainly came for we know wel the swaddling clouts of Loyola the Iesuits Syre is soone gone BECAN Exam. Page 112 THE Primacie or Supremacie vnder King Henry King Edward and Qucene Elizabeth was Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall but vnder King Iames it is not so and what it will be is vncertaine Here is a Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply IN my Concord booke I shewed in generall and in particular the Regall Primacy vnder K. Iames to be the selfe same which was vnder K. Henry K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth adding that it so would continue as certainely it will during this orthodoxall Religion among vs which I hope shall continue so long as the sunne and moone endure though the Iesuiticall and all other Papisticall bowels burst thereat I shewod it in general for that the Supremacie then was and now no lesse is The kings Supreme power in and ouer all causes and all persons within his kingdom Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall and therefore in the selfe same lawes of this kingdome then and now in force called The kings supreme Power Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall In particular I demonstrated the same by setting downe the most materiall points out of the expresse words of Scirpture wherein the kings saide Supreme power Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall consisteth in which saide both generall and particular points as there they are set downe all English Protestant Writers with full consent agree without any Iarre or difference whatsoeuer If this shallow Iesuite had had any sound matter in him in this his ExameÌ„ he would haue answered to the matter especially to those materiall points founded vpon the Scriptures and haue proued that either those particular points belong not to the office of Regall Supremacy or else that wee Protestant Writers iarre in some one or moe of those said materiall points gathered by the R. Bishop of Ely and there set downe as not warranted by holy writte to belong to kings but this Iesuite passeth them ouer with Noli metangere and onely sets before the Reader his twise sodden Ioathsome Colewoorts viz. That Mr. Burhill writeth thus We doe not giue vnto the king Primacy Spirituall or Ecclesîasticall but rather Primacy in and ouer causes and persons Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall whereas Mr. Burhil in his Appendix to the confutation of Eudaemon Page 283. cuts this Iarre all in sunder writing thus In the 21. chapter of my booke against Becane I purposely and plainly taught how the said Regall Primacy may be called both waies to weet Primacy Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall or Primacy in matters and ouer persons spirituall or Ecclesiasticall and that they who call it spiritual Primacy meane nothing else then wee vvho in regard of the cauillations and calumnies of the Aduersarie by Spirituall power vnder standing nothing else but power Sacerdotall or Episcopall call it Primacy in ouer causes and persons spirituall or Ecclesiasticall And that in the very thing there is no dissent at all among vs. What could be spoken more fully and plainly to put to silence the lying and iarring lips of this Iesuit BECAN Exam. Pag. 114. IT is your priuat fansy none but you will say that the King hath or that himselfe challengeth power to appoint or depose summos Pontifices the highest or chiefest Bishoppes vvho should rule ouer all the Christian vvorld and vvho dwell out of his kingdome as hee hath in his Preface monitorie protested Dr. HARRIS Reply BElike the Iesuit hath not read this Question in Saint Augustine and the answere vnto it Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Presbyter hocest Summus Sacerdos What is a Bishop but the chiefe Priest And accordingly Lactantius lib. 4. ca. 30. calleth euery Bishoprick Supremum Sacerdotium the highest Priesthood If the Iesuit could vnderstand Greeke I would produce Ignatius ad Trallianos putting the question and making answere vnto it as Augustine did thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What other thing is a Bishoppe but one hauing principality and power ouer all men Belike the Iesuit will be bold with Ruffin and tax him for calling Athanasius who was no Pope Pontificem maximum the highest Bishop But then comes in Hierom speaking of euery Bishoppe and dogmatizing thus Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet The safety of the Church dependeth vpon the dignity of the highest Priest With vs in England are not only Bishops but Archbishops also euen Primats that is Patriarks ouer whoÌ„ the King in his Supremacy is Supreme Gouernour whom as he may nominat and appoint so vpon
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
not reâ—â—le when hee suffered hee threatned not but deliuered himselfe to him that iudged him vniustly c. 10. And Heb. 11. 36. Others had triall of reproaches and stripes moreouer also of bands and prisons they were stoned they were hewed they were tempted they died in the slaughter of the sword they went about in sheep-skins in goate-skinnes needy in distresse afflicted of whom the world was not worthy wandring to deserts in mountaines and dennes and in caues of the earth c. 11. And againe in the 12. Chapter and 1. verse And therefore by patience let vs runne to the Combat proposed vnto vs looking on the Author of Faith and the consummator Iesus who ioy beeing proposed vnto him sustained the Crosse contemning confusion and sitteth on the right hand of the seat of God For thinke diligently vpon him who sustained of sinners such contradiction against himselfe that you be not wearied fainting in your mindes For you haue not yâ—trelisted vnto bloud c. 12. And yet more a. Cor. 11.23 In very many labours in prisons more abouÌ„dantly in stripes abone measure in deathâ— often Of the Ievves fiue times did I receine forty stripes sauing one Thrice was I beaten with rodds once I was stoned thrice I suffered shipwrack night and day haue I beene in the depth of the Sea in ionrnying often in perils of waters perils of thieues perils of my Nation perils of Gentiles perils in the Citie perils in the Wildernesse perils in the sea perils among false brethren in labour and miserie in much watching in hunger and thirst in fastings often in cold and nakednes c. 13. And yet more in the 12. Chapter and 9. verse Gladlie will I glory in my owne infirmity that the power of Christ may dwell in mee For which cause I please my selfe in infirmities in contumelies in neceâ—sities in persecutions in distresses for Christ For when I am weake then am I mightie c. 14. With these and the like testimonies of holy Scriptures vvere armed Sir Thomas More and the Bishop of Rochester when they rather chose to die then to take an impions wicked Oath With these places vvere others also animated who followed them in their glorious fight And lastly with these are they encouraged who now in England are kept in prisons bound in fetters spoyled of their goods and linings and purpled in their owne bloud S. Cyprian Epist 9. Pretiosa mors haec est quae emit immortalitatem pretio sanguinis sui Pretions is that death which buyeth immortality with the price of it bloud And in the end of the same Epistle O beatam Ecclesiam nostram quam temporibus nostris gloriosus Martyrum sanguis illustrat Erat antea in operibus fratrum candida nunc facta est in MartyruÌ„ cruore purpurea O happy is our Church which the glorious bloud of Martyrs doth in these our dayes illustrate It was made white before in the works of our brethren but novv is it made purple in the bloud of Martyrs And yet more in Epist 24. Quid gloriosius aut felicius vlli hominum poterit ex diuina dignatione contingere quà m inter ipsos carnifices interritum confiteri Dominum Deum quà m inter saeuientia saecularis potestatis tormenta etiam extorto excruciato excarnificato corpore Christum Deâ— filium ersi recedente sed â—amen libero spiritu confiteri quà m relicto mundo caelum petisse quà m desertis hominibus inter Angelos stare quà m collegam passioniscum Christo in Christi nomine factum esse What can happen vnto any man through Gods diuâ—ne bountifulnesse more glorious or more prosperous then without all feare to confesse our Lord God then amidst the cruell torments of secular power to confesse Christ the Sonne of God with a free spirit though now departing from the body yea from the body tortured tormented and all to bemangled then by leaning the vvorld to goe to heanen then by for saking the company of men to be conuersant with Angells and bee made partaker of the Passion of Christ in Christ his Name English Concord IT is very true that both the oath of Supremacie and the oath of Allegiance are contained in the Kings Apologie but this is a very false plainlie a Iesuiticall lye that in both those oathes viz. the oath of Allegiance The subiects are required publiquely and openlie to professe and acknowledge that King Iames is the supreme Gouernour and Lord of all England not onely in politique and temporall matters but in spirituall Ecclesiasticall also and that neither the Pope nor any other forrainer hath any power or inrisdiction in or oner the Church of England Heere I begin with the Iâ—suit taking him napping in a grosse falsification of the oath of Allegiance for there is no such thing contained therein Which is also testified by his excellent Maiestie in his Preface Monitory pag. 11. Vt certioribus iudicijs per ditam horum coÌ„uitiatoruÌ„ malitiam deprehendere pos sit is c. That with more certaine and assured tokens you may espy the desperate malice of these raylers as the Pope Paul 5 Cardinall Bellarmine and Becane who impudently affirme that this Oath was deuised to entrap and beguile the consciences of improuident Papists in matters of faith I will declare the vvhole passage of the matter in few vvords As soone as this for me of the Oath of Allegiance vvas conceined the lower house of Parliament thought good to insert that clause vvhereby all power should bee taken from the Pope to excommunicate the King But I presently caused the same to be razed out to the end that it might appeare that this Oath had no other force or respect then that the Popes excommunication should be no iust or lawfull cause vnto my subiects by secret or open practises to attempt any thing against my person or my kingdome because I thought that this sentence of excommunication of a spirituall censure was by vniust vsurpation of Popes made a secular pretence and so exorbitant beyond all bounds With so great care and studie I did auoide that nothing should be contained in this Oath but that profession sion of ciuill allegiance and temp or all obedience vvhich nature it selfe prescribeth to all them vvhich are borne vnder any kingdom adding onely a firme promise wherby I demaund of my subiects ayde and assistance against the breach of due allegiance and fidelitie Wherefore I faw it appertained to the cause that I should make an Apologie for this Oath vvherein I haue taken vpon mee to proue that nothing is contained heerein but that vvhich concerneth meere ciuill and temporall obedience such as is due to all soueraigne Princes And againe in the 53. page of the Apology Iuramentum primatus excogitatum est ad discrimen faciendum c. The Oath of supremacy was deuised to discerne and put a difference betwixt the Papists and those of our religion but the Oath of Allegiance was inuented to distingutsh