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
* 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
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
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
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
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
key hee open to the Pope that is remit his sinne then heab solueth the Pope For wherefore is one excommunicated but because his sinnes are bound wherefore is one absolued but because his sinnes are remitted If it bee not in respect thereof the King may be said to haue power to excoÌ„municate that is to say to keep men from the Communion viz. when he committeth some to close prison where neither any can speake to them nor they to any Now therefore if the Priest may be the cause of the cause that is if hee can binde the Popes sinnes vvhy may he not be the cause of the effect that is why may he not excommunicate the Pope or which with S. Paul is all one deliuer him to Sathan According to that of Saint Hierome to Heliodore of the Eremiticall life God for bid that I should speak any euill of those who succeeding the Apostolike degree make the body of Christ vvith their sacred mouth vvho hauing the keyes of the kingdome of heauen in sort iudge before the day of Iudgement It is not lawfull for mee to sit before a Priest hee may if I sinne deliuer mee to Sathan for the destruction of the flesh that the Spirit may be saued And so Saint Rasil of the solitarie life cha 23. Peter inquit Amas me c. Christ said vnto Peter Louest thou mee Feed my sheep And in like sort vnto all Pastors and Doctors hee gaue the same power A token vvhereof is this that all binde and loose equally as vvell as Peter If euery Pastor and Doctor binde and loose equally as well as Peter vvhy not in Court exteriour as well as Peter sith the sheep are committed vnto them as well as vnto Peter The Minor Proposition I also deny heere as I did in the English Concord That is I deny that any Bishoppe hath power to throwe the King out of the Church or to excommunicate him according to canonicall excommunication so properly called and defined And further I denied that the supposed excommunication of Theodosius by Ambrose was canonicall excommunication yeelding there some reasons thereof Whereunto though very materiall this silly Iesuit answereth not one word and yet with Iesuiticall that is with brasen face is bold to set before thee Christian Reader his loathsome Coleworts twise yea thrise sodden ⧠Becans Iarre XI Question Whether the King may be Iudge of all Controuersies in the Church 1. COntrouersies that arise in the Church are of two sorts some are about faith and Religion others are concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires The former of these questions then is Whether the King by vertue of his Primacy bee supreame Iudge of all Controuersies vvhich pertaine vnto faith and Religion Maister Salclebridge saith be is pag. 163. in these vvords Sic luce clarius est Christianos Principes cum laude Controuersias fidei dijudicasse diremisse etiam in vniuersalibus octo Concilijs c. So as it is more cleare then the Sunne that Christian Princes vvith praise haue iudged of and decided controuersies of faith and that in eight Generall Councells c. Which is as much to say in the first of Nice the first of Constantinople that of Ephesus Chalcedon the second third and fourth of Constantinople and the second of Nice vvherein diuerse controuersies concerning matters of faith vvere iudged of and decided especially cuncerning the diuinitis of Christ against the Hereticke Arius of the diuinitie of the holy Ghost against Macedonius of one person of Christ against Nestorius of two Natures in Christ against Eutiches and Dioscorus and so of others All these Controuersies saith Maister Saclebridge were iudged of and decided by Kings and Emperours 2. Maister Tooker now hee affirmeth the quite contrarie vvho by no meanes vvill haue Kings or Emperours to bee Iudges of Controuersies of faith For thus hee vvriteth pag. 3. of his books Olere autem malitiam ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud videtur cùm Regem caput Ecelesiae Primatemque confingas omniumque causarum controuersiarum quae ad sidem Religionem pertinent iudicem tribuas It may seeme to sauour of malice cry out vpon your sausinesse vvhen as you faine the King to be head of the Church Iudge of all causes and controuersies vvhich pertaine vnto faith and Religion c. And againe pag. 50. Rexin suo Regno omnibus superior sit nullisubditus Fidei iudex no appelletur quidem Although the King in his owne Kingdome be aboue all subiect to none yet hee may not be called in any case the Iadge of our Faith c. And pag. 313. Reges Christiani non sunt fidei ac Religionis Iudices Christian Kings are not Iudges of faith and Religion 3. So as if now in England there should chaunce to arise a dissension or debate concerning any point of Faith or Religion as for Example concerning the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist vvhat should your Academicks heere do To vvhom should your Cittizens and the rest of the subiects haue recourse Should they goe vnto the King as Iudge in this point and aske his sentence determination Maister Tooker you see vvould not goe to the King What should they goe to some other Iudge then But Maister Salclebridge hee vvill admit no other What then vvere best to bee done in this case Truly euen that vvhich hitherto hath been done in the debate of the Kings supremacy to vvit alwaies to braule and iarre thereabout and neuer end the controuersie And vvhat 's the cause In very deede no other but for that some thinke one thing some another and they cannot or rather vvill not finde out the certaine and true Iudge vvho can decide the matter And this is the propertie of hereticks 4. The other Question is Whether the King be Iudge of all Controuersies that concerne other Ecclesiasticall affaires Maister Salclebridge saith that hee is pag. 165. in these vvords Audin ' Controuersias Episcopales ab Imperatore diremptas Doe you not heare Sir that Episcopall Controuersies haue been decided by Emperours c. is hat Ma. Tooker thinketh of this point is not vvell knowne For sometimes hee affirmes it as for example pg. 24 thus Nemini dubiuÌ„ est quin in Primitiua Ecclesia de rebus personis Ecclesiasticis â—us dicerent Imperatores No man can doub but that in the Primitiue Church Emperours iudged of matters and persons Ecclesiasticall c. And yet pag. 23. hee seemeth to deny it Non est Princeps supra res sed supra personas The Prince saith he is not aboue the matters but abone the persons c. And then againe pag. 49. Rex in suo Regno supremus est non supra res sed supra homines The King in his owne Kingdome is the chiefe or principall but yet not chiefe ouer things but ouer men And thus you see euery vvhere nothing but iarring and disagreement English Concord BOth Doctor Tooker and Hainric deny the King to be supreme Iudge in
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
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
Egypt And hee put one of them in Bethel and the other in Dan. Also hee made a house of the high places and made bim Priests of the lowest of the people vvho were not of the sonnes of Leui. And Ieroboam made a feast in the fifteenth day of the eight Moneth like vnto the feast that is in Iudah and sacrificed on the Altar So did hee in Bethel and offered vnto the Calues that hee had made And hee constituted in Bethel the Priests of the high places which hee had made And you may read in the 13. chapter That beeing rebuked by a Prophet for this matter yet hee departed not from his euill way but turned himselfe and made him Priests of the high places de saece populi of the dregs of the people and vvhosoeuer pleased him hee consecrated him and made him a Priest of the high places And againe 2. Chron. II. chap. 13. verse And the Priests and the Leuites that vvere in all Israel resorted to him out of all their coasts meaning Roboam the sonne of Salomon For the Leuites left their suburbs their possessions and came to Iudah and to Ierusalem for Ieroboam and his sonnes had cast them out from ministring in the Priests office before the Lord. But thus writeth the King and his learned Interpretour the Bishoppe of Ely in Tort. Tort. pag. 381. Quodcunque in rebus religionis reges Israel fecerunt nec sine laude fecerunt id vt et Regi Iacobo faciendi ius sit atque potestas Whatsoeuer the Kings of Israel did vvith commendation in the maters of Religion the same power and iurisdiction now hath King Iames. Let this therefore be the Proposition or first part of the second reason which Becane himselfe acknowledgeth in his Refuration cap. 8. pag. 124 and then I will assume the Minor But the Kings of Israel not without commendation by their royall authoritie in matters of Religion 1. Haue enacted lawes 2. Delegated of their subiects to iudge of such lawes 3. Haue bound all their subiects both Clergie men and Lay-men by oath of Allegiance 4. Haue pumshed the transgressors of such lawes 5. Haue called assemblies or Councells 6. Haue ruled all estates as the Heads of the Tribe of Leui as vvell as of the other Tribes and vvere as much Kings of the Clergie as of the Laitie 7. If any Abiathar or High Priest vvexed proud they bridled him by their censure and if there were cause deposed Abiathar from the High Priesthood 8. They abolished all strange worship as when they razed the high places brake in peeces the golden Calues and the brasen Serpent c. To conclude they gaue order for things indifferent which appertained to the outward splendour comlinesse of the house of G O D And by their authoritie cut off idle and curious questions in religion vvhich were wont to be the mother and breeder of schismes as the Scriptures expresly witnesse whereof you may read in Tort. Torti pag. 381.382 Therefore I will conclude that King Iames hath the same power and iurisdiction and therfore may binde his subiects by an oath I A. B. doe openly testifie and declare in my conscience that King Iames is the oneliâ— supreme Gouernour of this Realme and of this Church of England c. as was Dauid and Salomon of the Church of Israel and Asa Ezekias and Iosias of the Church of Iuda and that no forrainer hath or ought to haue any iurisdiction power c. within this Kingdome as they had none in Iuda and so may lawfully say to the Priests subiects Obey not the high Priest which dwelleth in any forraine kingdome but obey me alone as the onely supreme Gouernour of this Church You are all exempt from his power and iurisdiction For so Dauid Salomon Asa Ezekias and Iosias might lawfully commaund their Priests Leuits and therefore so may King Iames commaund his Clergie These things thou maiest perceiue learned Reader are collected out of the pure fountaines of sacred Scriptures and so conclude our cause solidly and beyond all exception But Becane his Sillogisme is a monstor in Logick running vpon some feet yet halteth For King Iames speaketh of godly religious Kings and not schismaticall either of all Israel or onely of Iuda and of their Ecclesiasticall gouernment the very patterne and exemplary primacy commended vnto Christian Kings in the Scriptures But Martin the Sophister that is the Iesuit assumeth impious schismaticall Kings of Israel rent from Iuda among whoÌ„ neuer any one is remembred in scripture to haue handled Ecclesiasticall matters with commendation And heere I intreat the ingenuous Reader to obserue the Iesuiticall and serpentine subtilty of Becane who to decciue his Catholiques passeth by all the godly Kings of Iuda and onely bringeth Ieroboam on the stâ—ge a schismaticall King the first head of that iniquitic and the ring-leader of all them that are branded with notes of infamy in the holy booke as 1. King 15.29 And Baasa strooke all the house of Icroboam hee left no soule aliue because of the sinnes where-with Icroboam sinned and made Israel to sinne And 2. Chron. 13.5 Ought you not to know that the Lord God of israel hath giuen the Kingdome ouer Israel to Dauid for euer euen to him and to his sonnes by a Couenant of Salt And Icroboam the sonne of Nebat the seruant of Salomon the sonne of Dauid is risen vp and bath rebelled against his Lord c. Loe this is that most impious rebellious and schismaticall Ieroboam vvhich must comfort and confirme the Romish Catholiques But seeing our Iesuit is conuersant among schismes and schismatiques let him assume and make his instance those three Antipopes who troubled the world about the time of the Councel of Constance Or let him take any one of them and tell me 1. Who was then the Primate of the Church 2. Who was then the supreme head of the Church 3. Who had then the Ecclesiasticall Primacy 4. Who did then exercise the supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction 5. Who could then by his owne authority call a generall Councell and sit therein President 6. Who had power to conserre that fat benefice of the Papacy it selfe 7. Who could then create Popes and depose the Antipopes 8. Who was then the supreme Iudge of all Controuersies especially of papall or popish questions But I will yet presse the Iesuit more necrely What if the French so called Catholique Church should create to it selfe a Patriarch leaue the See of Rome seeing the Pope Paul the fist claimeth temporall iurisdiction ouer the King of Fraunce What if other Kings both Protestants all those which call themselues Catholiques seeing the Pope claimeth iurisdiction ouer all in a common cause that so much concerneth their Crownes and royall dignities should ioyne hands and harts and establish a Patriarch in their seuerall Kingdoms who should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take and exercise the same iurisdiction that the old Roman Patriarch had did
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
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
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
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
Gregory the great called Mauritius the Emperour his Lord and himselfe the Emperours Seruant but afterwards the case was altered cleane contrariwise and the Pope became the soueraigne Lord of the Emperour and the Emperour the Popes vassall In the yeare 1133 when Pope Innocent the second had set the Crowne vpon the Emperour Lotharius head hee caused the solemne manner thereof to be painted on a wall in his Lateran-Palace and vnder the picture these verses following to be written Rex venit adfores iurans per vrbis honores Post homo fit Papae sumit quo dance coronain The king at Palace of the Pope sweares fealty and than The king receiuing Crowne of Pope made is the Popes sworne man True it is that by the Popes Canon law Dist. 63 c. Tibi Domino et 22. q. 5. de forma in Glossa the Emperours as the Popes vassals must sweare homage to the Pope as holding their Crownes and Empires of him but it was neuer heard of before these Iesuiticall traytours had so heretically dogmatized that the Kings and Emperours hold their liues also of the Pope as the basest villaines that euer were to witte at the Popes pleasure Now iudge Christian Reader what noble schoolemaisters these Iesuites are teaching all Christian subiects the Art of killing their Kings Saint Iohn in his Reuelation Chap. 17. vers 16. prophecied That the King should hate the vvhore the scarlet vvhore died first in the bloud of Martyrs but now in the bloud of Kings and make her desolate and naked and should eate her flesh and burne her vvith fire If euer there were iust cause presented to kings to doe it surely now it is giuen them to the full Prou. 8.15 The King of heauen by vvhom they rule and decree iustice stirre vp betimes their royall hearts with vnited forces to constraine the Pope to renounce this his Antichristian bloudy claime or else to pull his triple Crowne from his head and to lay his Romish Popedome in the dust choosing another Patriarke if a Patriarke must needes bee had and bounding that new one within the Ecclesiasticall tedder onely That learned Gerson in his booke De Aufeberilitate Papae of taking the Pope of Rome cleane away gaue a good Item for this long since BECAN Exam. Page 100 YOu cite out of Bellarmine these words If the Pope should command vice and forbid vertue the Church were bound to belieue vertue to be euil and vice good but most deceitfully For Bellarmine doth not absolutely affirme that which you faine but vpon condition that grant one absurdity another will follow Bellarmines words are these It can not be that the Pope should erre in commanding any vice or forbidding vertue because then he should erre about faith For the Catholike faith teacheth that all vertue is good and all vice is euill But if the Pope should erre in commanding vices and prohibiting vertues the Church were bound to belieue vices to be good and vertues euill vnlesse it would sinne against conscience Dr. HARRIS Reply THis Iesuit makes Bellarmine write farre worse than as I produced him For in my Citation he spake thus If the Pope should command vice or forbid vertue the Church should belieue vice to be good and vertue to be euill but Becane brings him in writing more impudently and blasphemously thus If the Pope should erre in commanding vices or forbidding vertues the Church vvere bound to beleeue vices to be good and vertues to be euill vnlesse the Church would sinne against her conscience Which is plaine blasphemie and for which Bellarmine incurreth S. Pauls curse directlie For hee can not deny but that the blessed Angels of heauen and Apostles were as free from errour in their Angelicall and Apostolicall doctrines of faith and maners as the Pope is yet saith S. Paul Gal. 1. vers 8 If vve or an Angell from heauen should preach vnto you otherwise than that yee haue receiued let him be accursed But Bellarmine thus If the Pope should preach otherwise viz. vertue to be euill and vice good according to that of Esay Chap. 5. vers 20. Woe be to them that speak good of euill and euill of good the Church ought to hold the Pope so blessed as that she should sinne if shee did not belieue him so erring and erroneously preaching What is this else but to giue the holy Spirit of God the Lie in his face 〈◊〉 is here most absurd in writing thus Dato 〈…〉 do sequitur aliud If vvee grant one absurâ—â—◠〈◊〉 followeth another For grant that one absurdity that a blessed Angel of heauen should preach errour should this â—â—â—urditie follow That the Church vvere bound to beleeue him No saith Paul the Church vvere bound to holde him accursed Further it is apparantly vntrue wherewith Becane doth heere charge mee viz. that I said Bellarmine did absolutely affirme the Pope to command vice and forbid vertue or that the Church should belieue vice to be good and vertue euill for I cited it in a hypotheticall or conditional proposition thus If the Pope should command vice c. and not by a categoricall or singlie affirmatiue proposition thus The Pope doth command vice and forbid vertue c. It may be Becanes learning extendeth not so farre as to knowe when a thing is vttered categorically and when hypothetically and so of ignorant simplicitie he falsely burdened me with it If it were so I will the rather forgiue him but then I would haue him to goe to schoole againe to learne the principles of Logike if he knew it and yet would write thus he abuseth his Reader not a little But I will leaue this vnlearned Iesuite a while and indeede I begin to growe very weary of him with Bellarmine here would I gladly change a few wordes and learne of him whether the Church bee bound in any case to beleeue errour in faith or in the necessary precepts of manners If he affirme it he shewes himselfe to be an Heretike 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned in his owne conscience if hee deny it then suppose the Pope should erre in faith or manners yet the Church should not belieue him therin By the rules of the CanoÌ„ law If the Pope erre in faith that is if he be an Heretike he should be deposed but by Bellarmines paralell If the Pope erre in faith he must be beleeued If this be not doctrine hereticall what can be hereticall Therefore to the euerlasting shame of Iesuites let this hereticall position of Cardinall Bellarmine which Becane seekes heere to defend but the very heathen would blush to assert of any bee ingrauen with a penne of yron in lead or stone for euer viz. If the Pope should erre in commanding vices and forbidding vertues the Church is bound in conscience to belieue vices to be good and vertues to be euill Goe to now ô Pope and say Soule thou hast enough for now doe but command the bloudy and traiterous crime of Regicide that is killing of kings
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
third argument is Tooker writes that Salomon deposed high Priests therefore the King of England may doe the same This also is no consequence for most graue Authors teach that These and such like consequences are not good c. The Kings in the old Testament had that power therefore Kings in the nevv Testament haue the same Dr. HARRIS Reply THis brew-bate Iesuit would faine haue made a Iarre betweene Hainric asserting the Kings power to depose Bishops and Doctor Tooker The English Concord sheweth that Doctor Tooker did not onely assert but also proue the same by the exemplarie act of Salomon deposing the high Priests Against this cleare concord the Icsuit opposeth nothing but this That most graue Authors deny the argument Which is nothing to the purpose For heere the question is not whether other Popish Writers dissent from Hainric or Tooker but whether Hainric Docter Tooker dissent heerein Neither in this case mattereth it whether this Argument from Salomons act be good or not It sufficeth that Doctor Tooker tooke it to be good BECAN Exam. Pag. 1â—2 THese your arguments help not your cause For either they are sound or not sound If sound they prone Tooker to dissent from himselfe and so there is a Iarre If not sound why doe they occupy any paper Dr. HARRIS Reply THis Iesuit is very vnlucky in his Dilemmaes For as the former haue been so this is thus retorted vpon him These arguments helpe my cause well for if they be vnsound by Becans dispute they prooue not Doctor Tooker to dissent from himselfe and so no Iarre if sound what cause hath the Iesuit to dislike either them or the printing of them Thus is his whole Examen in this ninth Chapter vtterly dissolued and brought to naught ⧠Becans Iarre X. Question Whether the King can excommunicate his obstinate subiects or no 1. HEere now doe our Adversaries ranke their King amongst ordinary men what they granted vnto him before heere now they seeme to revoke For they say that the King cannot excommunicate any of his subiects yet himselfe may be excoÌ„municated by them and expelled out of the Church of England whereof himselfe is supreame Head The former part heere of doth Maister Tooker affirme pag. 15. in these vvords Rex non habet potestatem distringendi gladium spiritualem vel quempiam excommunicandi The King hath no power to vnsheath the spirituall sword nor to excommunicate any man c. And the Chaplaine my Lord of Ely pag. 151. saith Nos Principi censurae potestatem non facimus Wee doe not giue authoritie to our Prince to vse Censures c. And againe Maister Thomson pag. 83. Excommunicare nullo modo ad Suprematú Ecclesiae pertinet To excommunicate doth no way belong to the Supremacie of the Church And againe pag. 84. Omnes fatemur Regem excommunicandi potestarem nullam habere Wee doe all confesse that the King hath no power to excommunicate c. 2. The later part of the former point affirmeth Ma. Burhill pag. 137. when he saith Quod Ambrosio licuit in Theodosium idem alijs in Regem simili de causa liceat c. As it was lawfull for Ambrose to proceed against Theodosius so is it lawfull also for others to proceed against the King in the like cause c. To wit hee vvould say as it was lawfull for S. Ambrose beeing a Bishop to excommunicate Theodosius the Emperour so in like manner it is lawfull for our Bishops of England to excommunicate King Iames if hee offend in like manner And then againe pag. 242. Supremus Ecclesiae Gubernator potest eijci ex Ecclesia The supreme Gouernor of the Church to wit the King may be cast forth of the Church c. And pag. 267. Rex etsi iustusimè excommunicatus non amittit Primatum The King although he should be most instly excommunicated yet hee doth not loose his Primacie c. 3. Now I doe not sec how these things can possibly hang together or agree vvith those vvhich hitherto before haue beene attributed to the King For vnto him is attributed That hee is primate and the supreme head of the Church of England That be is aboue all persons as well Ecclesiasticall as temporall in his Kingdome That hee bath supreme most ample and ful iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall no lesse then politicall and temporall And notwithstanding all this beeing so great a person yet can hee not excoÌ„municate any one of his subiects either Laicke or Church-man although neuer so rebellious and obstinate Nay although hee be so great as hee is hee may neuerthelesse be excommunicated by his subiects and cast out of the Church of England wherof he is supreame Head I cannot vnderstand this mysterie 4. Heerevnto will I adde three arguments more which will increase the difficultie The first is He that hath supreme most ample most full Iurisdection Ecclesiasticall in any Kingdom may exercise all the actions and offices that belong vnto Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of that Kingdom But now the King hath supreame most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the Kingdome of England as Maister Tooker and Maister Salclebridge doe confesse Ergo he may exercise all offices belonging to Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the Kingdom of England Ergo be may also excommunicate for that excommunication which is denounced by sentence is an act of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction Or else contrariwise if you will thus Hee that cannot exercise all acts of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in any Kingdome hath not supreame most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in that Kingdome But the King of England cannot exercise all acts of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdection in his Kingdome because hee cannot excommunicate any man Ergo hee hath not supreme most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in his Kingdome 5. The second argument is this Hee that giueth to another power to excommunicate without doubt hath power himselfe to excommunicate because no man can giue to another that which hee hath not himselfe But the King of England giueth power to his Bishoppes to excommunicate Ergo hee hath power to excommunicate The Minor is prooued out of Maister Tooker pag. 304. vvhere hee affirmeth That the Bishops of England doe receiue all their Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court from the King But now power to excommunicate belongeth to Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court as the Chaplaine pag. 41. and Maister Tooker pag. 305. expresly teach vs saying Rex habet omnem iurisdictionem spiritualem in foro exteriori exceptis quibusdam censuris The King hath all Iurisdiction spirituall in the exteriour Court excepting certaine Censures But now he excepteth ExcoÌ„munication wherin you see is to be noted againe a contradiction in Ma. Tooker for that he referreth Censures amongst which excommunication is one to the Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court True indeed But yet he adioyneth two other things that are contradictorie The first that the King can give vnto Bishops all Iurisdiction of the
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
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
for I deny the King to haue Primacie but out of yours vvho affirme hee hath it Therefore out of your opinion I might vvell dispute thus Whence hath hee Primacie Whether as a King or as a Christian King to shevv the discord For by Thomson and Burhill all heathen Kings as vvell as Christian By the Chaplaine onely Christian Kings are Primates of the Church This is a great Iarre compound it if you can And vvhere you adde that it mattereth not how hee haue it so he hath it This is a new Iarre For it mattereth greatlie according to Thomson and the Chaplaine For if he haue the Primacie because hee is King hee cannot lose it so long as hee is King if because he is a Christian King hee may lose it If hee may lose the Primacie hee is not secure if hee cannot lose it hee may take his quiet rest Dr. HARRIS Reply HIs first words of the 12. Question shew that he makes the Suppositum of himselfe not out of our Writers opinion especially Ma. Thomson and Ma. Burhill heere named by him For hauing set downe the Question thus Whence and by vvhat title hath the King Primacie in the Church hee saith The meaning of this Question is Whether the King haue Primacie as a King or as a Christian King But as Becane hath produced Ma. Thomson Ma. Burhill in his 1. and 2. Questions They both deny the King to haue Primacie in the Church Therefore the Iesuit heer sets downe the Suppositum as of himselfe and not as out of their opinions But what meant the Iesuit to say hee disputed heere when he onely asked the Question Do boyes vse to dispute with their Maisters when they onely aske questions of their Maisters Indeed if the Iesuit had disputed hee should haue disputed as in my English Concord is set downe and so by his dispute he had not taken away his ovvn Suppositum as heere hee doth but had disputed out of the opinion of some others who averre the Kings Primacy As touching the Iarre the English Concord euen out of the expresse words of Ma. Thomson manifested the agreement between the reuerend Bishop and Ma. Thomson in this point so plainly directly that Ma. Thomson himselfe wondred that Becane could stumble at it as at any Iarie And now lately comes forth Ma. Burhill in his Appendix pag. 289. asserting That an Ethnick King vvhiles he is an Ethnicke King can no more be supreme Gouernour of the Church then an Ethnick man vvhile he is an Ethnick man may be a Priest of or in the Church And so touching this poynt this Question heere is made up a full vniforme Concord and the Iesuiticall myst of this supposed great Iarre vtterly dispelled But is this Iesuit well in his wits affirming That if the King precisely as King haue Ecclesiasticall Primacie then hee is secure because as long as hee is King he can not lose it but if hee haue it as a Christian King hee may lose it vvhen as death or by their Antichristan popish new doctrine the Pope by one breath of his mouth at his pleasure excommunicating and thereby proscribing any Christian King may take away his kingdome and so his primacie but neither Pope death nor diuel can take away his Christianitie Rom. 3. ver 35. Note also heere good Christian Reader the horrible impudencie of this Iesuit who ironically afferteth That Kings are sure and may be secure to enioy their kingdoms when as Suarius in his spanne-new Booke hath made it knowen to all the world that by Iesuiticall doctrine most stiffely defended as orthodoxall and now in force Kings are not sure to enioy for the space of one moneth weeke or day their kingdoms liberties or liues if the Pope be disposed to bereaue any of them thereof That is to excommunicate them and that is very easily done euen by the breath of his mouth wheasoeuer he is pleased to pretendany cause thereof For then by their Canon law because hee is supreme Iudge whose will stands for reason and law is summa ratio reason no man must say vnto him Domine cur Itafacis Sir Iudge Supreme vvhy doe you so Thus in plaine truth by these poysonfull miscreant Iesuits are the liues and kingdoms of all Kings Christian brought at this day into farre more imminent danger then are the liucs and liuings of the meanest vassals of the said Kings and yet saith this Iesuit Kings in respect of their kingdoms may sleepe soundlie on both sides Which indeed is nothing else but to lull them asleepe in the bedde of carelesse securitie thereby with more speed and lesse danger to cut their throats BECAN Exam. Pag. 214 YOu obiect that I should reason thus According to Thomson and Burhill Ethnick Kings as vvell as Kings Christian haue Primacie of the Church Therfore all liuing in those Kingdoms are bound to doe vvhatsoeuer those Ethnick Kings impiously shall còmaund That was not my inference but this Therefore all Scots and Englishmen liuing in those Kingdoms are subiect in Ecclesia sticall matters to those Ethnicks as Primates of the Church Vpon it I doe not so much dispute as demaund thus What the English or Scottish would doe if those Kings should cōmaund them any thing touching the Church or religion If they should alwaies in all things obey they should doe against conscience if neuer obey they should not acknowledge their Primacy If then onely they should obey vvken they thought good they should make them selues Iudges of their Primats To these three they should haue answered or answere you if they deny to aunswere Dr. HARRIS Reply IAunswere first that vvhereas the Iesuit in diuerse places of his Examen hath professed that he vvill dispute nothing but about the English Iarres hee hath heere forgotten himselfe and endeuoureth the refutation of Ma. Thomson and Ma. Burhill touching the Ecclesiasticall Primacy of Pagan Kings requiring an aunswete thereof either from me or them Secondly that the Iesuits ignorance in Logicke is such that he doth not vnderstand when he reasoneth and when hee reasoneth not In his English Iarre chap. 12. Sect. 3. his words are these According to the opinion of Thomson Burhill all Pagan Kings are Primats of the Church Therefore all Englishmen liuing in Constantinople or Rome are subiect to the Turke or Pope in matters Ecclesiasticall Therefore vvhat shall they doe if the Turke commaund them to follovv the Alcoran or the Pope to pray for the dead Shall they obey the commaund Then they shall do against conscience Shall they not obey Then they deny their Primacy Shall they obey vvhen they thinke good Then subiects shall make themselues Iudges of their Kings Heere are fiue seuerall inferences all tending to evince the absurdities wich necessarily sollow vpon the supposed opinion of Maister Thomson and Ma. Burhil heerein and yet the Iesuit saith hee doth not dispute Moreouer in expresse words hee concludeth thus That if the English be subiect to the Tufkish
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
much as God can doe And I will yet deale more articulately and plainly kk Ioh. de Paris de Pot. Reg. Pap. Auentinus l. 6. Hee shall be Lord in temporal things thorough the vvhole world directly indirectly ll De Maior Solitae Anto. de Rosâ—l The King of Kings and Lord of Lords mm Dist 98. Si Imper. in gloss Extra de foâ—o coÌ„petent ca. Licet Beeing aboue all Emperours as his vassalls nn De Maior vnam sanctam Hauing of his owne both swords oo Auent in Adriano 4. Anno 1154. Beeing set ouer Nations and Kingdoms to destroy to pluck vp build and plant pp Hard. Iew. p. 5. c. 6. D. 8. From whom alone all Emperours hold their Empires qq Auent in Adrian 4. In vvhose power it is to giue them or take them from vvhom hee vvill rr Carion de Alexand. 3. Who treadeth the necks of Kings vnder his feet Å¿Å¿ Caelestinus Papa Vide RogetuÌ„ Cestrâ—nsem et Houenden And to conclude vvho crowneth Kings with his feet and vvith his feet againe spurneth the Crowne to the ground tt De Maior Solitae gl Beeing seuentie times seuen greater then the greatest Kings I will yet expresle the matter more articulately uu Lyra in Dâ—ut c. 17. Hee shall be so absolute a Iudge of all Controuersies that if hee shall say the right hand is the left or the left hand the right his saying is to bee belieued And this is the opinion of Bellarmine xx De Pont. Po. li. 4. c. 5. If the Pope should commaund vice and forbid vertue the Church were bound to belieue that vertue were euill and vice were good And they giue this reason thereof yy Panor de Constit c. 1. The fulnesse of the Popes power excelleth all Positiue lawes zz De transl Epis Quanto glossa Hostiensis ibidem and it sufficeth that the Popes will goe for a law whereby he can make righteousnes of vnrighteousnesse And heereupon Philelphus Decad. 6. Hecast 9. beautifully describeth the Pope as Antichrist saying Non Scytha non Turcus non quiterrore Damascum Aegyptumue tenet sed maximus ille Sacerdos E medio templi nostrum emersurus in axem Antichristus erit quise canit ore colendum Pro christo cuius refer at nomenque vicemque Which I English thus No Tartar grim or Turk or feared Saladine Shall be that Antichrist but that high Priest That midst the Temple sits adored with dread dinine Who beares the name Vicar is of Christ. I might be infinite in numbring the seuerall offices which are thought to be the offices of the Romane Primacie out of which I wil frame this after Becans maner I A. B. doe publiquely testifie and sweare in my conscience that I will be faithfull and obedient to the Bishop of Rome as often or whensoeuer hee shall by his owne proper authority directly in temporall causes create Emperours vvhom hee will or by the same power depose vvhom hee vvill If this part onely of the Popes Supremacy should be exacted of all the Iesuits what doe you thinke would bee done Would all thinke you yea they which adhere vnto the Pope sweare this Let them sweare that would as Baronius Triumphus Carerius and almost all the Canonists and many other famous Popish Writers Yet I amsure that Bellarmine and Becane if they be constant men will neuer sweare For thus writeth Bellarmine Papa not habet vllam merè temporalem iurisdictionem directè iure diuino lib. de Pont. Rom. 5. cap. 4. The Pope hath no meere temporall iurisdiction directly by the law of God And Becane in his Refuration pag. 18. Acprimum non disceptamus de primatu in temporalibus illum quisque Rex insuo regno legitimè habeat Wee dispute not of the Primacy in temporall causes let euery King in his kingdome lawfully possesse the same What then Is this so sure a ground with Bellarmine and Becane that they firmely determine to lose their liues like many glorious Martyrs in this kingdome rather then to admit the Popes supremacie abiure the Kings For this is thought to be one of the prime offices of the Popes supremacy That the Pope is Lord of the whole world directly in all temporall causes But this is vtterly false in the conscience of Becane and Bellarmine Or whether partly for preseruation of externall peace and gouernment which these menesteeme more then their faith and religion or partly that one of them may be made Pope the other a Cardinall which good fortune may befall them heereafter will they sweare against their owne conscience vnto the Popes supremacie with all functions which are thought to be parts thereof and thereof shall be branded as Carerius hath marked them to be impious Polititians of our time deseruing rather the name of Hareticks then of Catholicks Of whom may Pope Paul the fist truly affirme That he hath found more truth in sauage wilderobbers then in these kinde of men viz. the Iesuits which teach practice the Art of Equiuocation euen in their solemne swearing And thus much for the first reason which I am sure is enough if not too much for Bellarmine and Becane also His second reason is this King Iames dooth often protest that he claimeth no more right or iurisdiction ouer the Church then did the Kings in the old Testament long agoe But the Kings in the old Testament could not compell their subiects to sweare such an oath as this is I A. B. doe openly testifie and in my conscience declare that Ieroboam is the onely supreme Gouernor of this kingdome of Israel as well in spirituall as temporall matters And that no forrainer hath or ought to haue any iurisdiction power superiority or authority in this kingdom Ergo King Iames c. And a little after hee explicateth his Minor proposition thus After King Salomon there vvere two distinct kingdoms Iuda and Israel and there vvere two Kings vvhereof both had their successors There vvere Priests and Leuites in both who vvere chiefely ruled by the high Priest who liued in Ierusalem And yet Ieroboam could not lawfully say to his Priests and Leuites you shall not obey that High Priest resident in Iuda you are exempt from his iurisdiction c. So Becane I answer Can any man endure either in a Diuine so great ignorance or such malice in a Iesuit As though the Kings Maiestie did euer belieue write or so much as dreame either that all those things which the wicked Kings of Israel of whom Ieroboam was ring-leader did practice impiously in Ecclesiasticall matters or that all that iurisdiction which those vngodly kings did challenge ouer the Church doth belong to the King supremacy Of Ieroboam thus speaketh holy writ 1. Kings 12.28 The King made two golden Calues and said vnto the Israelites It is too much for you to goe vp to Ierusalem Behold the Gods that brought you vp out of the Land of
then men They be like to the Martyrs of the Primitiue Church who freely professe themselues before their Persecutors to be such as indeed they are That is to say much vnlike the Iesuites who range vp and downe sometimes like poore Lay-men sometimes in the habite of Gentlemen thrusting themselues into solemne assemblies at banquets and feasting somtimes into the Vniuersities for some of this stampe lie close in the Vniuersities to peruert inconstant heads greedy of nouelties But you will say They are miserable for if they refuse the oath which Apoc. 13.17 is the mark of the Beast they are forced to vndergoe not onely imprisonments torments and punishments but also death itselfe Truly they are not therefore miserable but most happy for so hath our Sauiour taught vs in the Gospel Mat. 5.10 Blessed are they vvho suffer persecution for righteousnesse for theirs is the kingdome of heauen But then you will say It is a hard thing to suffer how is that hard which is done with ioy and delight Heare what is said of the Apostles Acts 5.41 And they vvent away reioycing from the Councell because they were counted worthy to suffer rebuke for the Name of Iesus Heare also what the Apostle saith of himselfe 2. Cor. 7.4 I am filled vvith comfort and am exceeding ioyous in all our tribulation From whence commeth this ioy but of the double gift of the holy Ghost Hope and Charity Hope of future glory that maketh vs ioyfull and full of comfort in all aduersity Rom. 8.18 The afflictions of this present time are not vvoorthy of the glory vvhich shall bee shewed vnto vs. But the Papists say thus The sufferings of this life are worthy of the glory that shal be reuealed Vnto the Martyrs as they say their sufferings are meritorius and vnto other supererogatorie according to the old verses of prayer made vnto Thomas Becket Tuper Thomae sanguinem quem prote impendit Fac nos Christe scandere quò Thomas ascendit Make vs ô Christ vp to ascend by vertue of S. Thomas blood Which for thy sake he once did spend to heauens race among the good And vnto the Heb. cap. 10.34 You suffered vvith ioy the spoyling of your goods knowing that you shall haue a better and more enduring substance But of the Iesuits it may bee said cleane contrary You haue receiued plenty of other mens goods to their vnrecouerable harme witnesse the Venetians knowing that heere you receiue your reward in this world and therefore cannot looke for any better or more enduring substance in the world to come And no lesse is the force and power of Charity Rom. 8.35 Who shall separate vs from the loue of Christ Shall tribulation or anguish or famine c. But in all these things we are more then conquerours through him that loued vs. I am perswaded that neither death nor life nor Angels c. nor any creature shall be able to separate vs from the loue of God which is in Christ our Lord. But the Iesuits call this pious and godly assurance impious presumption And from this forge came that flagitious discourse of Bellarmine De incertitudine iustitiae Of the vncertaintie of righteousnes or iustification Heereto belong the examples of Christ of other the Saints which haue great force and efficacie to stir vp and strengthen the harts of Catholiques to suffer patiently in this life prisons fetters torments yea death it selfe 1. Pet. 2.20 If you suffer patiently for well dooing this is thanke-worthy with God Heereunto are ye called because that Christ hath suffered for you leaning you an example that you should follow his footsteppes who did not sin neither was there guile found in his mouth who when he was reuiled reuiled not againe when he suffered he threatned not but committed it to him that iudgeth righteously But of the Iesuits it may be said cleane contrarily and most truly They doing euill continually suffer impatiently whose glory is their shame witnes the Venetian For heerevnto are they called to make of faithfull subiects rebells and Traytors to their Kings to sley or poyson Kings thereby treading in the manifold and deeply imprinted steps of of Antichrist to commit all most hainous and bloudy acts to their vttermost endeuour In whose mouth is euer found the guile of aequiuocating so hatefull and pestiferous to mankind who reuile when they are not reuiled Iude v. 8. and blaspheme euen such as are in highest authoritie who threaten when they suffer not endeuouring to betray their King and his royall issue the Nobles and states of their owne Nation assembled in Parliament to the mercilesse and swist deuouring Gun-powder flames and so committing their cause to that vniustly iudging Claudius Aquauiua their prouost generall miraculously set oâ—ser them Who taught the Iesuits to commit themselues â—â—â—im iudging iusily when he boasted he could send mo souldrers Gretzer ddu Iesuit and sooner into the field to weet his Iesuits then any Christian King in the world could doe and when he promised the Pope viz. in time of the Venetians interdiction the Popes imminent danger to send vnto him for his succour 40000. men but vpon condition that as many of them as were slaine in the battaile should be canonized Martyrs And Heb. 12. v. 1. Therfore Let vs runne with patience the race that is set before vs looking vnto Iesus the author and finisher of our faith But the Iesuits say thus Therefore let vs by vnbridled audaciousnes ioyned with all manner wickednesse runne the race that is set before vs striuing against Priests Academicks and Kings looking to Ignatius Loyola the author and finisher of our Iesuiticall faith For saith Euerhard The Iesuits are prest and alwaies ready to vndertake with cheerefulnesse and alacrity and what in them lieth to perpetrate any flagitious wickednesse enioyned them because they belieue that if they die in executing the commaunds of their Superiors they shall obtaine I know not what crowne greater and more excellent then that of Martyrs With these and other the like restimonies of holle writ as Heb. 11. v. 36.2 Cor. 11. v. 23. et 12. v. 9. c. that most reuerend Archbishop Cranmer and the reuerend Bishops Latimer and Ridley beeing armed and encouraged chose rather to suffer death then to oblige themselues with that impious Papall Oath Whom followed very many in that glorious combat burned in the flames wherein they shined more then those said burning and shining flames Vnto these may be added the true catholick Protestants who in Rome Spaine vnder those hellish Furies the most sauage Inquisitors more bloudily cruel then that infamous Tyrant Busiris are imprisoned fettered proscribed died purple redde with their owne bloud In and of whom these following are verified Psal 116. ver 15. Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his Saints S. Cyprian Epist 9. O blessed Church of ours which in our daies the glorious blood of Martyrs hath made illustrious Before it