Primatemque confingas It may seeâ—e to â—auour of malice and cry out vpon your sausines when as you feigne the King Head and Primate of the Church c. And M. Burhill pag. 133. Nec Primatem quidem omnino Regem nostrum dicimus multò vâ—rò minù◠Primatem Ecclesiasticum Neyther do we at all call our King Primate and much lesse Ecclesiasticall Primate c. 3. â—eere hence do I frame a twofold Argument One out of M. Tookers words in this manner He that aâ—â—irmeth the King to be Primate of the Church is a sausy and malicious fellow But M. Salclâ—bridge affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church Ergo he is a sausy and malicious fellow The other argument I frame out of M. Salclebridges words thus He that denyeth the King to be Primate of the Church doth offend against the publicke Profession of the Truth receyued in England But M. Tooker denyeth the King to be Primate of the Church of England Ergo he offendeth against the publicke profession of the Truth receyued in England So I wâ—s one Mule claweth another 4. But now it may be demaunded whether of them doth iudg more rightly in this case M. Salclebridge who affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church or M. Tooker that denieth it This controuersy dependeth vpon another question to wit whether these two Names Primate and Primacy are necessarily coÌ„nexed or as they say Coniugata M. Salclebridge thinketh that they are Therfore because he hath once affirmed the King to haue the Primacy of the Church he consequently auerreth that the King is Primate of the Church For that with him this argument hath force à Coniugatis The King hath Primacy Ergo the King is Primate As also this The Chaplaine hath a Bishopricke Ergo he is a Bishop 5. Now M. Tooker he thinketh the contrary For pag 6. of his booke he expressely saith That the King hath the Primacy of the Church but yet he is not the Primate of the Church And contrariwise The Archbishop of Canterbury hath not the Primacy of the Church and yet is he Primate of the Church So as he denyeth these two consequeÌ„ces à Coniugatis to wit 1. The King hath the Primacy Ergo he is Primate 2. The Archbishop is Primate Ergo he hath the Primacy And perhaps he will deny these in like manner 1. The Chaplayne hath a Bishopricke Ergo he is a Bishop 2. M. Tooker is a Deane Ergo he hath a Deanery IIII. Question VVhether the King by reason of his Primacy may be called Head of the Church THIS Title first began to be vsurped of King Henry the 8. as all Authors aswell our owne as our aduersaryes do testifie For thus wryteth Iacobus Thuanus in his first booke of the Historyes of his times Henricus post diuortium se Caput Ecclesiae constituit K. Henry after his diuorce from Q. Catherine made himselfe Head of the Church c. And Polydor Virgil lib. 27. of his History of England saith Interea habetur Concilium Londini in quo Ecclesia Anglicana formam potestatis nullis antè temporibus visam induit Henricus enim Rex Caput ipsius Ecclesiae constituitur In the meane while to wit after his forsaid diuorce a Councell was held at London wherin the Church of â—ngland tooke to it selfe a forme of power neuer heard of before For that King Henry was appointed Head of the same Church c. Genebrard also in the fourth booke of his Chronology hath these words Henricus anno 1534. in publicis Comitijs se Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae appellauit King Henry in the yeare of our Lord 1534. in publicke Parliament called himselfe Head of the Church of England c. Also Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England saith Ex qua dicendi formula primam occasionem sumptam aiunt vt Rex Supremum Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae diceretur By which manner of speach it is said the first occasion was taken of calling the King supreme Head of the Church of England c. And againe in the same booke Proponebantur cis noua Comitiorum Decreta iuâ—â—bantur iurciurando affirmare Regim Supremum Ecclesiae esse Caput The new Laws or Statutes of the Parliament were propounded vnto them to wit to the Kings subiects and they were commaunded to sweare that the King was head of the Church c. Iohn Caluin in like manner vpon the 7. Chapter of the Prophet Amos wryteth thus Qui tantopere extuâ—erunt Hâ—nricum Regem Angliae certè fucrunt homines inâ—enâ—â—derati Dedâ—runt enim illi summam rerum omnium petestatem hoc me grauiter semper vulnerauit Erant enâ—m blasphemi cùm vocarent cum summum Caput Ecclesia sub â—hristo Those who so greatly did extoll K. Hâ—nâ—y of Enâ—land were men void of consideration For they gaue vnto him the chiefe power of all things and this point did euer gall me grieuously For that they were blasphemers when they called him the chiefe Head of the Church vnder Christ c. 2. The same Title did K. Edward Sonne to K. Henry and his Successour vsurpe as it may be seene by his Letters to Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury which begin thus Edouardus Dei gratia Angliae Franciae Hyberniae Rex supremum in terris Ecclesiae Anglicanae Hybernicae tam in causis spiritalibus quà m temporalibus Caput Reuerendo Thomae Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo salutem Edward by the Grace of God King of England France and Ireland supreme Head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland as well in causes Ecclesiasticall as temporall to the Reuerend Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury greeting c. The same Title also did Bishop Cranmer giue vnto the said King as appeareth by his letters wrytten to other Bishops subiect vnto him thus Thomas permissione diuina Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus per Illustrissimum in Christo Principem Edouardum Regem sextum supremum in terris Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae Hybernicae sufficienter legitimè authorizatus Tibi Edmundo Londinensi â—piscopo omnibus fratribus Coëpiscopis vice nomine Regiae Maiestatis quibus in hac parte fungimur mandamus vt Imagines ex â—cclesijs cuiusque dioecesis tollantur c. We Thomas by Gods permission Archbishop of Canterbury being sufficiently and lawfully authorized by our most gratious Prince in Christ King Edward the sixt supreme Head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland do in his Maiesties Name and place which herein we supplie commaund you â—dmund Bishop of London and all the rest of our Brethren Bishops that Images be taken out of the Churches of euery Diocesse c. And Doctor Sanders also in his booke of the Schisme of England saith thus Quamprimùm visum est Henrici octaui mortem diuulgare statim Edouardus Henrici filius nonum aetatis annum agens Rex Angliae proclamatur summum â—cclesiae Anglicanae in terris Caput proximè secundum Christum constituitur
c. As soone as it was thought good to diuulge King Henryes death by and by Edward his sonne being of the age of nyne yeares was proclaymed King of England and ordayned supreme Head of the Church of England on earth next vnder Christ c. 3. Queene Elizabeth although she were a woman yet she thought her selfe no way inferiour to her Father or Brother She therfore would be also called supreme Head of the Church of England For so wryteth Iacobus Thuanus in his 15. booke of the Historyes of his time Elizabetha recepto à Patre fratre titulo Ecclesiae Caput per Angliam coepit appellari Q. Elizabeth hauing receaued the former Title from her Father Brother began to be called Head of the Church throughout England c. 4. But now adayes vnder K. Iames this title is put in ieopardy The Chaplaine to wit M. Doctor Andrewes doth admit the same in his Tortura Torti but M. Tooker and M. Burhill do reiect it M. Tookers words which a little before I recited are these Olere autem militiam clamitare audaciam tuam videtur illud cùm Regem Caput Ecclesiae Primatemque confingas It may seeme to sauour of malice and cry out vpon your sausines when as you feigne the King to be Head and Primate of the Church c. And in like manner doth M. Burhill pag 133. reprehend a certaine person of ouer much wantonnes and boldnes for calling the King Head Pastour and Primate of Bishops 5. In this debate and Iarre then what shall the King do If he admit the Title of Supreme head of the Church of England M. Tooker M. Burhill will no doubt murmure shrewdly If he reiect it what then will the Chaplaine say Perhaps this contention may be mollified if the King as he gaue to the Chaplayne the Bishopricke of Ely so he would giue to M. Tooker and M. Burhill two other Bishopricks For then least they might seeme vngratefull they would easily graunt this Title to the King and a far greater too V. Question VVhether the Kings Primacy do consist in any Power or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall HEERE now is there a great Iarre and debate amongst our English Aduersaries nor can the same be easily vnderstood vnlesse it be first well distinguished Ecclesiasticall Power is threefold as the Deuines do teach One of Order another of interiour Iurisdiction the third of exteriour Iurisdiction To the first belongeth to effect or consecrate and administer Sacraments to the second to gouerne the Church in the interiour Court or Court of Conscience and to the third belongeth to gouerne the Church in the exteriour Court Now certaine it is that the King hath not the Power of Order by reason of his Primacy For this doth M. Tooker confesse pag. 14. where he saith Reges non habent potestatem administrandi Sacramenta Kinges haue not power to administer Sacraments It is also certaine that he hath not Iurisdiction of the interiour Court or Court of Conscience For this in like manner doth M. Tooker confesse pag. 63. Omnis iurisdictio saith he in foro interiori Sacerdotum est nulla Regum All iurisdiction in the interiour Court or Court of Conscience belongeth to Priests not any way to Kings c. 2. All the question then is whether the King hath IurisdictioÌ„ Ecclesiastical in the exteriour Court or no About this point are the Englishmen at a great iarre and variance amongst themselues some affirming it some denying it others distinguishing M. Tooker affirmeth it pag. 305. in these words Qui habet plenissimam amâ—lissimam iurisdictionem in foro exteriore potest eamdem dare auferre Rex eam habet Ergo potest eamdem dare auferre Totum hoc liquet ex V. N. Testamento He that hath most full and ample Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court can giue and take away the same at his pleasure But the King hath this Iurisdiction Ergo he can giue and take away the same Al this is manifest out of the old new Testament c. With him agreeth also M. Salclebridge pag. 140. Reges oleo sacro vncti capaces sunt Iurisdictionis spiritualis Kings saith he annoynted with holy oyle are made capable of spirituall Iurisdiction c. And then againe in the same place out of the Lawes of England Râ—x saith he est persona mixta vrpote qui â—cclesiasticam temporalem iurisdictionem habet quidem Supremam The King is a person mixt to wit that hath both Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall and Temporall and that in the highest degree c. And yet more pag. 144. Per leges â—cclesiasticas in hoc Regno approbatas vnus Sacerdos duo benâ—ficia haâ—ere non potest nec Bastardus Sacris initiari Vâ—rùm Rex â—cclesiastica potestate iurisdictione quam habet in vtroque dispensare potest By the Ecclesiasticall Lawes approued in this Kingdome of â—ngland one Priest may not haue two Benefices nor a Bastard be made Priest But the King by the Iurisdiction and Power Ecclesiasticall which he hath can dispense in both c. 3. M. Tompson and M. Burhill do absolutely deny it M. Tompson pag. 80. of his booke wryting thus â—rimatus â—cclesâ—ae non est dâ—â—iniendus per iurisdictionâ—m Ecclesiasticam sed per gubernationâ—m suprâ—mam The Primacy of the Church is not to be defined by Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall but by supreme Gouerment c. And againe pag. 95. Diximus Regâ—m gubâ—rnarâ— quidâ—m Ecclesiasticaâ— sâ—d non Ecclesiasâ—iâ—è We haue said before that the King indeed doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically And why I pray you Because forsooth he hath not Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall but only temporall And hereunto agreeth M. Burhill pag. 234. granting this negatiue proposition Rex saith he nullam habet Iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam nec in foro interiori nec in exteriori The King hath no Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall neyther in the interiour nor exteriour Court c. 4. Now my Lord of Ely he distinguisheth in this case as may be seene in M. Tookers Booke pag. 305. in these wordes Habet Rex omnem iurisdictioneÌ„ spiritualem in foro exteriori exceptis quibusdam Censuris The King hath all Iurisdiction spirituall in the exteriour Court except in certaine Censures c. So as now to this question to wit whether the King as he is Primate and Head of the Church haue any Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall or spirituall in the exteriour Court we must answere thus First with M. Tooker and M. Salclebridge That he hath most ample most full and supreme Iurisdiction Secondly with my Lord of Ely That he hath indeed some but not all And lastly with M. Burhill and M. Tompson That he hath none no not any one iote at all VI. Question VVhether the King of his owne Authority can assemble or call togeather Councells 1. NOv follow the Iarres and debates of our Aduersaries concerning the Offices and Functions of the Kings Primacy they â—re six in number which may be
The King by vertue of his supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction shall be able to present vnto Free Chappell 's c. 2. Now M. Tooker to the contrary denyeth it pag. 36. where talking of the Kings of England he saith thus Beneficia autem curata vel non curata non confâ—runt omnino in quempiam maiora minoráue multò minus dignitates Ecclesiasticas siue Episcopatus siue Archiepiscopatus per vniuersum ambitum Regni sui Eorum certè collatio vel institutio est quorum est destitutio id est Episcoporum Comprouincialium qui potestatâ—m habent personas ipsas sacrandi Hoc habet iuris Regia Maiestas quod minor subordinata potestas habet ius inquaÌ„ nâ—minandi praesentandi apud nos c. Kings do not at all collate or bestow vpon any man benefices that haue care of soules or not care greater or lesser much lesse Ecclesiasticall dignities whether Bishopriâ—kes or Archbishoprickes throughout the whole circuite of their Kingdomes For this truly belongeth vnto those whose office it is to dispose therof to wit to the Comprouinciall Bishops who haue power to consecrate the said persons on whome they bestow them Indeed the Kings Majesty notwithstanding hath this right with vs in EnglaÌ„d which an inferiour and subordinate power also hath to wit right to nominate and present vnto benefices c. 3. Behould heere a triple Iarre or discord betwene these two Authors and this in a dayly and vulgar matter The first is that M. Henry Salclebridg saith that the collation of benefices belongeth to the Kings of England in that they be the Primates of the Church of England M. Tooker saith to the contrary that it belongeth not to Kings at all but to Bishops The second Iarre is that M. Salclebridge saith that Kings by their owne authority haue conferred benefices M. Tooker saith that they neuer do nor haue done The third is that M. Salclebridge saith that Kings by vertue of their supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction may present vnto benefices M. Tooker auerreth that in this point Kings haue no more right then their subiects other inferiour persons for so he saith Hoc haâ—et iuris Regia Maiestas quod minor subordinata potestas habet The Kings Maiesty hath in this point of conferring benefices the same right that an inferiour subordinate power hath c. Whether of these two then should King Iames belieue if he had a fat benefice or an Archbishopricke now to bestow IX Question VVhether the King can create and depose Bishops or no 1. MAISTER Salclebridge saith that he can For thus he writeth pag. 121. Christiani Principes in suis Regnis cum laude propria authoritate Episcopos crearunt deposuerunt Christian Prices haue in their Kingdomes by their owne proper authority created and deposed Bishops and that with praise c. And then againe pag. 144. Rex Angliae Archidiacono Richmundiae Episcopalâ—m concessit Iurisdictionem The King of England graunted Episcopall Iurisdiction to the Archdeacon of Richmond c. And yet further pag. 155. Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate de iure atque cum laude omnium Ordinum Episcopos elegerâ—nt ac proinde deponere potuâ—runt The Kings of England of their owne supreme authority by right with praise of all maÌ„ner Estates haue elected Bishops and therfore they might depose them also c. And then lastly Constat Christianos Prinâ—ipes cum laude Episcopos elegisse deposuisse etiam Romanos It is manifest that Christian Princes haue elected deposed Bishops yea Popes also and that with their praise c. 2. Now M. Tooker he denyes in the place before cited that the King can create or depose Bishops For there he assigning two things necessary for the ordayning or creating of a Bishop to wit ConsecratioÌ„ of the person a Bishopricke addeth that the King can performe neyther of these two For neyther can he confer any beneficeâ— and much lesse a Bishopricke or Archbishopricke neyther hath he any power to coÌ„secrate persons In so much that in another place he confesseth that it is so far off from King Iames to haue power to create or depose Bishops that he would rather acknowledg himselfe for one of their schollers and Disciples For thus he wryteth pag. 311. Serenissimus ac pientissimus Rex noster Iacobus non habet quicquam antiquius honorificentius quà m vt cum Valentiniano filium se Ecclesiae profiteatur cum Theodorico Italiae Rege se alumnum Ecclesiae discipulum Archiepiscoporum suorum Episcoporum libenter recognoscat Our most Gratious and most pious King Iames doth esteeme or accompt nothing more noble and more honorable then with Valentinian the Emperour to professe himselfe a sonne of the Church and with Theodoricus King of Italy most willingly to acknowledge himselfe a foster-child of the Church and a disciple of his Archbishops and Bishops c. 3. This Iarre now as you see is of great momeÌ„t For if the King cannot create or ordaine Bishops as M. Tooker saith he cannot then it followeth euidently that Thomas Cranmer who was made Archbishop of Canterbury by the King Henry the 8. was no true but a false Bishop no pastour but a robber one that entred not into the sheepfold by the dore but climbed vp some other way Whereof againe ensue three other markable points First that all other Bishops who were afterward eyther created by CraÌ„mer or by the King were like vnto Cranmer himselfe Secondly whatsoeuer was done of them by Episcopall authority or Iurisdiction was of no validity or force Thirdly that they so ordained are bound to restitution of all reuenewes and profits which they haue reaped by their Bishopricks What counâ—â—ll now is there to be taken in this point Let your Academicks I pray you consider X. Question VVhether the King can excommunicate his obstinate subiects or no 1. HEERE now do our aduersaries ranke their King amongst ordinary men what they graunted vnto him before heere now they seeme to reuoke For they say that the King cannot excommunicate any of his subiects and yet himselfe may be excommunicated by them and expelled out of the Church of England wherof himself is supreme Head The former part herof doth M. Tooker affirme pag. 15. in these worlds Rex non habet potestatem distringendi gladium spiritualem vel quempiam excoÌ„municandi 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 We do not giue authority to our Prince to vse Censures c. And againe M. Tompson pag. 83. ExcoÌ„municare nullo modo ad Suprâ—matum Ecclesiae pertinet To excommunicate doth no way belong to the Supremacy of the Church And againe pag. 84. Omnes fatemur Râ—gem excomunicandi potestatem nullam habere We do all confesse that the King hath no power to excommunicate c.
2. The later part of the former point affirmeth Mâ— 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 he would say as it was lawfull for S. Ambrose being a Bishop to excoÌ„municate Theodosius the Emperour so in like manner is it lawfull for our Bishops of England to excomunicate King Iames if he offend in like manner And then againe pag. 242. Supremus Ecclesiae Gubernator potest eijci ex Ecclesia The supreme Gouernour of the Church to wit the King may be cast forth of the Church c. And pag. 267. Rex etsi iustissimè excommunicatus non amittit Primatum The King although he should be most iustly excommunicated yet he doth not loose his Primacy c. 3. Now I do not see how these things can possibly hang togeather or agree with those which hitherto before haue byn attâ—ibuted to the King For vnto him is attributed That he is Primate and the supreme head of the Church of England That he is aboue all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as temporall in his Kingdome That he hath supreme most ample and full iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall no lesse then politicall and temporall And notwithstanding all this being so great a person yet can he not excommunicate any one of his subiects eyther Laicke or Church-man although neuer so rebellious and obstinate Nay although he be so great as he is he may neuerthelesse be excommunicated by his subiects cast out of the Church of England wherof he is supreme Head I caÌ„not vnderstand this mystery 4. Heerunto will I adde 3. arguments more which will increase the difficulty The first is He that hath supreme most ample and most full IurisdictioÌ„ Ecclesiasticall in any Kingdome may exercise all the actions offices that belong vnto Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of that Kingdome But now the King hath supreme most ample and most full iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the Kingdome of England as M. Tooker and M. Salclebridg do confesse Ergo he may exerciâ—e all offices belonging Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical in the Kingdome of England Ergo he may also excoÌ„municate for that excoÌ„munication which is denouÌ„ced by sentence is an act of Ecclesiasticall Iurâ—sdiction Or els contrariwise if you will thus He that cannot exercise all acts of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiâ—â—ion in any Kingdome hath not supreme most ample most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiastiâ—all in that Kingdome But the King of England cannot exercise 〈…〉 of â—cclesiasticall Iurisdiction in his Kingdoâ—e because he cannot excommunicate any man 〈…〉 not supreme most ample and most 〈…〉 â—â—â—lâ—siasticall in his Kingdome 5. The second argument is this He that giueth to another power to excommunicate without doubt hath power himself to excommunicate bâ—cause no man can giue to another that which he hath not himselfe But the King of England giueth power to his Bishops to excommunicatâ— Ergo hâ— hath power to excommunicate The Minor is proued out of M. Tooker pag. 304. where he affirmeth That the Bishops of England do receyue all their Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court from the King But now power to excommunicate belongeth to Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court aâ— the Chaplaine pag. 41. and M. Tooker pag. 305. expressely 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 hâ— excepteth ExcommunicatioÌ„ wherin yow see is to be noted againe a contradictioÌ„ in M. Tooker for that he referreth Censures amongst which excommunication is one to the Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court True indeed Buâ— yet he adioyneth two other things that are conâ—radictory The first that the King can giue vnto Bishops all Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court and thâ— second that the King hath not all Iurisdiction oâ— the exteriour Court 6. The third Argument is That whosoeuer is subiect to another in Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction of the exteriour Court hath not supreme moâ—t ample and full IurisdictioÌ„ Ecclesiasticall of the exteriour Courtâ— 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 M. Burhill doth confesse Ergo he hath not supreme most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the exteriour Court c. Or if you will contrarywise thus He that is subiect to no other in Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction cannot by any man be excoÌ„municateâ— 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 excoÌ„municated c. I doubt not but you maâ—ke well that these things do not agree XI Question VVhether the King may be Iudge of all Controuersies in the Church 1. CONTROVERSIES that arise in the Church are of two sortes some are about faith and Religion others are concerning Ecclesiasticall affayres The former of these questions then is Whether the King by vertue of his Primacy be supreme Iudg of all Controuersies which pertayne vnto faith and Religion M. Salclebridge saith he is pag. 163. in these words Sic luce clarius â—st Christianos Principes cum laude Controuersâ—as fidâ—i dijudicasse dirâ—misse etiam in vniuersalibus octâ— Concilijs c. So as it is more cleare then the suÌ„ne that Christian Princes with praisâ— haue iudged of and decided controuerâ—ies 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 fourth of Constantinople and the second of Nice wherin diuers coÌ„trouersies concerning matters of faith were iudged of and decided especially concerning the diuinity of Christ against the Hereticke Arius of the diuinity of the holy Ghost against Macedonius of one person of Christ against Nestorius of two Natures in Christ against Eutyches and Dioscorus so of others All these Controuersies saith M. Salclebrigde were iudged of and decided by Kings and Emperours 2. M. Tooker now he affirmeth the quite contrary who by no meanes will haue Kings or Emperors to be Iudges of Controuersies of faith For thus he writeth pag. 3. of his booke Olere autem malitiam ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud vidâ—tur cùm Regem caput Ecclesiae Primatemque confingas omniumque causarum controuersiarum quae ad fidem Râ—ligionem pertinent iudicem tribuas It may seeme to sauour of malice cry out vpon you sausinesse when as you feigne the King to be head of the Church and Iudg of all causes and controuersies which pertaine vnto faith and Religion c. And againe pag. 50â—â— Rex in
the Kings subiects in England are bound in conscience to take both these Oathes as often as the King shall exact the same Or whether they should suffer imprisonments torments and death it selfe rather then sweare Concerning the former point the Catholikes doubt nothing for that they haue certainly and firmly determined rather to loose their liues together with the glorious Martyrs Syr Thomas More and the Bishop of Rochester then to adâ—it the Kings Primacy and abiure the Popes Now concerning the later Oath there hath byn some doubt made these yeares past For that some Catholikes who perceaued not the force and scope of that Oath did a little stagger at the beginning whether they might with a safe coÌ„science sweare therto or no. Which doubt of theirs notwithstanding did not last long but was soone taken away by Pope Paul the fifth and Cardinall Bellarmine For the Pope forthwith directed two Apostolicall Breues to the Catholikes of England and the said Card. wrote a letter to M. Blackwell then Archpriest of this affaire Both Pope and Cardinall do deny that the said Oath may be taken with a safe Conscience And their reason is this Because no man with a safe conscienceâ— can deny the Catholicke faith But he now who should take this Oath proposed by the King should deny the Catholicke faith though not generally yet in â—art so far forth as beloÌ„geth to some one article therof Ergo no man with a safe coÌ„science can take this Oath 7. This reason being very sound all good Catholicks admit but our aduersaries do not I in fauour and consolation of the Catholicks haue determined to adioyne heerunto two other reasons especially against the Oath of Supremacy which by the Aduersaries cannot be reiected The first is this No man is bound in CoÌ„science to sweare that which is eyther apparently false or at leastwise doubtfull But that the King is Primate and supreme head of the Church and for such to be obeyed not only in temporall but also in Ecclesiasticall matters is eyther apparently false or at leastwise doubtfull Ergo no man is bound in Conscience to sweare the same The Maior is euident of it selfe for that it is not lawfull to affirme any thing which is eyther false or doubtfull and much lesse to sweare the same The Minor is proued thus For that is it iudged apparently false aswell amongst the Caluinists as amongst the Catholicks that the King is Primate and supreme head of the Church But now amongst the Caluinists of England who adhere vnto the King the same is called into doubt For that some of them affirme others deny these points following 1. That the King is Primate of the Church 2. That he is supreme head of the Church 3. That he hath Ecclesiasticall Primacy ouer the Church 4. That he hath power iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall 5. That the K. by his owne proper Authority may assemble Councells or Synods and sit as chiefe Head or President therin 6. That he can confer benefices or Ecclesiasticall liuings 7. That he can create and depose Bishops 8. That he is Iudge in Controuersies of faith c. So as truly if these and the like points be doubtfull and vncertaine amongst those who adhere vnto and fauour the King seing that some deny them some affirme them it followeth necessarily that the Kings whole Primacy is an vncertaine thing What rashnes then and imprudency is it to go about to bynd Catholicks in their Consciences to sweare that which they themselues do affirme some of them to be false some others to be doubtfull 8. I will explicate more distinctly that which I haue said The Oath of the Kings Primacy doth contayne so many parts as there be or are thought to be Offices and functions of the Kings Primacy The offices then eyther are or are thought to be diuers as we haue seene before to wit to assemble Synods to enact and decree Ecclesiasticall lawes to conferre benefices to creâ—te Bishops to determine controuersies of faith and the like Therfore diuers are the parts of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy Of these parts then let vs take one of them by it selfe to wit this I A. B. do sweare in my conscience that I will be faithfull and obedient vnto the King as often or whensoeuer he shall by his owne proper authority create Bishops whom he will and againe depose from their office or dignity whome he will c. If this part only of the Kings Offices should be exacted of all his Maiesties subiects in England what do you thinke would be done Would all trow you yea they who most adhere now vnto the King sweare this Let them sweare that would M. Tooker I am sure if he be a constant man would not For that he denyeth the creation and deposition of Bishops to belong any way vnto the King And if so be that he who otherwise acknowledgeth the Kings Primacy at least in words would not sweare heerunto how then should Catholicks be compelled to do the same who doe in no wise acknowledge it And what I haue said concerning this point the same may be also said of the rest 9. My other reason is this King Iames doth often protest that he claymeth no more right or Inrisdiction ouer the Church then did the Kings in the old Testament in ancient times and therfore that this his Primacy must be contayned within the same lymits termes that theirs was in the old TestameÌ„t But the Kings in the old Testament could not compell their subiects to sweare such an Oath as this I A. B. do openly testiâ—ie and in my conscience declare that Ieroboam is the only supreme Gouernour of this Kingdome of Israel aswell in spirituall as temporall matters And that no forrayner hath any iurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority in this Kingdome c. Ergo neyther King Iames can inforce his subiects to take such a like Oath The Maior is manifest out of his Maiestyes owne words in his Apology The Minor I thus explicate After the death of King Salomon his Kingdome God so disposing was deuided into two parts wherof one conteyned ten Tribes the other two So as by this meanes they became two distinct Kingdomes afterwards therin raigned two distinct Kings one wherof had no dependance of the other in temporall gouerment One was called King of Israel the other King of Iuda and both of theÌ„ had successours in their kingdomes The first Kings that ruled after the diuision of the kingdome made were Ieroboam King of Israel Roboam King of Iuda In eyther kingdome were Priestes and Leuites But the high or Chiefe Priest could not reside in both Kingdomes but only in one and that ordinarily in Iuda yet notwithstanding he was Head of all the Priestes Leuites that remayned in both Kingdomes Neither could Ieroboam lawfully say vnto his Priests and Leuites You shall not obey the High Priest that resideth in the Kingdome of Iuda but you shall obey me
disputed of The first is of assembling or calling togeather of Synods The second of enacting of Ecclesiasticall lawes The third of coÌ„ferring or bestowing of benefices The fourth of creating deposing of Bishops The fifth is about Excommunication The sixt and last is about the decision and determining of Controuersies The question then is whether these offices belong to the Kings Primacy I will speake a word of ech in order 2. First it may be demaunded whether the King by vertue of his Primacy may of his owne authority call or assemble togeather Synods and therin sit as chiefe and head This was certainly persuaded that it might be done in the tyme of King Henry K. Edward and Queene Elizabeth but now vnder King Iames the matter is called into question M. Salclebridge pag. 121. affirmeth that he can do it in these words Christiani Principes in Regnis suis cum laude propria auctoritate Synodos conuocarunt Constitutiones condideruÌ„t causas audierunt cognouerunt Christian Princes haue with great praise assembled Synods by their owne authority in their Kingdomes haue made Constituâ—ions heard and examined causes c. And againe pag. 146. Rex Angliae potest Synodos indiâ—â—re omnium Ordinum Oecumeniâ—as in ijsdem praesidere The King of â—ngland saith he may asâ—embâ—e Generall Councells of all Orders or degrees and therin sit as President or Chiefe c. And pag. 155. he saith in like manner Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate de iure Synodos conuocarunt The Kings of â—ngland haue by thâ—ir owne supreme authority and by â—â—ght assâ—mbled Synods c. 3 Now M Toâ—ker in this poynt is very variable one while contradicting himselfe another while others And this is manifest out of the diuers testimonies he produceth The first is pag. 37. where he hath these words A quibus magis aequum est indici Conciliaâ— quà m ab illisâ— penes quos semper â—uit authoritas â—a congregandi Cùm autem communitâ—r triplex ponâ— soleat Concilium Generale Prouinciale Dioecâ—sanum Concilium Gâ—nâ—rale solius Papae iussu celebrari vultis sed neque illud nisi ab Impâ—ratoribus Regibus simul consentientâ—bus hodie indici debet Prouinciale à Metropolitaâ—o cum suis Suffragancis Dioecesanum ab Episcopo cum Curatisâ— Râ—ctoribus Clericis Dioeceseos c. By whome is it more fit that Councells should be assembled then by those in whose power hath alwayes authority byn to call them togeather For wheras commonly there be 3. sortes of Councells Generall Prouiâ—ciall of a particuler Diocesse the Generall Councell you will haue to be celebrated only by commandment of the Pope but yet not so neyther now a dayes vnlesse Emperors Kings do agree therunto also A Prouinciall Counâ—ell is to be assembled by the Metropolitan and his Suâ—fragans thâ—t of the Diocesse by the Bishop therof togeaâ—her with the Curates Rectoâ—s and Clarkes of â—he same Bishopricke c. Out of which testimony we may gatâ—er that the K. of England cannot assemble a Councell of his owne authority Not a geneâ—all because that belongeth to the common consent of Kings and Emperours Not a Prouinciall because that pertayneth to the Metropolitan Not of the Dâ—ocesse because that belongeth to the Bishop therof What then I pray you is left vnto the King 4. Another testimony heerof is out of the same M. â—ooker pag. 41. in these worâ—s Abundè liquet ex CoÌ„cilijs ipsis historia Ecclesiastica â—râ—uincialâ—a Concilia Nationalia ab Imperatoribus aâ— Regibus fuisse congregata It is abouÌ„dantly manifest out of the CouÌ„â—els themselues and the Ecclesiasticall Historyes that Prouinciall and Nationall Councels haue byn assembled by Emperours and Kings c. This now is plainely repugnant to his former testimony For there he affirmeth that Prouinciall Councells are to be assembled by the Metropolitans therof heere he saith â—hat they must be assembled by Kings and Emperours There is distinguished oâ—ly a threefould Councellâ— to wit Generall Prouinciallâ— â— and that of the Diocesse heere now is added a fourâ—h to wit Nationall 5. His third testimony is set downe pag. 42. where he propoâ—eth this question Quo igitur iure tantam sibi potestatâ—m arrogat Pontifâ—x solus Num diuino â—y what right then I pray you doth the Pope challenge vnto himselfe alone so great power Doth he do it by diuine right c. And a little after he addeth Erat Apostolorum omnium non vnius tantâ—mmodo indicere Concilium statuere cum verborum solennitate Visum est Spiritui sancto Nobis c. It belonged to all the Aposâ—les not to one alone to assemble a Councell and with solemnity of words to ordaine It seemes good vnto the Holy Ghost and Vs c. As if he would say That as by diuine right not S. Petâ—r alone but all the Apostles togeather with equall power did assemble the fiâ—st CouÌ„cell at Ierusalem therin decreed that law about eating of bloud and strangled meates so in like manner by diuine right not the Pope alone but all Bishops with equall power must assemble Councells and decree Ecclesiasticall lawes Surely if it be so then without doubt it followes that the power to call or assemble Councells doth not belong by the law of God to secular Kings and Princes but to the Apostles and their successâ—urs c. 6. His fourth testimony is pag. 63. where he saith Mixtum autâ—m ius râ—suitâ—ns â—x vtâ—oque iure Regio Episcopali est Legum sanctio Synodorum indictio praesâ—dendi in ijs praerâ—gatiuâ— controuâ—rsâ—aruÌ„ decisio aliorumque actuum qui his finitimi sunt exâ—rcitium quae fâ—rè ab origine Primaâ—us Râ—gij descâ—ndunt communicantur Sacâ—râ—otiâ—u c The decreing or enacting of Lawes the assembling of Synodes Prerogatiue of â—itâ—ing therin as chiefe or head as also the exercise of all other offices in this kind is a certaine mixt Right proceeding from both Kingly and Episcopall power which things do in a manner come downe or descend from the origen of the Kings Primacy and are communicated or in parted vnto Priests c. This now againe as you see is contrary to that which he said next before For there he will needs haue the assembly of Synods or Councels to belong by diuine right to the Apostles heere forsooth he will haue the same chiefely to belong to Kinges and from them to be deriued vnto Bishops These things do not agree one with another VII Question VVhether the King can enact Ecclesiasticall Lawes or no 1. IT is cleere that K. Henry the 8. did aswell by himselfe as by his Vicar Generall Cromwell enact Ecclesiasticall Lawes For so saith Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England His diâ—bus vigilantissimus hic Ecclesiae Pastor Henriâ—us quo in posterum sciretur quae cui rite nupta esset legem ediderat perpetuam de Nuptijs Comitiorâ—m etiam auctoritate â—onfirmatam qua
only for you are exempted from his iurisdiction and power c. And though he should haue so said yet no doubt but he had offended If now King Ieroboam could not exempt the Priests and Leuites of his owne Kingdome from the Iurisdiction and Power of a forraine High Priest by what right then doth now King Iames of England do the same especially seeing he auerreth that he claymeth no more right or iurisdiction vnto himselfe ouer the Church then the Kings of the old Testament did The Conclusion 1. ALL then that hath bene hitherto said may be reduced vnto three heads The first is that the Kings Primacy in the Church is a new thing and first brought in by King Henry the 8. nor hitherto hath bene heard of or vsurped in any other place then only in the Kingdome of â—ngland The second is that there be so many Iarres disagreements of the English Ministry among â—hemselues concerning this Primacy that it is not manifest nor certaine what the said Primacy is nor what force or authority the same hath The third that the Oath of this Primacy can neyther be exacted by the King nor may the Subiects take the same 2. Heerehence three other questions which might be made concerning the Subiects will eaâ—ily be solued There be three sorts of Subiects in England The first as some call them are Henricians who both aâ—knowledg sweare vnto this Kingly Supremacy The second sort are Puritans or pure Caluinists who indeed do not acknowledge the said Supremacy but yet do sweare therunto The third are Catholikes which neyther acknowledge it nor will sweare it 3. The first question then is What may be said of these Henricians which both acknowledge and sweare to the Kings Supremacy I answere that they do vnwisely and inconsiderately The reason isâ— Because it is folly and rashnes as before I haue said to sweare a thing that is doubtfull and vncertaine But the Primacy of the King is a thing altogeather doubtfull and vncertaine amongst the Henricians as is manifest by their iarres and dissentions which hitheâ—to we haue shewed Ergo to sweare to such a Supremacy is both folly and rashnes 4. The second question is What may be said of the Puritans or pure Caluinists who do not indeed acknowledg the Kings Primacy yet if they be coÌ„maunded do sweare therto I answere that they are periured persons and Politicians The reason is Because they belieue one thing and sweare another They belieue with Calnin that neyther Kings nor secular Princes haue any Primacy in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters but only in temporall yet neuerthelesse they sweare Allegiance vnto the King togeather with the forsaid Henricians as to the Primate and supreme Head of the Church and this they do to make an externall and politicall peace which is more esteemed by them then their faith and Religion and therfore they are rather to be called Politicks then Christians Of whome his Maiesty gaue a most worthy testimony in his Preface Monitory to wit That he had found more truth and honesty in the high-land and bordering theeues then in that sort of people 5. The third question is what may be said of Catholickes who neyther acknowledge the Kings Primacy nor sweare therto I answere that they be iust vpright men who walke before God in truth verity They be sincere who professe with their mouth that which they thinke in their hart They are wise indeed who with good Eleazarus had rather dye then consent to any vnlawfull thing no not so much as in outward shew They be like vnto the Apostles who endeauour to obey God rather then men They be like to the Martyrs of the primitiue Church who freely professe themselues before the persecutours to be such as indeed they are 6. But you will say they be miserable For if they refuse the Oath they are forced to vndergoe imprisonments torments punishments Truly they are not therfore miserable but most happy For so did our Sauiour teach vs in the Ghospell Matth. 5.10 Blâ—ssâ—d are thâ—yâ— who suffer persecution for iustice for thâ—irs is the Kinâ—dome of heauâ—n But then you will say It is a hard thing to suâ—â—er How is that hard which is done with ioy and delight Heare what is said of the Aposâ—les Act. 5.41 And they went from the sight of tâ—e Councâ—ll reioycingâ— bâ—cause they were accompted wortâ—y to sufâ—er reproach for the name of Iesus Heare what â—â—e Apostle saith of himselfe 2. Cor. 4. Superabundo gaudio in omni tribulatione nostra I excedingly reioyâ—e in all our tribulations 7. And from whence commeth this ioy Truly from a twofold gift of the holy Ghost to wit Hope and Charity Hope of future glory that maketh vs ioyfull and full of comfort in all aduersityes Rom. 8.18 The sufferings of these tymes are not condigne to the future glory that shal be reuealed in vs. And againe Râ—m 12.12 Reioycing in hope and patient in tribulation And Hâ—br 10.34 The spoyle of your owne goods you tooke with ioy knowing that you haue a better and a pâ—rmanent substance Do not therefore leese your confidence which hath a great râ—ward For patience is nâ—â—â—ssary â—or you that doing the will of God you may recâ—yue the promise c. 8. Nor is the force of Charity lesse Rom. 8.35 Wâ—o thâ—n shall separate vs from the Charity of Christ Tribulatio or aâ—stresse or famiâ—â— or nakâ—dnes or dangâ—r or persecution or the sword c. But in all these things we ouercome bâ—cause of him that hath lâ—uâ—d vs. For I am sure that neyther death nor life nor Angells nor Principaliâ—yes nor Powers neythâ—r things prâ—sâ—nt nor things to come neyther might nor height nor depth nor other creature shal be able to separate vs from the Charity of God which is in Christ Iâ—sus our Lord c. 9. Heerto belong the examples of Christ of other Saints which haue great force and efficacy to styr vp and strengthen the harts of Catholickes to suffer patiently in this life prisons fetters torments yea death it selfe 1. Pet. 2.20 If doing well you sustaine patiently this is thanke before God For vnto this are you called because Christ also suffered for vs leauing you an example that you may follow his steppes who did no sinne nâ—yther was guile sound in his mouth who when he was reuiled did not râ—uileâ— when he suffâ—red he threatned not but deliuerâ—d himselfe to him that iudged him vniustly c. 10. And Hebr. 11.36 Others had triall of reproaches and stripes moreouer also of bands and prisons they were stoned they were hâ—wed they were tâ—mpted thâ—y died in the slaughter of the sword they went about in sheep-skins in goate-skins needy in distrâ—sse aâ—flictâ—d of whome the world was not worthy wandring in dâ—serts in mountaines and dennes and in caues of the eartâ— c. 11. And againe in the 12. Chapter and 1. verse And therfore by patiâ—nce lâ—t vs runne to the Combat proposed vnto vs looking on the author of Faith and the consummator Iesus who ioy being proposed vnto him sustayned the Crosse contemning confusion and sitteth on the right hand of the seat of God For thinke diligently vpon him who sustayned of sinners such contradiction against himselfe that you be not wearied fainting in your mynds For you haue not yet resisted vnto bloud c. 12. And yet more 2. Cor. 11.23 In very many labours in prisons more aboundantly in stripes aboue measure in deaths often Of the Iewes fiue tymes did I recâ—yue fourty stripes sauing one Thrice was I beaten with rodds once I was stoned thrice I suffered shipwracke night and day haue I byn in the depth of the sea in iourneying often in perills of waters perills of theeues perills of my nation perills of Gentiles perills in the Citty perills in the wildernesse perills in the sea perills among false brethren in labour and misery in much watching in â—unger and thirst in fastings often in cold and nakednes c. 13. And yet more in the 12. Chapter and 9. verse Gladly will I glory in my owne infirmity that the power of Christ may dwell in me For which cause I please my selfe in infirmityes in contumelies in necessities in persâ—cutions in distresses for Christ. For when I am weake then am I mighty c. 14. With these and the like testimonies of holy Scriptures were armed Syr Thomas More the Bishop of Rochester when they rather chose to dy then to take an impious wicked Oath With these places were 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 lyuings and purpled in their owne bloud S. Cyprian Epist. 9. Pretiosamors haec est quae emit immortalitatem pretio sanguinis sâ—i Pretious 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 temporâ—bus nostris gloriosus Martyrum sanâ—uis illustrat Erat antea in operibus fratrum candida nunc facta est in Martyrum 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 now 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 confitâ—ri Dominum Dâ—um quam inter saeuieÌ„tia saecularis potestatis tormenta etiam extorto exâ—ruciato exâ—arnificato corpore Christum Deâ— fiâ—ium etsi recedente sed tamâ—n libâ—ro spiritu confitâ—ri quà m relicto mundo caelum pâ—tiâ—â—e quam dâ—sâ—rtis hominibus inter Angelos starâ— quam collâ—gam passionis â—um Christo in Christi nomine factum â—ssâ— What can happen vnto any man through Gods diuine bountifulnes 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 bodie yea from the bodie tortured tormented and all to bemangled then by leauing the world to goe to heauen then by forsaking the company of men to be conuersant with angells and be made partaker of the Passion of Christ in Christ his name FINIS
them to Idolatry Shall they then obay these Princes commaund â—ut then should they do against their Consciences Shall they refuse to obay Then farewell Primacy of the Church Perhaps they will answere that they will obay when they thinke good Shall therfore subiects be Iudges of their Kings May then the Catholickes in England say after this manner If it plâ—ase your Maiesty in this point we thinke good to obay your Maiestyes commaund but in that not XIII Question VVhether the King may constraine his Subiects to take the Oath of Prmacy or no 1. HITHERTO haue we treated of the Iarring disagreement of our Aduersaries abouâ— the nature offices origen of the Kingâ— Primacy Now there remaineth a certaine practicall question which toucheth the ConscieÌ„ce to the quicke to wit whether the King may constraine or force his Subiects to sweare that they acknowledge his Kingly Primacy wherof we haue spoken before Or whether they will acknowledg the King as Primate and supreme Head of the Church of â—ngland vnto whome as vnto their Primate supreme Head they will promise fidelity no lesse in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall matters then in Politicke and temporall This question hath two points The first whether the King of England doth de facto exact or hath at any time exacted such an Oath of his subiects The other is whether his subiects are bound in conscience to take such an Oath if the King should exact the same Of both these points seuerally I meane to speake a word or two The first Point 2. The first point then is Whether the King of England doth exact or at any tyme hath exacted such an Oath of his subiects It is manifest that K. Henry the 8. did For so wryteth Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England Laurentius Cocchus Prior Coenobij Dancastrensis vnà cum tribus Monachis duobus laicis Aegidio Horno Clemente Philpotto quòd nollent Ecclesiasticum terreni Regis Primatum iuratò confiteri exclusi è terris ad caelestem aeterni Regis gloriam transmissi sunt Laurence Coch Prior of the Monasterie of Dancaster togeather with three Monkes and two Laymen Giles Horne and Clement Philpot for that they would not sweare to the Ecclesiasticall Primacy of a temporall King being excluded from earth were translâ—ted to a celestiall glory of the eternall King c. And then againe Proponebantur eis noua Comitiorum Decreta iubebantur iureiurando affirmare Regem Ecclesiae supremum esse Caâ—ut The new decrees of the Parlament were propounded vnto them they were commaunded to sweare the King to be supreme Head of the Church c. 3. Now that Queene â—lizabeth the danghter followed heerin her Father K. Henry it is manifest by the forme of Oath that she exacted of her subiects which is this â—go A. B prorsus testificor declaro in conscientia mea Reginam â—sse solam supremam Gubernatricem istius Regni Angliae alioruÌ„ omnium suae Maiestatis dominiorum regionum non minùs in omnibus spiritualibus atque Ecclesiasticis rebus vel causis quà m temporalibus Et quòd nemo externus Princeps Persona Praelatus Status vel Potentatus aut facto aut iure habet aliquam iurisdictionâ—m potestatem superioritatem praeeminentiam vel authoritatâ—m â—cclesiasticam aut spiritualem in hoc Regno Ideoque planè renuntio repudio omnes forinsecas iurisdictiones potestates superioritates atque authoritates c. I A. B. do verily testify and declare in my conscience that the Queene is the only supreme Gouernesse aswell of this Kingdome of England as of all other her Maiesties dominions and countâ—eys aswell in all spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters and causes as in temporall And that no forrayne Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath eyther by fact or right any Iurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority Ecclesiasticall or spirituall in this Kingdome And therfore I do vtterly renounce and abandone all forrayne Iurisdictions powers superiorities and authorityes c. 4. The very same also doth now King Iames who byndeth his subiects not with one Oath alone but with two to wit of Supremacy and Allegiance The former Oath of Supremacy beginneth thus Ego A. B. palà m testor ex conscientia mea declaro quod Maiestas Regiaâ— vnicus est supremus Gubernator huius Regni omniumque aliorum suae Maiestatis dominiorum territoriorum tam in omnibus spiritualibus siue Ecclesiasticis rebus causis quà m in temporalibus Et quòd nullus extraneus Princeps Persona Praelatus Status aut Potentatus habet aut habere debet vllam iurisdictionem potestatem superioritatem praeeminentiaÌ„ vel authoritatem Ecclesiasticam siue spiritualem intra hoc Regnum c. I A. B. do publikely testify and in my conscience declare that the Kings Maiesty is the only supreme Gouernour of this Kingdome and of all other his Maiesties dominions and territories as well in all matters and causes spirituall or Ecclesiasticall as in temporall And that no forraine Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to haue any Iurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within this Kingdome c. The later Oath called of Allegiance beginneth thus Ego A. B. verè sincerè agnosco profiteor testificor declaro in conscientia mea coram Deo Mundo qùod supremus Dominus noster Rex Iacobus c. I A. B. do truly and sincerely acknowledg professe and testify in my conscience before God and the world that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames c. 5. Boâ—h these Oathes are set downe at large in his Maiesties Apology and in both of them his subiects are required publickely and openly to professe acknowledgeâ— that King Iames is the supreme Gouernour and Lord of all England not only in politicke and temporall matters but in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall also And that neither the Pope nor any other forrayner hath any power or Iurisdiction in or ouer the Church of â—ngland Againe the former of these Oathes was brought in by King Henry the 8. as his Maiesty confesseth in his Apology in these words Sub Henrico octauo primùm introductum est Iuramentum Primatus sub eoâ—ue Thomas Morus Rofâ—ensis supplico afâ—â—cti idque partim ob eam causam quòd Iuramâ—ntum illud recusarent Ab eo deinceps omnes mei Praedecessores quotquot sunt hanc Religionem amplexi idem sibi aut non multò secus asseruerunt c. The Oath of Primacy was first brought in vnder K. Henry the 8. vnder whome Syr Thomas More and the Bishop of Rocâ—ester were beheaded and that partly because they refused that Oath From him all my Predecessours downward as many as haue imbraced this Religion did retayne the same Oath or not much different vnto themselues c. Now the later Oath was inuented by K. Iames himselfe The second Poynt 6. The Question then is whether all