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
matter of the Kings Primacy or Supremacie and that Becane throughout his Iarre striueth onely about words or syllables Against which kind of contention St. Paul writeth thus vnto Timothy 2. Tim. 2. ver 14. Protest before the Lord that they striue not about vvords vvhich is to no profit but to the peruerting of the hearers Vnto all this in my Concord from page 12. vnto page 19 Becane in his Examin answereth not one word ⧠Becans Iarre The I. Question Whether the King of England haue any Primacie in the Church 1. THE first Iarre or contention then is concerning the name of Primacy Many of our Aduersaries admit this Name but M. Richard Tompson had rather haue it called Supremacy then Primacie His reason is because Primacy doth signifie a power of the same Order Now the King hath not power in the Church of England of the same Order with Bishops and Ministers but a power of higher and different Order from them Ergo hee hath not the Primacy but the Supremacy The vvords of M. Tompson pag. 33. of his booke are these Nos in Anglico nostro idiomate belliores longè sumus quà m per inopiam Latini sermonis nobis Latinè esselicuit NoÌ„ enim dicimus The Kings Primacy Regis Primatum sed The Kings Supremacy Regis Suprematum Quo vocabulo nos quoque deinceps vtemur Multùm enim differunt Primatus Suprematus Illud enim Potestatem eiusdem Ordinis videtur significare hoc non item Wee in our English tongue doe speake much more properly then vvee can doe in the Latine speech through the penury thereof For wee doe not say The Kings Primacy but The Kings Supremacie which word 〈…〉 For that Primacy and Supremacie doe greatly differ Primacie seeming to signifie a power of the same Order but Supremacie not so 2. Out of which words wee gather two things The one that all Englishmen vvho vse the Name of Primacie doe either erre or speake improperly if vve beleeue M. Tompson For if they speake propertie seeing that the vvord Primacy doth properly siguifie a Power of the same Order they doe plainely vnderstand that the King hath Power of the same order with the Bishops and Ministers of his Church But this now according to M. Tompsons opinion is an error wherefore either they doe erre or speake improperly 3. The other is that a Coniecture may be made of the thing signified from the word signifying The vvord Supremacie is a new and lately inuented vvord vnknowne to the Ancient Fathers not vsed in Scriptures vnheard of in the Christian world Moreouer vvhat doth it signifie The Supreme power forsooth of the King in the Church Wherefore this is new also Surely if the ancient Fathers either Latine or Greeke had knowne this power they would haue found out at least som word whereby to haue expressed the same properly But this it seemes none of them did English Concord Page 20 IS Becane the Iesuite become a captious cauiller at syllables Pri. and Sapre Our Soueraigue Lord K. Iames translated the english word Supremacy a Apol. â—ur fid pag. 54 into the Latin word Primatum and Mr. Thomson translated the same English Supremacy into his Latine word Suprematum Here is full agreement in the thing it selfe and will the Iesuit striue about words or diuâ—rs names of the selfe same thing Certainely a Christian king is neither Presbiter Priest nor b August Q ex viroq Testa mixt Q. 101 chiefe of Presbiters that is Bishop nor chiefe among the Bishops that is Archbishoppe nor chiefe of Archbishops that is Patriarke nor chiefe of Patriarkes to weet Pope and in that sense he is no Primate or hath Primacy but he is the onely Supreme gouernour of all Presbiters Bishops Archbishops Patriarkes and Popes within his dominions whose supreme gouernment we call in English Supremacy or after the Latin word which our king vâ—ed Primacy and acknowledge the same by our oath thereof taken But now let vs attend these two goodly consequences which the Iesuite maketh 1. R. Thomson hath deuised a new Latin name to expresse the selfe same thing and the selfe same English name of the same thing Therefore the thing it selfe is new The Fathers of the Nicene Councell deuised a new name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to expresse the Deitie of Christ or Christ in respect of his Deity Therefore is Christ his Deitie new or Christ in respect of his Deitie new Take heede Becane of such a consequent Thus rather perhaps the sequell would runne more roundly The name Iesuits is new Therefore deseruedly may the Iesuits be called as blasphemous so new sectaries Indeede if the ancient Fathers had acknowledged the power of Vniuersall Bishoppe they would haue found at least one word whereby to haue expressed the same properly especially considering that if we will beleeue Gregory the great Gregor li. 4. Ep it 76.78.80 et lib. 7 Epist 79 To assume that arrogant profane sacrilegious Antichristian name of Vniuersall Bishoppe is all one and the same as to be the king of pride Lucifer who set himselfe before his bretheren to be an Apostate from the faith and the forerunner of Antichrist In the Canon law we read thus Dist 99 Primx Let not the Bishop of the first Sea be called the Prince of Priests or high Priest or any the like but onely the Bishop of the first Sea but let not the very Bishop of Rome be called Vniuersall Bishop Let Becane tell me which of the ancient Fathers either acknowledged the Popes supreme power ouer the whole Church or in proprietie of speech and as proper vnto him called the same Primacy touching which Chrysostom as hee is cited in the Canon law Dist 40 Multi writeth thus Whosoeuer shall desire Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heauen neither shall he be numbred among the serwants of Christ who doth handle or contend for Primacy His second consequence is this Mr. Thomson deuised a new word or name whereby to expresse in Latin more fully and properly as be tooke it the English word Supremacy Therefore whosoeuer doe not call Supremacy in Latin Suprematum speake improperly Fy how hang these together Forsooth please it the Iesuites as scattered broomeshaggs To conclude Becane himselfe Quest 12. page 43. brings in Mr. Thomson speaking thus Primacy is a royall good thing or the Prerogatiue royall vvhich can not be taken away by Ecclesiasticall censure neither is it absurd that an heathen king should be Primate of the Church Therefore according to Becane his dispute here They vvho ascribe Primacy to the king and call him Primate of the Church erre not but speake properly BECAN Exam. Page 106 YOu say this strife is about the name It is so I vrge nothing else But of they strine as you say where is the concord which you promise In the very beginning you despaire of concord And of you cannot dissolue the strife about the name what shall become
to haue Primacy Episcopall But the first is true according to Becane viz. That the deny as Becane meaneth and Becane meaneth that the King vsurpeth Primacy Episcopall Therefore the later is true also viz That Dr. Tooker and Mr. Burhill denying the King to be Primate or to haue the Primacy deny him to be Primate or to haue Primacy Episcopall as all Protestants doe So that here is among vs all a full and settled Concord and the Iesuites Iarre as empty chaffe is blowen cleane away ⧠Becans Iarre IIII. Question Whether the King by reason of his Primacy may be called Head of the Church THis Title first began to be vsurped of King Henry the 8. as all Authors aswell our owne as our aduersaries do testifie For thus writeth Iacobus Thuanus in his first booke of the Histories of his times Henricus post diuonium se Caput Ecclesiae constituit K. Henry after his diuorce from Q. Katherine made himselfe Head of the Church c. And Polydor Virgil lib. 27. of his History of England saith Interea habetur Concilium Londini in quo Ecclesia Anglicana formam potestatis nullis ante temporibusvisam induit Henricus enim Rex Caputipsius Ecclesiae constituitur In the meane while to wit after his foresaid diuorce a Councell was held at London wherein the Church of England tooke to it selfe a forme of power neuer heard of before For that King Henry was appointed Head of the same Church c. Genebrard also in the fourth books of his Chronologic hath these words Henrieusanno 1534. in publicis Comitijs se caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae appellauit King Henry in the yeare of our Lord 1534. in publike Parliament called himselfe Head of the Church of England c. Also Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England saith Exquâ— licendiformula primam occasionem sumptamatunt vt Rex Supremum Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae diceretur By which manner of speech it is said the first occasion was taken of calling the King supreme Head of the Church of England c. And againe in the same booke Proponebantur eis noua Comitiorum Decreta iubebantur iureiurando affirmare Regem Supremum Ecclesiae esse Caput The new Lawes or Statutes of the Parliament were propounded vnto them to wit to the Kings subiects and they were commanded to sweare that the King was head of the Church c. Iohn Caluin in like manner vpon the 7. Chapter of the Prophet Amos writeth thus Qui tantopere extulerunt Henricum Regem Angliae certè fuerunt homines inconsiderati Dederunt enim illi summam rerum omnium potestatem hoc me grauiter semper vulnerauit Erant enim blasphemi cùm vocarent eum summum Caput Ecclesiae sub Christo Those who so greatly did extoll K. Henry of England were men voide of consideration For they gane vnto him the chiefe power of all things and this point did euer gall me grieuously For that they were blasphemers vvhen they called him the chiefe Head of the Church vnder Christ c. 2. The same Title did K. Edward Sonne to King Henry and his Successour vsurpe as it may be seene by his Letters to Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury which begin thus Edouardus Dei gratia Angliae Franciae Hyberniae Rex supremum in terris Ecclesiae Anglicanae Hybernicae taÌ„m causis spiritalibus quà m teÌ„poralibus Caput Reuerendo Thomae Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo saluteÌ„ Edward by the Grace of God K. of England France Ireland supreme Head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland as well in Causes Ecclesiasticall as temporall to the Reuerend Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury greeting c. The same Title also did Bishop Cranmer giue vnto the said King as appeareth by his letters written to other Bishops subiect vnto him thus Thomas permissione diuina Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus per Illustrisimum in Christo Principem Edouardum Regem sextum supremum in terris Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae Hybernicae sufficienter legitimè authorizatus Tibi Edmundo Londinensi Episcopo omnibus fratribus Coepiscopis vice nomine Regiae Maiestatis quibus in hac parte sungimur mandamus vt Imagines ex Ecclesijs cuiusque dioecesis tollantur c. We Thomas by Gods permission Archbishop of Canterbury being sufficiently and lawfully authorized by our most gratâ—ous Prince in Christ King Edward the 〈◊〉 supreme Head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland do in his Maiesties Name and place which berein we supply command von Edmund Bishop of London and all the rest of our Brethren Bishops that Imaves be taken out of the Churches of euery Diccesset c. And Doctor Sanders also in his booke of the Schisme of England saith thus Quamprimum visum est Henrici octaui mortem diuulgare statim Edonardus Henrich filius nonum aetatis annum agens Rex Angliae proclamatur sumurn Ecclesiae Anglicanae in terris Caput proximè secundum Christum constitutel it c. As score as it was thought good to diuulge King Henries death by and by Edward his sonne being of the age of nine yeares was proclaymed King of England and ordained supreme Head of the Church of England on earth next vnder Christ c. 3. Queene Elizabeth although she were a woman yet she thought her selfe no way inferiour to her Father or Brother Shee therefore would be also called supreme Head of the Church of England For so writeth Iacobus Thuanus in his 15. booke of the Histories of his time Elizabetha recep to à Patre fratre titulo Ecclesiae Caputper Angliam coepitappellati Queene Elizabeth hauing receiued the former Title from her Father Brether began to be called Head of the Church throughout England c. 4. But now aduyes vnder K. Iames this title is put in Repardie The Chaplaine to wit M. Doctor Andrewes doth admit the same in his Tortura Torti but M. Tooker and M. Burhill do reiect it M. Tookers words which a little before I recited are these Olere autem malitiam clamitare audaciam tuam videturillud cum Regem Caput Ecclesiae Primatemque confingas It may seems to sauour of malice and try out upon your sausines when as you feigne the King to be Head and Primate of the Church c. And in like manner doth M. Burhill pag. 133. reprehend a certaine person of ouer much want onnes and boldnes for calling the King Head Pastour and Primate of Bishops 5. In his debate and Iarre then what shall the King do If he admit the Title of Supreme Head of the Church of England M. Tooker and M. Burhill will no doubt murmure streadly If he rerect it what then will the Chaplaine say Perhaps this contention may be mollified if the King as he gaue to the Chaplaine the Bishopricke of Ely so he would giue to M. Tooker and M. Burhill two other Bishopricks For then least they might seeme ungratefull they would easily grant this Title to the
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
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
Sedsi quis In the Extrauagants of Ioan. 22. De verborum significatione cap. Quia quorundam the Glosse citeth thus 56. Dist § his omnibus And thus 14. q. 1. § Quia ergo Whereas the first word of the Canon is Episcopus By these lectures as I suppose I haue schooled this Becane heerein suficiently but now falleth the Iesuit into a desperat case for he hauing found out the Canon he cannot find out these words Sitotus mundus c. I see I must take him to schooling once again and teach him where he shall find those very words syllables viz. in the Glosse verb. or § Neque ab omni clero The words of the Glosse are these Argumentum quod concilium non potest Papam iudicare vt extra de Elect significasti vnde sitotus mundus sententiaret in aliquo negotio contra Papam videtur quod sententiae Papae standumesset vt 24. q. 1. Hac est fides This argueth that the Councell cannot iudge the Pope Therefore if the whole vvorld should giue sentence in any matter against the Pope the Popes sentence must stand Now may the Iesuit run cry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I haue found it and withall thanke the learned Bishop Iewell for his citing of the Canon viz. not by the first words of the Canon but by the words following whereby hee pointed as with his finger the Iesuit to the Glosse where those words are written BECAN Exam. Pag. 96. YOu cite out of the Glosse Dist 19 cap. Si Romanorum these vvords That which the Pope alloweth c. Therefore whosoeuer will not obey the stetutes of the Romane Church is to bee accounted an heretick But the Glosse hath not these later vvords they are added by you the new Glossator I know not of what account these new Glossators are in England I am sure out of England they are of none Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere againe this vnluckie Iesuit shewes naked his great ignorance when hee saith that those later words or the substance of them are not in the Canon law or Glosse but are of my Gloss hee would haue said Bishop Iewells Glosse Had not the Iesuit beene a very vnlearned man indeed the learned Bishop directing him to the Glosse verb. Reprobantur might haue taught him presently to haue found those later words or the very matter viz. That it is heresie wilfully to disobey or oppose the statutes of the Romane Church For in that very place the Glosse citeth 24. q. 1. cap. Haec est fides where S. Hierom is produced asserting That if any shall blame that quod Papae iudicio comprobatur vvhich the Pope alloweth se non atholicum sed haereticum comprobabit hee shall proue himselfe no Catholick but an haeretick The reason wherof the Iesuit may read Dist 22. cap. Omnes in these words Fidem violat qui aduersus Romanam Ecclesiam agit quae est mater fidei For he violates the faith vvho doth against the Romane Church the mother of saith It may be the simple Iesuit knoweth not that by their Canon law the Pope may make new Articles of faith through his statutes Let him therfore read Extra Ioan. 22. De verborum significatione cap. Cum inter nonnullos in Gloss and these words there Papa princeps Ecclesiae Christique Vicarius potest articulum fidei facere The Pope Prince of the vvorld and Christes Vicar can make new Articles of faith and there shall the Iesuit find this case put The Pope did newly in that Canon statuere ser it downe That Christ and his Apostles had some-what proper or in speciall After which it is there thus resolued That to assert obstinatly that Christ his Apostles had nothing in speciall in proprietie haereticuÌ„ fore censendum was to be accounted hereticall cum Decretalis exiâ—t after the Decretall had gone forth and not before I will put a few more cases to the Iesuit to make him vnderstand it better Admit the Pope as Nabuchodonoser did by his Image set vp at the lifting vp of his Idol the wafer cake which hath no moe eyes to see nor eares to hear nor hart to vnderstand then Nabuchodonosers Image had but wil sooner putrefie then his should commaund all Nations kindreds and people to fall downe and worship it and three were found as those three children who would not fall downe worship it should they not all three be reputed hereticks Admit that the Pope should statuere establish that Doctrine of Diuels 1. Timo. 4. verse 2. that is should forbid eating of flesh in the Lent as vnholie and one should as one did eate wilfully a pigge in Lent should not that one be as indeed he was burnt for an heretick Admit where Christ commaunded euen the lay people to read and search the Scriptures the Pope Iob. 5.39 contrary to Christ that is in one word Antichrist should forbid all laytie to read and search the Scripture and one layick should be found either reading the Scripture or carrying about him the Bible translated into his mother tongue should not such a one be estloones carried into the house of slaughter I meane the house of Inquisition whence commonly such neuer returne aliue Admit that the Pope contrary to the lawes of God and man the lawes of nature of Nations should statuere set it downe in his Briefes that what subiect soeuer should take the Oath of Allegiance but euen so far as to swear to maintaine and defend to his power the life of his Soueraigne against all forraine power should sweare against the Catholick faith and any one vvilfullie opposing that stature made by the Pope should take the Oath as law full should not hee goe for an heretick vnlesse the Pope dispensed with him to take it By these palpable instructions the Iesuit may learn that those later words afore-said were not my Glosse as hee saith of no value but the capitall Popish doctrine most pernicious to Kings and States Antichristian disloyall diabolicall By force vvhereof if the Pope as I said before should statuere set it downe that Becanus the Iesuit should goe into England to raise there sedition and rebellion to contriue and act a new GVNNE-POWDERTREASON wherin to fold vp in one suddaine destruction the King Queene Prince Nobility CoÌ„munalty Bishops Iudges c. as a thing meritorious and the Ieluite should wilfully refuse to doe it as a thing vnlawfull hee would be reputed and punished as an heretick although he should haue lost his life on earth and hangd his soule in hell by dooing it So farre extendeth their blind obedience Iesuiticall to the Statutes and authoritie Papall BECAN Exam. Pag. 97. OVt of another Glosse Dist 40. cap. Si Papa you cite these vvords It is a kind of sacriledge to dispute of the Popes fact But as vnfaith fully as before For the Glosse hath no such word or rather the contrary for thus it speaketh expresly If the Popes crime bee notorious and he
Celsus Mancinus Thomas Bozius Franciscus Bozius Isidorus Moscouius Laelius Zecchus Cardinall Baronius lastly Alexander Carerius who in his booke publiquely printed was not afraid to call Bellarmine and all who tooke part with him against the other forenamed Impious Politicks and Hereticks of our time I say in these points of the Popes Primacy and at this present time the Iesuits extreamely dissent from the Sorbonists and the Venetian and French from the Romane Papists On the other side all Protestant-English Writers with one vniforme consent agree in the Kings Supremacy as they who willingly haue taken the Oath of the Kings Supremacy which is set downe in these expresse words following viz. I A. B. doe vtterly testifie and declare in my conscience that the Kings Highnesse is the onely Supreme Gouernour of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries as well in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticll things or causes as Temporall And that no forraine Prince person Prelat State or Potentate hath or ought to haue any Iurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme And therefore I doe vtterly renounce and forsake all forrain Iurisdictions Powers Superiorities Authorities And doe promise that froÌ„ henceforth I shall beare faith and true alleagiance to the Kings Highnesse his heires and lawfull Successors And to my power shal assist and defend all Iurisdictions Priuiledges Preheminencies authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highnesse his heires and Successors vnited or annexed to the Imperiall crowne of this Realme So helpe mee GOD c. But by the lawes of England in these very words syllables Supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall or Power Spirituall is for euer vnited and annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of this kingdome These things then beeing so certainly and manifestly true let Becan himselfe iudge if he will iudge sincerely ingenuously according to this oath of Supremacy taken willingly by all Protestant English Writers without refusal of any one 1 Whether the King of England hath not Supremacy or Primacy in this Church 2 Whether that Primacy or Supremacy be not Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall viz. vvhich is in all things causes Ecclesiasticall Spirituall 3 Whether the King by his Primacy or Supremacy may be called Primat of the Church to weet as one is called a King of his kingdome a Bishop of his bishoprick or a Bailife of his Bailiwick 4 Whether by the same Supremacy or Primacy hee may not be called Head of this Church that is to say the onely supreme Gouernour in all things and causes Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall 5 Whether that Primacy or Supremacy do not consist in Power or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall to weet which consisteth in all things Ecclesiasticall and ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall and which is tearmed by the expresse words of the lawes of England Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction or power Spirituall seeing that the Oath of Supremacy respecteth the Kings authority Ecclesiasticall and the Oath of Fidelitie his authoritie Ciuil As our King IAMES in his Booke most accuratly distinguisheth them 6 Whether the King by his Primacy or Supremacy may not call Councells and presede in them viz. as the onely supreme Gouernor of this Kingdome in all things causes ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall Spiritual For do not all CouÌ„cells consist of persons Ecclesiasticall are not things Spirituall Ecclesiasticall handled in Councels 7 Whether the King may not make Ecclesiastical lawes to weet as the onely supreame Gouernour in all things ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall according to that of Saint Augustine Contra Crescon lib. 3. c. 51. Heerein Kings as it is from heauen prescribed vnto them serue God as Kings if in their kingdome they commaund those good things and forbid those euills which pertaine not onely to humane societie but also to Diuine Religion 8 Whether the King may not coÌ„ferre Ecclesiasticall Benefices As the only Supreame Gouernour in all causes ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall 9 Whether the King may not make and depose Bishops As the only Supreame Gouernour in all causes ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall 10 Whether the King may not compell his subiects to the oath of Supremacy As the only Supreame Gouernour in all causes ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall 11 Whether the King hath not his Supremacie by the right of his Crowne As the only Supreame Gouernour in all causes ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall As for ExcoÌ„munication if the Iesuit meane by it Retaining of sins that respecteth the Iurisdiction internall and all both Protestant and Popish Writers acknowledge that our King challengeth no such power But if he vnderstand the inhibiting froÌ„ the Communion other holy exercises performed by the Minister and faithfull people in the Church then in England where euery not only Archbishop but Archdeacon and his Officiall doe excommunicat we shal haue according to Becane his dispure heere so many Primats of the Church of England as there be in it Archdeacons or their Officialls But heere the controuersie is of one onely Supreame Primat or Supreame Gouernour Therfore this Question of Becane touching the Kings power to excommunicat is very idle and â—riuolous As touching the Iudge of Controuersies all Protestant Writers hold no mortall man to be Iudge of theÌ„ Notwithstanding Hainrik Salobrig and long before him Iewell in his Defence of the English Apologie Par. 6. c. 13. Dâ—uil 2. out of the Ecclesiasticall Writers especially out of Socrates and Cardinall Cusanus write That Christian Princes with good commendation haue heard and determined some Controuersies of faith According also to these words of Charles the Great produced by the reuerend Bishop of Ely viz. Wee doe decree and by Gods assistance haue decreed Tort Tort. Pag. 165. what is to be firmly holden in that cause or Controuersie It was a cause of Faith against Eliphandus vvho asserted Christ to be the adopted Sonne of GOD. Lastly who would heere regard the naked names of Sanders Genebrard Pol. Virgil and Thuanus which Becane doth heere muster Are these also Aduersaries to Becane or doe these as Aduersaries extreamely dissent touching these Questions As for Caluin Tortura Torti a good while since hath answered thus As Caluin did not allow the Pope to be King or the King to be Pope Pag. 379. so vve approue not that in the King vvhich we detest in the Pope But Caluin vvith vs and wee with him thinke that those things belong to the King in the Church Christian vvhich belonged to Iosias in the Church Iudaicall And we desire no more Now hauing passed these Rocks the remainder of our way is easie and all Becans Iarres heereafter obiected against vs may as it were with the blast of some few words bee eftsoones scattered and brought to nought For by this which is already demonstrated it is most manifest that all our English Protestant Writers doe fully and vniformely agree in the whole substance or
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
their deserts he may depose as Salomon did Abiathar In the meane time 1. Reg. 2. ver 27. the King alloweth not that any Bishop especially the Bishop of Rome should rule ouer all the Christian vvorld This Iesuit bringing in our King heer denying that hee will meddle with the matters of other men not his subiects as on the one side hee deseruedly commendeth our gracious King therein so on the other side he iustly condemneth that busie-body the Pope intermeddling in matters of the King his subiects endeucâ—ring impiously and impudently to auert his subiects froÌ„ swearing allegiance vnto their Soueraigne against the law of Nature Nations against the law of God and man therein shewing himselfe indeed to be that wicked man that sonne of perdition that very Antichrist described by St. Paule 2. Thes 2 especially considering that neither our King nor the meanest vassall or villaine of our King is the Popes subiect For by the right and ancient diuision of Prouinces this Realme of England was not vnder the Bishop of Rome Pope Innocent 400. yeeresafter Christ confesseth that he had not sufficient authority to call one poore Britan out of this Realme The case was this The Bishops of Africa prayed Innocentius cither to send for Pelagius the Britan or to deale with him by letters to shew the meaning of his lewd speeches tending to the derogation of Gods grace To whom the Bishoppe of Rome answered thus Quando c. When will hee commit himselfe to our iudgement write I what letters I vvill See B. Bil. Pag. 320. vvhereas he knoweth hee shall be condemned And if hee were to be sent for they may better doe it that are neerer to him and not so farre distant as I am BECAN Exam. Pag. 115 IF these propositions be equiualent viz. The King hath not Primacy Ecclesiasticall The King cannot execure offices Sacerdotall or Episcopall then it followeth that they who deny the King canexeciâ—te officas Sacerdot all deny the King to haue Primacy Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall And they vvho hold that the King hath Primacy Spirituall affirme that he may execute offices Episcopall This is rather to increase then to take away the Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere the Iesuit playeth the wrangling Sophifter his Elench is as the Schoole tearmeth it A dictosecundum quid addictuÌ„ simpliciter For these words Primaeus Ecclesiasticus doe not simply but secundum interpretationem vel sensum according as some Writers meane thereby signisie Primacy Episcopall and not Regall In which sense all Protestant Writers deny the King to haue Primacy Ecclesiasticall Others by those words Primatus Ecclesiasticus mean Primacy Regall or not Episcopall In which sense all English Protestant Writers ascribe vnto the King Primacy Ecclesiasticall and as Master Burhill vvriteth may vvell call it Primatum Spiritualem Spirituall Primacy So heere the Iarre is taken cleane away and the Iesuit is sully answered in all objected by him in due place The rest which against his owne and all good method hee iumbleth heere together hotch-potchwise as The King to be no Head nor to call Councells c. shall heereafter in their due place receiue also their full answere ⧠Becans Iarre III. Question Whether the King by vertue of this Primacy may bee called Primate of the Church MAister Henry Salclebridge doth absolutely affirme it For thus be writeth pag. 140. Dico Regem Angliae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Primatem esse I say that the King of England is Primat of the Church of England Nay he vvill haue this point to be so certaine and out of al doubt that he thinketh whosoeur should deny it to offend against the publike profession of England For so he saith pag. 177. Angliae RegeÌ„ Anglicanae Ecclesiae PrimateÌ„ esse in professione publica Anglicana Veritasis sacris liter is nixae ponitur That the King of England is Primate of the Church of England is founded in the publique English Profession of Truth grounded vpon the sacred Letter 2. M. Tooker and M. Burhill doe absolutely deny it For thus writeth M. Tooker pag. 3. Olere autem malitiam ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud videtur cùm RegeÌ„ Caput Ecclesiae Primatemque consingas It may seeme to sauour of malice and cry out vpon your saucinesse when as you feigne the King Head and Primate of the Church c. And Ma. Burhill pag. 133 Nec primatem quidem omnino Regem nostrum dicimus multò vetò minus Primatem Ecclesiasticism Neither doe wee at all call our King Primate and much lesse Ecctesiasticall Frimate c. 3. Heer-hence doe I frame a twofold Argument One out of M. Tookera words in this manner Hee that affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church is a sausy and malicious fellow But M. Salclebridge 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 denieth the King to bee Primate of the Church doth offend against the publique Profession of the Truth receiued in England But M. Tooker denieth the King to be Primate of the Church of England Ergo he offendeth against the publique profession of the Truth receiued in England So I wis one Mule claweth another 4. But now it may bee demaunded whether of them doth iudge more rightly in this case M. Salclebridge who affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church or M. Tooker that denieth it This controuersie dependeth vpon another question to weet whether these two Names Primate and Primacy are necessarily connexed 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 hee consequently anerreik that the King is Primat 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 Bishoprick Ergo he is a Bishop 5. Now M. Tooker hee thinketh the contrarie For pag. 6. of his booke hee expresty saith That the King hath the Primacy of the Church but yet hee is not the Primate of the Church And contrariwise The Archbishop of Canterbury hath not the Primacy of the Church yet is he Primate of the Church So as hee denieth these two consequences à Coniugatis to weet I. The King hath the Primacy Ergo hee is Primate 2. The Archbishoppe is Primate Ergo hee hath the Primacy And perhaps hee vvill deny these in like manner I. The Chaplaine hath a Bishopricke Ergo hee is a Bishop 2. M. Tooker is a Deane Ergo hee hath a Deanery English Concord Pag. 29 WHy should I schoole an Asse with whom gently to claw and curstlie to kick Mule-like is all one Or why should I rubbe your memorie to recognize these your owne words Iames the most renowned potent King of England Refut Apol. Praef. monit Regis pag. 17.
King and farre greater too English Concord Pag. 32. THe Head Regall Primate and th'alone Supreme gouernour in all things and ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall in the Church of England signifie one and the selfe same thing wherein all our English Protestant Writers doe vniformally accord and so do openly and publikely profess the Kings royall Title of Supreme Head vnder Christin England Here therefore the Iesuite contends for nifles And this hee might haue learned of the R. Bishop of Ely Tott Tort. pag. 338. et 339 who doth not only admit that Title but also foundlie proueth the same by Scriptures and Fathers in these words Now to bring this name of Head vnto the King from Gregory or any other needs no wondrous Art The Holy-ghost in this word was our guide The Prophet Samuel speaks thus to his King 1. Sa. 19.17 When thou wast little in thy own eyes wast thou not made the Head of the Tribes of Israel of wth tribes the Tribe of Leny was one Theriore the K. is head of the leuitical tribe in the which Tribe was the high Priest Abimelech vnder the king his head Wondrous ignorance it is to deny this not wondrous Art to prooue this Moreouer Chrysostom a Bishop of the. Catholike Church no lesse godly and learned then Gregory called Theodosius not onely the Head but also the Toppe or Crowne of the head euen of all men vpon the earth I thinke there was then a man vpon earth who was called the Bishop of Rome Agreeable hereunto writeth Dr. Tooker Duel pag. 4 thus The Bishop of Ely doth with vs and with Chrysostom so acknowledge the king to be Head and toppe of the Head that he vnder standeth him to be gouernour of the Church vnder the Primary head Christ See you not hereby Iesuite how impudently you lyed when you wrote thus But now this Title of Head is indangered vnder King Iames c. Dr. Tooker and Mr. Burhill will not haue the King to be called such a Head of the Church as you Papists dreame the Pope to be viz. Vnto whose motion as say the Clementines all are subiect From whom as from an Head taken vp into the fellowship of the indiuiduall vnity God doth poure out his gifts in the whole body b De Elect. et Elect. potest ca. Fundamenta From whom all Bishoppes descend as members from the Head c De Minist et ordin li. 2 who can doe all things that Christ can doe d Hoftiens de Transl Epi. ca. Quinto who hath the same Tribunall and Consistory that Christ hath e Abbat de Elect. c Venerabilem But is the Iesuite amongst the Prophets It may be among the false Prophets What doth hee measure our Writers who had rather lose their heads then in the Papists sense to ascribe vnto their King the Title of Supreme Head with the met-wand of Papall parasites In that Iarre of Cardinalls about the Popes Primacy to vveet whether it consist in the Temporalties of Kings Directly or Indirectly what will Pope Paul 5. doe If he admit that Primacy Direct Bellarmine will murnur if hee refuse it what will Baromus and the Canonists say If the Cardinalls would bestow the Popedome vpon Bellarmine he would grant vnto the Pope this and a farre greater Title Directly But haue the Papists any greater Title then this papall to weet of the Head bf the Church It seemes so because according to his Parasits these following are Catholick Axioms First The Pope can dispense aboue right or law and can make iustice of iniustice and can make no sentence a sentence and can create some-what of nothing a De Trans Epi. Quanto in glosla Secondly The Pope is the true Soueraigne Lord of Temporalties so that hee can take away frō one that which is his owne and that act of his holds for good though hee sinne Princes are not Lords but Tutors Procurators and Stewards b Ioh. de patis de porest Pap. et Reg. Thirdly It is hereticall to beliene that Our Lord God the Pope the maker of this and that decree can not decree as hee hath done c Extrau loan 22. ca. Cum inter nonnullos in Gloss Is there any thing more Yes aboue God and power diuine They haue perswaded the Popes that Fourthly The Popes may doe all things euen what they list euen things vnlawfull and that they are More than God d Francis Zibarell Which made e In Polycratico Camotensis long since vvrite thus The Popes commaund the Angels They haue power ouer the dead They offer violence to the Scriptures thereby to gaine fulnesse of Power The Pope is become intolerable no Tyrant did euer equall him in pride pompe Behold heere the Roman Head how glorious pompous and if hee had rather haue it so how tyrannous it is BECAN Exam. Pag. 128. IF the name Head of the Church Primat of the Church signisit the same thing then Tooker and Burhill who deny the King to be Primat not onely Ecclesiasticall and Sacerdotall but also in any other sense what soeuer deny also in the same sort the King to be Head Dr. HARRIS Reply DOctor Tooker as in my Concord and in this 4. Question out of his expresse words vvas shewed did together with the R Bishop of Ely acknowledge the King to be Supreme Head of this Church Pag. 284. M. Burhill in his Appendix writeth thus If any of vs call the King Head of the Church in his kingdom that manner of speech hath good reason and sense orthodoxall I did not reprehend any man as audacious because according to our meaning hee calls the King Caput Pastorem et Primatem Head Pastour and Primat The Iesuit told vs before Exam. pag. 321. that hee regarded not what they haue sworne and professed publiquely but what they haue written let him therefore read this which they haue written to make him ashamed of his shamelcsse vntruths BECAN Exam. Pag. 128 WHat will you say to the Bishop of Ely who in his Tortur Toni pag. 331. saud It is a monstrous body that hath moe Heads then one And pag. 389. The Church is one body and there is but one Head of one body That one Head is Christ not the Pope Whence it followeth that your English Church is more monstrous then ours For you haue two Heads of diuerse kinds .i. Sacerdotall and Regall Wee but of one kind that is Sacerdotall You make as many Heads as there bee Christian Kings ouer their Dominions but wee two oncly in all Dominions Coristian viz. Christ and the Pope Dr. HARRIS Reply THe vnlearned Iesuit presumptuously heere entreth the combat with the most learned Bishop a Pigmey with a Giant but it seemeth he vnder standeth neither the R Bishop nor himselfe The R Bishop is so farre off from denying our King to be Head of this Church that hee hath not onely asserted it but also proued
it our of the Scriptures and Fathers as hath appeared but hevtterly denieth that either the King or Pope or any other but the Lord IESVS onely is Head of the Church in the Popish sense viz. such a Head by whom all the body boing coupled and knit together by euery ioynt for the furniture thereof Eph. 4. v. 16. according to the effectuall power which is in the measure of euery part receiueth increase of the body to the edifying of it selfe in loue For suchan Head Pope leo made Peter so him selfe Epist 89. and euery Pope writing of Peter as taken vpinto the fellowship of the Indiuiduall vnitie writing I say not onely of God inspiring but De inspirante Petro of Peter inspiring So that no good thing passeth from God the fountaine of all good things but by participation vvith Peter Asthough he were Emmanuell Such a Head as is also the Head of faith and therefore the author of faith because the head is the author and originall of all sense and motion which are deriued thence into the rest of the members Such a Head vvhose body is the vvhole Church Such a Head as is the rocke and foundation of the Church Such a Head of his Church as hee is the Bridegroome of his Church If the Church haue but two such Heads it cannot chuse but bee a monstrous bodie as the reuerend Bishop ineuitably hath concluded against the Church of Rome Where the Iesuit saith that Christ and the Pope are both of one kind and Christ and the King are of diuerse kinds I answere him that the King doth resemble Christ as Head much more then the Pope doth For both the Scriptures and ancient Fathers call Kings Heads of the Church and Viears of GOD within their Dominions but no Scripture or ancient Father for the space of fiue hundred yeeres at least after Christ called the Pope of Rome as by his proper Title either the Vicar of GOD or Head of the vniners all Church Heere is matter for Becane to worke vpon or rather a bone for Becane to gnaw vpon Yet our Kings Gods Vicars and Heads of the Church doe not take vpon them to bee Heads-Bridegroomes Heads-Rocks Heads-Foundations Heads-Authors of faith Heads-Originalls of all life sense and motion of the Church They rather detest from their soules the Luciferian and Antichristian pride of the Romish Bishoppe challenging to be such an Head of the Church But what will the Iesuit say to three Popes at onces Had the Church of Rome then but two Heads It were hard to iustle out Christ as no Head and it is no easie matter to shape one Head of three Popes and those Antipopes shoueled together Or vvere there so many Pope-Heads then quot sunt in Mitra Pontificia coronae as there be crownes in the Popes Mitre BECAN Exam. Pag. 131 YOu cite Clement asserting all to be subiect to the motion of the Papisticall head of the Church Why doe you not adde the place vvhere Clement saith so I thinke you neuer saw Clement You make too much hast And you perceiue not that you cite these vvords in preiudice of your King Because the vvords All are subiect to the motion of the Head signifie nothing but this that all are subiect to the commaund of their Superiours Dot you exempt anie from the gouernment and motion of your Head in England Peraduenture your selfe and such like Predicants Dr. HARRIS Reply I Did not imagine the ignorance of this Iesuit to haue beene such that when I had set down the expresse words of the Canon law so triuiall as being notoriously knowen by the meanest students of that law he could not haue readily found the place where those words are written But sith I see the case of his ignorance to be so pittiful I wil supply his want of skil Let him therfore turne to the Clementines of Pope Clement the 5. Title 3. De Haereticis cap. Ad vestrum and there vpon the Text-word Ecclesiae in the Glosse which is cited by the learnedst Canonists for good Canon law he shal find written these very words and sullables Omnes igitur sunt subiecti motioni illius Papae et sunt in illo quasi membra de membro de Elect. Significasti All are subiect to the motion of the Pope are in him as members of the member the Head Becane dare not deny this to be catholick and Canonicall popish-doctrine not withstanding it may be he further desireth to hear a Text-Canon of another Author of Canons touching this motion Papall the strange subiection thereunto For this let him turn to Dist 40. cap. Si Papa There shall he heare Boniface the Martyr vttering these Text Canonicall words If the Pope negligent of the saluation of his own sonle of others should draw with him by heapes innumerable people to be tortured with him by many plagues or hellish torments eternally they all must be so subiect to that his drawing motion that hee may not be rebuked of any of them for that motion Or admit the Popes motion were to forbid vertue to command vice then as saith Bellarmine the vvhole Church must be so subiect to that motion as to belieue that vice is good and vertue euill vnlesse they will sin against conscience Is not this lowly good infernall subiection Farre be it from any of vs to acknowledge any subiection to any such motions of our Kings or Queenes But why doth the Iesuit presume to tell the meaning of that Author whom as hee heere confesleth he knoweth not Let him learne more modestie heerafter and in the meane time knowe that for members to be subiect to the motion of their Head for example the Church of Rome to their Pope-Head is not onely to obey the commaund of their head as if the legges should moue when the head would haue them moue but to receine the vertue of motion from the head without which they cannot moue at all Hence it is that in great distemperatures of the head as Apoplexies or the like the members are void of all motion And so it fareth with the Church of Rome and their Pope-Head from whom as from their Head so saith their Canon euen their Head of faith GOD powreth out his gifts the gifts of motion into all the members Yet in such sort as that without partaking of the Pope-Head GOD saith Leo powreth no gift or grace into any member God for bidde wee should acknowledge the King to be such an Head of motion or wee bee subiect to any such motion His Maiestie detesteth any such claime and wee derest all such subiection So little is the King preiudicated by this quotation Touching the scornfully obiected exemption of our Predicants from the Kings command were your popish shauelings borne in England the Seminary Priests and Iesuits as loyall and obedient to the King as our English Preachers are the crown wold stand vpon the Kings head with more safety his subiects
should eate the labours of their hands and drink the water of their own wells with more security Were your Priests Iesuits or confounded none vvould hurt or destroy in all the mountaine of Gods holinesse None would hatch the Cockatrise egges or weaue the Spyders web of Gun-powder treasons and milhons of other trayterous complots and bloudy conspiracies You you are they who in very deed trouble Israell and bring the whole Christian world into combustion It is a statute enacted in the heaueÌ„s that euery soule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 13. ver 1. as saith ChrysosÌ„tome writing vpon those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be hee an Apostle or Euangelist or Prophet or any other Peter Pope or whosoeuer should bee subiect to the higher Powers for conscience sake But by the Popes statute or Canon the vilest shaueling Priests aforesaid are so exempted froÌ„ subiection to the highest Powers Kings and Emperours that they are not bound to obey them or their lawes for Conscience but onelie for Order sake Therefore they are not bound to giue neither will they giue to Caesar that which is Caesars viz. Tribute for Tribute belongs to him nor Custom yet Custom is due to him They will not as Saint Paul did stand at Caesars iudgement seat to be tryed there much lesse will they as Christ did present themselues to that tribunall vvhich hath power giuen to it from aboue to bee condemned there Some kind of reason they may haue for it as this They hold with Antichrist why then should they follow Christ Touching the popish Layicks If as the Iesuit heere saith all the Kings subiects vvithin his Realmes are bound to obey the King why doe they disobey him euen in the face beeing open and professed wilfull Recusants to come to Church there to heare Gods word truely preached and his Sacraments duely administred to pray to God to praise God in the congregations of his Saints Why doe they against the law of God of Nature of Nations and of their King refuse to testifie by oath their Allegiance to their Soueraigne Why vnlesse it be for that they want motion as hauing no vertue of motion thereunto deriued vnto them from their Pope-Head or else because they take them selues to be the subiects of the Pope and not of the King And this is indeede Preiudiciall to the King in the highest degree BECAN Exam. Pag. 132 YOu cite out of the Canon law some maimed words which you read not there nor vnder stand That you may vnderstand them I will cite them whole as they are The Sacrament of this office c. They are Pope Nicolas words and containe these three things 1. That Christ placed the Sacrament of Preaching the gospell principally in Peter when he saw the vessell let downe from heauen and when it was said vnto him Rise Peter kill and cate 2. That God would haue the vertue and effect of the gospell to be powred vpon the Gentiles from Peter as from a Head 3. That God tooke Peter into the Jellowship of indiuiduall vnitie by communicating his name and dignitie to him for he would haue Peter called the rocke and foundation of that Church whereof he is the rocke and foundation What gather you hence against the Pope nothing as all Onely you bewray your dulnesse and ignorance berein Dr. HARR IS Reply I Gather hence that the Pope is very Antichrist shewing himselfe as God The Scripture saith that by preaching the gospell 1. Cor. 3.7 Paul may plant and Apollo may water but this God onely giues the increase that is the vertue and effect of preaching But here Peter to weet the Pope is said to giue the vertue and effect of preaching The Scripture 1. Cor. 3.11 yea the Canon law saith that there is no foundation or rocke of the Church but onely Christ Iesus But here the Pope challengeth not onely the name but the very Dignity of Christ viz. to be as Christ is The foundation and rock of the Church God saith Esay 48.11 Hee will not giue his Glory or Dignity to any other but here it is said that Peter to weet the Pope is assumpted into the Dignity of the indiuidual vnity The indiuiduall vnity is our Lord God but here the Pope is assumpted into the fellowship of the name and hence it is that the Papists or Papi-coliks call that Romish Anrichrist their Lord God the Pope Thus haue I gathered out of the blasphemous assertioÌ„s of this Iesuit here and out of their Canon law enough for this one time and to much for Becane to answere all his life time against their Pope-Head But how doth the Iesuit gather that the Sacrament of preaching was principally constituted in Peter when after the vessell let downe it was said vnto him Rise Peter kill and eate seeing that Christ before his passion did constitute the Sacrament of preaching equally and with the selfe same words in all his Apostles saying Gopreach the gospell to all the world By vertue whereof the rest as well as Peter did preach the Gospell but this vision and this speech to Peter was after Christs ascension not to constitute the Sacrament of preaching the Gospell principally in him but to reforme the errour that was principally in him viz. that he ought not to preach the gospel to the Gentiles Therefore by that speech and vision he was emboldned to preach the Gospell to Cornelius a Gentile but not to kill Cornelius as Cardinall Baronius expounded those words against the Venetians If the Iesuite had cited the whole words of the Canon as he promised to doe he might haue learned by those words of the Canon Dexteras Societatis the right hands of Fellowship that the Sacrament of preaching the Gospell was as principally constituted in Paul towards the Gentiles as it was in Peter towards the Iewes As touching me I had read that Canon often but I purposely cited out of it those words onely which shew what a blasphemous Head the Church of Rome hath who challengeth to be assumpted into the fellowship of the indiuiduall vnitie in such sort that all gifts and graces of God are powred vpon the Church from him and through him as the Head of that his body the Church And those words which I cited were not maimed but full enough to euince the Pope to be such a blasphemous Head indcede Notwithstanding I must giue the Iesuite leaue to hold on his course viz. to wound his Pope when he seeks to heale him to disgrace mee without cause and to bely mee without blushing BECAN Exam. Page 133 YOu cite out of Durand truely that all Bishops descend from the Pope as members from the head Which is nothing else but this that they all receiue from the Pope Iurisduction of the externall Court Which as English Academicks say is in liâ—e sort giuen by the king to the Bishops in England Therefore here is the Iarre between you and the Academicks Dr. HARRIS Reply
qui EcclesiasticaÌ„ temporaleÌ„ iurisdictioneÌ„ habet quideÌ„ Supremá The king is a person mixt to wit that hath both Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall and Temporall that in the highest degree c. And yet more p. 144. Perleges Ecclesiasticas in hoc Regno approbatas vnus Sacerdos duo beneficia habere non potest nec Bastardus Sactis initiari Verùm Rex Ecclesiastica potestate iurisdictione quam habet in vtroque dispensate potest By the Ecclesiasticall Lawes approned in this Kingdom of England one Priest may not have two Benefices nor a Bastard be made a Priest But the King by the Iurisdiction And Power Ecclesiasticall which hee hath can dispense in both c. 3. M. Tompson and M. Burhill doe absolutely deny it M. Thomson pag. 80. of his booke writing thus Primatus Ecclesiae non est definiendus per iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam sed per gubernationem supremam The Primacie of the Church is not to be defined by Iurisdiction Ecclesisstical but by supreme GouernmeÌ„t c. And againe pag 95. Diximus Regem gubernare quidem Ecclesiastica sed non Ecclesiasticè Wee haue said before that the King indeed doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically And why I pray you Because for sooth be hath not Iurisdiction Ecclesiatically but onoly Temporall And heerounto agreath Must Buchill pag. 234. granting this negatine proposition Rex saith he nullam habet Iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam nec in foro interiori nec inexteriori The King hath no Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall neither in the interiour nor exteriour Court c. 4. Now my Lord of Ely hee distinguisheth in this case as may be seene in M. Tookers Booke pag. 305. in these vvords Habet Rex omnem iurisdictionem spiritualem in foro exterioti exceptis quibusdam Censuris The King hath all inrisaction spirituall in the extoriour Court except is certain Consures c. So as now to this question to weet vvhether the King as hee is Primate and Head of the Church haue any Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall or spirituall in the exteriour Court we must anâ—were 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 notall And lastly with M. Burhill and M. Thomson That hee hath none no not any one iote at all English Concord Pag. 38 THese are the very expresse words of the law of England which is now in force Star 1. Elzab That Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction vvhich was exercised heeretofore or lawfully might be exercised by any spiritual or Ecclesiasticall power to visit the Ecclesiasticall state order also to reforme to bring into order and to correct Ecclesiasticall persons all errours heresies schismes c. is for euer vnited and annexed to the imperiall Crowne of this kingdome vvhereby the King of England through his full power by his Letters Patents may assigne authorise such persons being naturall borne subiects as he shall think meet to exercise execute vnder his Highnes all manner of Iurisdictions priuiledges and preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction within his Highnesse Dominions Now all Protestant English Writers in the Oath of Supremacy which they haue takeÌ„ Lorament Primat in Apol. Reg. pag. 56. haue openly testified in their conscience declared that they will with all their power ayde defend all Iurisdictions Priuiledges and prehemiâ—eâ—ces vnited and annexed to the Crowne of this kingdom Wherefore all plainly agree in the thing it self But that which the Iawes of Engl. call Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction define to be the supreme Gouernmet in all Ecclesiasticall things ouer all Ecclesiasticall persons M. Thomson would rather call Supreme Gouernment The R Tortur Tort. p. 151 Bishop touching this matter writeth thus This I vrge that the IurisdictioÌ„ which Abbesses haue with you is ordinary spirituall IurisdictioÌ„ For the Abbat hath ordinary in her administration the Abbess is equalled with the Abbat And what should let it Because they cannot exercise censures excoÌ„municate But excoÌ„munication doth not directly belong to the key of order In 4. SenteÌ„ Dist 18. q. 2. art 2. Aquinas asserteth this Excommunication is no act of the key directly but rather of the externall court And it is a common opinion with you that he that hath not the key of order may excommunicate Those things which are of order and the inner court are denied to women but things belonging to the outward court are coÌ„municated to Layiks of those things there is no reason but that women may be capable As Stepha d'Aluin doth stiffly argue for his Abbesses and therein takes our part the Sorbon approuing his opinion therein Although we ascribe not to our King power of Censure and therein you giue much more to your Abbesses then we to our Prince Ma. Burhill demes the King to haue any Iurisdiction in the outward court to weet Sacerdotall So the King of England hath all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction that is Supreme and Regall wherof onely our controuersie is but no Sacerdotall no none at all and yet without any Iarre whatsoeuer But oh Becane can you without blushing if there be but a graine of pudency in you obstinatly detract froÌ„ most religious Kings all supreme Iurisdiction properly Regall when women of whom St. Paul 1. Tim. 2. v. 12. I permit not a woman to vse authority ouer the man with you are capable Fran. Steph. D' Aluin de Potestat Episc Abbatú Abbatiss ca. 2.3 4.11 c. and partakers of Spirituall Iurisdiction Sacerdotall or Episcopall viz. Of power to excoÌ„municate Clerks to absolue to visit to institute to present to Benefices Prelatures dignities Ecclesiasticall yea of hauing all administration as wel spirituall as temporall but only of those things of order wherof a woman is incapable Lastly al those things which Salobrigiensis doth heer recite touching Kings anointed with sacred oyle c. Mixt persons c. which may dispense against lawes Ecclesiasticall are transcribed out of the expresse words of the common lawes of England which in this kind of argument might haue satisfied to the full BECAN Exam. Pag. 139 THomson saith expresly that The Primacy of the Church is not to be defined by Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but the law of England doth so define it Thomson saith that The King doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically therefore his Iurisdiction is not Ecclesiasticall Burhill detracteth from the King all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in the outward Court that is as you say Sacerdotall but Tooker faith that All iurisdiction of Priests is in the inward Court The Bishop of Ely saith The King hath no Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the outward Court but onely power of Censure And saith againe The King hath not power of censure But Hainric and Tooker say The King hath all supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction The English law saith The King hath all manner
large That an Abbesse may haue a Praelature and dignity with administration and a right to visit euen without the Monastery which right she may also commit to others And the Bishop Bitontine very lately holdeth and proueth the same in his works dedicated to Pope Clement 8. See the very Text. Sext. de Elect ca. Indemnitatibus prouing the same Barthol in l. 1. cod de dign lib. 12. n. 4. saith that Abbesses haue dignity with administration not onely ouer their Nunnes but also without for that they haue Castles c. as Abbats haue dignity with administration Sext. de Priuilegijs ca. Apostolicae And therefore by a ruled case among the Doctors grounded vpon ca. Attendentes in Clemētin de stat Monachor they ought to visit or to commit the visitation to others Extra con ca Vas electionis Out of these the like Steph. d' Aluin ca. 2. sect 12. of the power of Abbesses concludeth that Abbesses Prioresses claustrall by a certaine right constitutions and rule of S. Benedict from whence all the rest in a manner are drawne as also by custome haue authority and power ordinary spirituall and Ecclesiasticall ouer those that are vnder them And cap. 3. sect 8. That Abbesses Prioresses ex cardin concil 17. cal 4. bj cap. Dilecta and the Gloss adioyned haue all administration as well spirituall as temperall of those monasteriall Nuns saue only of those things whereof a woman is vneapable to weet of Order Now touching the power which Abbesses haue to excommunicate Because Tho. Aqui. in 4. sent dist 18. q. 2. art 2. in corpore writeth thus Excōmunicatio non est actus clanis directe sed magis exterior is iudicij Excommunication is not an act of the key directly but rather of external court Nauarre lib. quinto consil 1. de sentent Excom concludeth that a vvoman by priuiledge may also excommunicate Tabiena and Arnilla verbo Abbatissae nu 3. besides Panormitan Astensis and others That an Abbess may cōmand the Priests her subiects to excōmunicate their rebellious obstinat Nunnes or to absolue them Whereupon Steph. d'Aluin cap. 3. sect 12. concludeth thos Proinde omnis habens Iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam et si non habeat clauem ordinis potest excommunicare ex D. Thoma Therefore all hauing Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction may excommunicate according to Tho. Aquin. Now that they haue Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction witnes Panormitun in ca. De stat Monachor Iason consil l 40. lib. 2. Flaminius deresig lib. 3. q. 12. n. 12. saying Dispositum iur is in Abbate habere locum in Abbatissis What right Abbats haue Abbesses haue the same And againe Panormitan Arnilla Flaminius write That Abbesses exempt haue right or iurisdiction to visit the places and persons subiect to them and that they haue Clerks subiect vnto them Pleno iure that is vnder their gouernment as well Ecclesiasticall as Temporall Now say Card. Parisius and Flaminius Out of the right to visit or from visiting by her selfe or her deputie followeth her Iurisdiction to depriue depose correct punish and chastise And to haue them subiect to her Pleno iure by full right doth plainely import Iurisdiction Depriuation Visitation and Correction To conclude this point If priuat men and vvomen be capable of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction If Abbesses haue and execute the same in collating Benefices instituting suspending depriuing visiting iudging crimes and imposing and receiuing purgations of Bishops lastly excommunicating and absoluing according to Popish Canons Canonists Custome and practise among them with what face doth this Iesuit or any other Papist scandalize our Kings or Queenes for taking or vs for ascribing vnto them Supreme Ecclesi Iurisdiction yet not that wherby our Kings or Queens may institute Clerks excōmunicate or absolue them oras King Iames and late Queen Elizabeth haue in their writings published to the whole world Therefore most impudently false is the Iesuit heere asserting that Queen Elizabeth had power to excommunicate Touching Suarez let this Iesuit know that Steph. D' Aluin hath refuted in this point a farre greater better learned man then Suarez is to weet Franciscus a Victoria in his Relect. 2. de potest Ecclesiae and shewed the practise of the Church to be as heere hath beene declared Christian Reader I haue beene much heere in this point because it is of that moment and so remarkable for recompence in replying to the remainder of Becanes Examivation I promise to bee short the rather because in truth it is but froth not deseruing any other answere at all but that which is already set down in my English Concord ⧠Becans Iarre VI. Question Whether the King of his owne Authority can assemble or call together Councells 1. NOvv follow the Iarres and debates of our Aduersaries concerning the Offices and Functions of the Kings Primacy and they are sixe in number which may be disputed of The first is of assembling or calling together of Synods The second of enacting of Ecclesiasticall lawes The third of conferring or bestowing of Benefices The fourth of creating and deposing of Bishops The fift is about Excommunication The sixt and last is about the decision and determining of Controuersies The question then is vvhether these offices belong to the Kings Primacy I will speake a vvord of each in order 2. First it may bee demaunded vvhether the King by vertue of his Primacy may of his owne authority call or assemble together Synods therein sit as chiefe head This was certainly perswaded that it might be done in the time 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 be can dot it in these vvords Christiani Principes in Regnis suis cum laude propria auctoritate Synodos conuocarunt Constitutiones condiderunt causas audierunt cognouerunt Christian Princes haue with great praise assembled Synods by their owne authority in their Kingdoms haue made Constitutions heard and examined causes c. And again pag. 146. Rex Angliae potest Synodos indicere omnium Ordinum Oecumenicas et in ijsdem praesidere The King of England saith he may assemble Generall Councells of all Orders or degrees and therein sit as President or Chiefe c. And pag. 155. hee saith in like manner Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate deiure Synodos conuocarunt The Kings of England haue by their owne supreme authority and by right assembled Synods c. 3. Now Ma Tooker in this point is very variable one vvhile contradicting himselfe another while others And this is manifest out of the diuerse testimonies he produceth The first is pag. 37. where hee hath these words A quibus magis aequum est indici Concilia quà mabillis penes quos semper fuit authoritas ea congregandi Cùm autem communiter triplex ponisoleat Concilium Generale Prouinclale Dioecesanū Concilium Generale solius Papae iussu celebrari vultis sed nequeillud nisi ab
Imperatoribus Regibus simul consentientibus hodie indici debet Prouinciale à Metropolitano cum suis Suffraganein Dioecesanum ab Episcopo cum Curatis Rectoribus Clericia Dioeceseos c. By whō is it more fit that Councells should be assembled then by those in whose power hath alwaies authority beene to call them together For wheras commonly there be three sorts of Councells Generall Prouinciall and of a particular Diocesse the Generall Councell you vvill haue to be celebrated onely by commandement of the Pope but yet not so neither now adayes vnlesse Emperours and Kings doe agree therevnto also A Prouinciall Councell is to bee assembled by the Metropolitan and his Suffragans that of the Diocesse by the Bishoppe thereof together vvith the Curats Rectors and Clerks of the same Bishopricke c. Out of vvhich testimonie vves may gather that the King of England cannot assemble a Councell of kis ovvne authoritie Not a Generall because that belongeth to the common consent of Kings and Emperours Not a Prouinciall because that pertaineth to the Metropolitan Not of the Diccesse because that belongeth to the Bishopot thereof What then I pray you is left vnto the King 4. Another testimonie heereof is out of the same Ma. Tooker pag. 41. in these vvords Abundè liquetex Concilijs ipsis historia Ecclesiastica Prouincialia Concilia Nationalia ab Imperatoribus ac Regibus fuisse congregata It is aboundantly manifest out of the Councells themselues and the Ecclesiasticall Histories that Prouinciall and Nationall Councells haue beene assembled by Emperours and Kings c. This now is plainely repugnant to his former testimony For there hee affirmeth that Prouinciall Councells are tobe assembled by the Metropolitans thereof heere bee saith that they must be assembled by Kings and Emperours There is distinguished onelie a threefold Councell to weet Generall Prouinciall and that of the Diocesse heere now is added a fourth to weet Nationall 5. His third testimony is set downs pag. 42. vvhere he proposeth this question Quoigitur iure tantam sibi porestatem arrogat Pontifex solus Num diuino By what nighe then I pray you doth the Popechallenge vnto himselfe alone so great power Doth hee doe it by diuine right c. And a little after hee addeth Erat Apostolorum omnium non vnius tantummodo indicere Concilium statuere cum verborum solennitate Visumest Spiritui sancto Nobis c. It belonged to all the Apostles not to one alone to assemble a Councell and vvith solemnitie of vvords to ordaine It seemes good vnto the Holy Ghost and vs c. As if hee vvould say That as by diuine right not S. Peter alone but all the Apostles together with equall power did assemble the first Councell at Ierusalem and therein 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 follovves 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 successors c. 6. His fourth testimony is pag. 63. vvhere hee saith Mixtum autem ius resultans ex vtroque iure Regio Episcopali est Legum sanctio Synodorum indictio praesidendi in ijs praerogatiua controuersiatum decisio aliorumque actuum qui his finitimi sunt exercitium quae ferè ab origine Primatus Regij descendunt communicantur Sacerdotibus c. The decreeing or enacting of lawes the assembling of Synodes and Prerogatiue of sitting therein 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 vvhich things doe in a manner come downe or descend from the origen of the Kings Primacy and are communicated or imparted vnto Priests c. This now againe as you see is contrary to that vvhich hee said next before For there bee vvill needes haue the assembly of Synodes or Coūcells to belong by diuine right to the Apostles beer for sooth hee vvill haue the same chiefely to belong to Kings and from them to be deriued vnto Bishops These things doe not agree one with another English Concord HItherto the contention hath been Grammaticall about words and names 1. Whether that supreme gouernment of the King in the Church of England which all our Writers doe professe ought to bee called Primatus or Suprematus Primacy or Supremacy 2. Whether he that holdeth that supreme gouernment in the Church of that his Primacy may be called Primate of the Church or Head of the Church or the onely Supreme Gouernour of the Church 3. Whether that Supreme gouernment or Iurisdiction which is in all Ecclesiasticall matters and aboue all Ecclesiasticall persons ought to be called the Supreme gouernment of the Church or the Supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall These foolish and vnlearned questions 2. Tim. 2.23 Saint Paul forbiddeth vnworthy of Diuines but as it should seeme not of a Iesuit Let Becane tell me ingenuously whether these six offices only appertaine to the Papall Primacy Or whether there be not sixtie times six which may be called into question Let him tell me whether these offices doe properly pertaine to the Primacy of Peter and so to the Bishop of Rome Let him shew mee where it is written or that Peter had any Primacy at all or that this his Primacy is contained or defined within the bounds and limits of these duties or that euer Peter did exercise such offices as Primats of the Church That is to say let him manifest out of the Scriptures what Councell Peter summoned as Primate of the Church what Ecclesiasticall lawes he made what benefices hee collated what Bishops he created or deposed of what controuersies hee was supreme iudge These things if the Iesuite cannot shew he is a pratler and no disputer for all yea the meanest of Bishops in the kingdome doe excommunicate are therefore all those Bishops Primates and Supreme gouernours in the vniuersall Church throughout the whole kingdome our question is of one only Supreme gouernour of the whole Church in the kingdom Make exception but of Excommunication alone and Hainricus by many expresse authentike writings hath demonstrated that Christian Princes haue with singuler commendation 1. Called Councells 2. Made Ecclesiasticall lawes 3. Conferred benefices although this seemeth too grosse and greasie whereof to make a part of Primacy 4. Created and deposed Bishops 5. Taken vp and ended controuersies But so granted that no mortall man can be iudge of all controuersies especially of faith That Christian Princes of their owne authoritie and with commendation haue summoned Councells both Hainric and Dr. Tooker do expresly write in plain words Neither is Dr. Tooker in this point either against him self or against Hainric When that first councell was assembled
Or whether Patriarchs be successors of some of the Apostles and Archbishops of other-some and Bishops successors of the lowest or third rank And whether one kind onely of these successors or all three kinds may call generall Councells Secondly whether all the Bishops in the Christian world as the Apostles successors must ioyntly as all the Apostles did call generall Councells or because that would now proue too-too troublesome how many of them may serue that turne ⧠Becans Iarre VII Question Whether the King can enact Ecclesiasticall lawes or no 1. It is cleere that K. Henry the 8. did as well 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 diebus vigilantissimus hic Ecclesiae Pastor Henricus quo in posterum sciretur quae cui rite nupta eâ—â—et legem ediderat perpetuam de Nupt. js Comitiorum etiam auctoritate confirmatam qua statuebatur vt si quae personae in Leuitico non prohibitae solo consensu perverba de praesenti matrimonium nulla carnis copula subsecuta contraxerint eae verò ambae postea vel earum altera nuptijs cum altera persona in Leuitico non prohibita contractis carnali copula easdom consummauerint hae posteriores quas firmasset copula non priores illae quas solus consensus statuisset ratae atque legitimae haberentur adco vt cùm olim iuris Gentium fuisset Regula Nuptias non concubitw sed consensus facit iam deinceps Henrici regula effe coeperit Nupttas non consensus sed concubitus facit Ettamen ipse Legis-lator contra suam ipsius regulam vxorem Annam Cliuensem cuius nuptias non solo consensu sed septem etiam mensium concubitu firmauerat eo solùm praetextu reiecit ipsaque viuente aliam superinduxit quòd alteri nescio cui consensum antea praebuisse fingeretur Huius ergo legis tantopere postea puduit ipsos Potestantes vt mortuo Henrico eam ipsi reuocaucrint atque irritam fecerint c. In these daies the most vigilant Pastor of the Church K. Henry that it might be knowne to posterity what woman vvere lawfully maried to another enacted aperpetuall law concerning Marriage authorizing the same by publick Decree of Parliament vvherin it vvas ordained that if any persons not prohibited in the Leuiticall law should contract martage by only consent and by vvords de praesenti no carnaell copulation following the same and that the said persons or either of them should after vvard contract vvith another person not prohibited in the Leuiticall law and consummate the same by carnall copulation that then these later contracts vvhich vvere consummated by carnall copulation not the former that were agreed vpon by onely consent should be accounted for good and lawfull In so much that vvhereas the rule of the law of Nations in old time vvas That consent not carnall copulation did make the marriage lawfull now heere after by the law of K. Henrie it began to be arule That carnall copulation not consent did make mariage lawfull And yet for all this the law-maker himsolfe K. Henry did against his owne proper rule and law reiect Anne of Cleeue his vvife vvhose mariage vvas not onely contracted by consent adone but consummated also by seauen moneths carnall copulation vpon this onely pretence that shee had giues her consent to another before I know not vvhom and vpon this fiction he maried another shee yet remaining aliue And of this law afterward the Protestants themselues vvere so much ashamed that after K. Henries death they recalled and disannulled the same 2. Concerning his Vicar generall Cromwell thus writcth also the said Doctor Sanders in the same booke Septembri meÌ„se authoritatesua Vicaria Canones quosdam Ecclesiasticos quos Iniunctiones vocabat sigillo Vicariatus sui munitos Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus reliquo Clero praescripsit in quibus praeter caetera iubebantur Parochi sub grauissimis poenis vt OrationeÌ„ DominicaÌ„ cum salutatione Angelica Symbolum item fidei decem Decalogi praecepta aliaque huiusmodi Anglicè in posterum in Ecclesijs docerent In the moneth of Septemb. K. Henries Vicar Generall by the authoritie of his Office prescribedcertain Ecclesiastical Canons which he called Iniunctions signed vvith the seale of his Office of Vicar Generall to the Archbishops Bishoppes Abbots and the rest of the Clergie vvher in among other things the Pastors of Churches vvere commaundâ—d vnder most setere punishment hereafter to readin their Churches the Lords prayer the Aue Mary the Creed ten Commandements in English c. 3. Now our English Aduersaries that vvite in these dates of the Kings Supremacy doc not agree in this poynt For that some of them say that the enacting or decreeing of Ecclesiasticall lawes doth by diuine Right belong vnto Bishops others say that it belongeth to Kings and Emperours The first apinion holdeth Marster Tooker pag. 42. of his booke where be saith that the Apostles in the first Councell at Ierusalem did enact this Ecclesiasticall law Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis nihil vltra imponere vobis oneris nisi haec necessaria vt abstineatis vos ab immolatis simulachroruÌ„ sanguine sussocato It hath seemed good vnto the holy Ghost and to vs to lay no further burthen vpon you then these necessary things that you abstaine from the things immolated to Idols and from bloud and that vvhich is strangled c. And this saith hee the Apopostles did by diuineright The other opinion holdeth Maâ—ster Thomson pag. 80. where he affirmeth that Bishops and Councells cannot enact or decree any Ecclesiasticall law which hath the force of lavv vnlesse Kings and Emperours consent therevnto His vvords are these Decreta Conciliorum Patrum Ecclesiasticis Censuris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantùm stetliIent nisi legum vim Caesarea auraipsis afflasser The Decrees of the Councells of the Fathers had been held but onely for ecclesiasticall censures and penalties vnlesse the Emperours fauour had imparted the force of lawes vnto the said Decrees c. 4. Heere now the Iarre is euident For without doubt that ecclesiasticall law vvhich the Apostles decreed had the force of a law for that so mush is gathered out of these vvords Visum est nihil vltra imponere vobis oneris nisi haec necessaria It hath seemed good to lay no further burtheÌ„ vpon you then these necessary things c. But this Ecclesiasticall law had not it force froÌ„ any fauor of the Emperor seeing that neither Tyberius nor Pilate nor Herod nor any other secular Prince which theÌ„ liued did by his fauour authorize the force of the law but that it came from the Apostles themselues For that they by their Apostolicall authoritie and power which they had reciued from Christ did decree and promulgate that lavv And the same power and authoritie haue Bishops now adaies not Kings nor Emperours English Concord
Pag. 48. DIstinguish but the times as St. Augustine teacheth you namely the times of the Churches peace wherein raigned Christian Princes and the times of persecution wherin Pagan Kings had the Soueraignty and you shall rightly vnderstand the Scriptures Of the peaceable times of the Church so writeth Dr. Tooker pag. 42. It belonged to King Dauid Salomon Iehoshophat and Iosias to giue lawes to the Leuites and to the whole congregation of Israel And in the same place he writeth again of the times of persecution Erat Apostolorum omnium c. It vvas not one but all the Apostles which both called the Councell and decreed vvith like solemnity of these words Visumest Spiritui sancto et nobis It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to vs. Ma. Thomson speaking of this matter doth not denie that the lame Apostolicall law had any force without the fauour of Caesar as though there had neuer beene law in the Church vvithout the aforsaid approbation of the Emperour but onely that without it they had no force vnder paine of corporall punishment as is most plaine by the tenor of his vvords So that heere is no Iarre or dissension among the English Writers as hee affirmeth but onely a dreaming dorage of the Iesuit who childishly sporteth himselfe with a fallacy of Equinocation especially when hee endeuoureth to match in equall ranke the lawes and Canons of Bishops with the lacred decrees and Constitutions of the Apostles Well wrote Saint Augustine Dâ—Nâ—ur et Grana c. 61. I am bound to consent to the holy Scriptures of the which sort are the decrees of the Apostles without all refusall And in another place Iread other Writers Epist 19. ad Hiero. Dist 9. Egoâ—oht how much soeuer they excell in holinesse or learning so as I doe not therefore thinke it truth because they thought so but because they perswade mee by other canonicall Authors or by probable reasons not differing from truth And against Faustus Lib. 11. ca. 5. We must read this kind of learning such as are the writings of the holy Fathers and Doctors non cum credendi necessitate sed cum libertate iudicandi not as bound to belieue them but as free to iudge them And vnto this purpose he writeth in another place Neither vvill I obiect the Councell of Nice vnto thee Cont Maxinn l. 5. c. 14. neither must thou obiect the Councell of Ariminum vnto mee let matter vvith matter and reason dispute vvith reason out of the authorities of holy Scriptures The Iesuit I hope will not deny that all the Apostolicall Sanctions vvere giuen by Diuine Inspitation and dareth hee affirme so much of all Ecclesiasticall Canons of Bishoppes yea though the Popes Holinesse haue breathed vpon them yea of the Councell of Trent Against which the Embassadours of the French King Anno 1562 who was there present protested in this manner Minus legitima minusque libera c. All those Councells vvere euer accounted lesse free and therefore not so lavvfull vvhen they vvho vvere assembled not ledde by the holy Ghost spake after the pleasure of some other to vveet the Pope And the Vniuersitie of Paris Anno 1517. in their appeale against Pope Leo the tenth and his Councell assembled at Rome wrote in this sort Leo Papa dicimus in quodam coetu c. Leo the tenth in a certaine Assembly in the Citie of Rome vvee knovve not hovv gathered together yet vve are sure not in the holy Ghost And is Becane the Iesuit ignorant in what pleasant manner Cardinall Cusan brake this iest vpon Eugenius the Pope saying De còcord lib. 2. ca. 20. Hovv can Pope Eugenius affirme this thing to be true because hee vvill haue it so and for no other cause Ac si inspiratio ipsius Sancti spiritus c. As if the mind of the holy Ghost vvere in the power of the Bishop of Rome and must then inspire vvhen the Pope vvill have him inspire To conclude this Question I desire the Iesuit Becane in the behalfe of Ma. Thomson to yeeld a sound reason wherefore the Bishops in the first Councell of Constantinople did in this humble manner entreat Theodosius the Emperour Rogamus clementiam c. Wee beseech your clemency that by the letters Patents of your Piety you vvould confirme and cause to be ratified the decree of this Councell BECAN Exam. Page 162 THe Apostles by diuine right might make lawes Which right cannot be proued to haue bin transtated froÌ„ them to Kings or Emperours but to Bishops successours of the Apostles with whom as with the Apostles the Spirit of truth remaineth for euer Therefore the Bishoppes and their Lawes or Canons euen in England are no lesse diuinely inspired then the Apostles or their Lawes or Canons Apostolicall Which if you deny the Arch-bishop of Cauterbury or certainely the Bishop of Ely will cause you to be punished therefore You are abasht to speake any thing of King Henry 8. his law touching the lawfull marriages in degrees not prohthited which carnall knowledge followed Dr. HARRIS Reply VVHat modest Hearer will not be abashed and what Christian heart will not tremble to heare these blasphemies vttered by the Iesuite The Apostles were Gods chosen pen-men to write the Scripture as they were immediately mooued by the Spirit of God 2. Pet. 2.19 21 without possibility of error They were Gods immediate instruments either joyntly in Councell or singularly alone to set downe Lawes and Canons Essentiall parts of that Scripture wherof we read thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Tim. 3.16 1. cor 15.15 The whole Scripture is gluen by inspiration of God The Apostles were such chosen witnesses to testifie Gods truth Gal. 3.8 that if an Angel from heauen should testifie otherwise than they did he must be accursed Are all Bishoppes or any one two three c. Gods immediate pen-man to write portions of holie Canonical Scripture Are all the Lawes and Canons made by Bishops in all Councells essentiall parts of Canonicall Scripture giuen by inspiration of God Are all Bishops God immediate chosen witnesses to testifie the truth so without all possibility of falshood that the Churches faith should depend thereon so sure that if an Angell of heauen testifie other wise then they haue preached or written he should be accursed Then must writings testimonies and lawes hereticall go for Scripture Canonical and so Diuine Scripture must be hereticall Is not this blasphemy And this necessarily followeth from the Iesuite his premisses here to weet That all Bishops and the lawes and Canons in Councells and other writings made by Bishops are and were inspired by the spirit of truth without errour as the Apostles and their Canons and writings were Ten seucrall prouinciall Synods gaue consent with the Arian Heretikes And whereas in the first and most famous generall Councell of Nice which maintained or thodoxally Christ his God-head there were but three hundred and eighteene Bishops In the hereticall
inferiour Bishops feete should stand ready to be hangmen or the like executioners of all their impious and vnrighteous decrees commands viz to hang and burne whom when and where they will Chuse vvhich vve vvill We will chuse millions of Combats with garments tumbled in bloud rather than to yeeld to the least iotte of this shame and disgrace of our royall Monarches the Soueraigne Lords of all Prelates within their Kingdomes Patriarkes or Popes themselues Although no lines of concord can be drawen between vs and the Papists yet here among our sâ—lues is full consent Dr. Tooker saith in times of Churches persecution the Apostles did and wel might make lawes Ecclesiasticall Mr. Thomson granteth as much and addeth that because the authority of Emperours then heathen did not breath vpon them or with them they wanted the enforcements by corporall punishments as imprisonments losse of goods members life c. Dr. Tooker saith in times of Church peace the authority of calling Councels and of ratifying the Canons and Decrees made in Councels belongeth to Christian Kings and Emperours Mr. Thomson with full agreement saith in those times of peace the Bishops and Councels could not make any Ecclesiasticall law which had force of law without the authority of the King or Emperour To backe this assertion of Mr. Thomson I mooued the Iesuite to yeeld a sound reason why especially if that be true which Pope Boniface 8. in that last Canon Extrauâ—g Commun de Mâ—â—or et Obedien Vnam Sanctam viz. Vterque gladius spiritualis et materialis est in potestate Ecclesiae sed ille Sacerdotis is manu Regum et militum sed ad Nutum sacerdotis exercendus Both spirituall and materiall sword are in the Churches power but th' one is to be vsed by the hand of the Priest th' other by the hand of the King or Soldier but at the Priests beck or command so many to weeâ— 150. Bishops assembled in the first Councell of Constantinople should be such suppliants as it were vpon their knees vnto the Emperour beseeching so earnestly intreating him to confirme the Councells decree if that decree had had force of Ecclesiasticall decree without confirmation of the Emperour But this empty Iesuit not being able to giue another solide reason and not daring to yeeld that runs away from the matter and leaueth nought else behind him but the crackling sound of a windie tubbe answering vnto me nothing but this If your reason brought to defend Thomson were good vvhy did you aske me another If not why did you not giue me a better which his answer made in forme of the two horned Dilemma is thus returned vpon him with both hornes directly bent against him If my reason were good to accord them why doth the Iesuit here hold on his prattle of discord if it were not good why did not the Iesuit produce a better and a more solide reason of those Fathers intreaty for Imperiall confirmation to ratifie their decree considering that the Question as it was moued and darted by me strooke the Iesuites Cause through the very heart As som cannot fish but in troubled waters so it seemeth this Iesuit can holde no argument but in mists of confusion For here he confounds the Councell and lawes of the Apostles with Councels and Canons of after-Bishops Sic canibus catulos sic paruis componere magna It is belike the fashion Iesuitical to compare molehils with mountaines The Apostles in extraordinary manner Diuinely inspired might and did make Ecclesiastical lawes to binde the conscience of all Christians though not to punish their bodies But the after-Bishops in times of Christian Emperors neither did nor could meet specially in generall Councells to make lawes Ecclesiasticall for the space of 600. yeers at least after Christ without Imperiall commaund And when they were mette in Councell not only the Emperour but also his officers the lay Senate and Iudges sate as Presidents there giuing-rule and order for making of those Canons not suffering any to passe for law without their consent and confirmation of the Emperour as Hainric the Salo-Brigian in his Becano-Baculus hath with great varietie of solide proofs fully demonstrated and further hath there produced very many Ecclesiasticall lawes touching in a manner all Ecclesiasticall matters and Ecclesiasticall persons commendably made by orthodoxall Kings and Emperours without Councells of Bishops Lastly whereas the Iesuite here slyeth vpon mee indeede not vpon me but vpon the Compositer for mistaking the Arithmeticall figure of 5. for 1. and as though I had written fiue at large the Iesuit sets down quintuÌ„ he sheweth himself to be in the one a truthlesse wrangler and in the other a seely fly-catcher My Compositer or Transcriber must be whipt in print mistaking one letter for another but he must go scot-free mistaking one name for another one man for another to weet Tooker for Richard Exam. page 120. For which I would not taxe him in due place and here constrained I do it because I would not misspend the Readers precious time with such empty and childish trifles ⧠Becans Iarre VIII Question Whether the King by his owne proper authority may conferre collate or bestow Ecclesiasticall benefices 1. THat the King may conferre Ecclesiasticell liuings M. Henry Salclebridge affirmeth pag. 121. in these words Christiani Principes in suis Regnis cum laude propria authoritate beneficia conâ—ulerunt Christian Princes in their owne Kingdomes by their owne proper authority haue giuen or bestowed benefices and that to their praise c. And then againe pag. 150. Audin Iesuita non modo collationes beneficiorum ad Angliae Reges spectare fed ad eosdem illos spectare vti Ecclesiae Anglicanae Primates vel supremos Ordinarios c. Do you heare Iesuite the collation of benefices doth not onely belong to the Kings of England but also it doth belong vnto them as they are Primates or supreme Ordinaries of the Church of England c. And yet more Rex ratione supremae suae Ecclesiasticae iurisdictionis praesentabit ad liberas Capellas 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 denieth it pag. 36. where talking of the Kings of England he saith thus Beneficia autem curata vel non curata non conferunt omnino in queÌ„piam maiora minoraue multo minus dignitates Ecclesiasticas sine Episcopatus siue Archiepiscopatus per vniuersum ambitum Regnisui Eorum certè collatio vel institutio est quorum est destitutio id est Episcoporum Comprouincialium qui potestatem habent personas ipsassacrandi Hoc habetiuris Regia Maiestas quod minor â—ubordinata poteslas habet ius inquam nominandi pâ—aesentandi apud nos c. Kings doe not at all collate or bestowe vpon any man benefices that haue care of soules or not care greater or lesser and much lesse Ecclesiasticall dignities
vvhether Bishopâ—ickes or Archbishoprickes throughout the whole circuits of their Kingdomes For this truely belongeth vnto those whose office it is to dispose there of to wit to the Compreninciall Bishops who haue power to consecrate the saide persons on vvhome they bestowe them Indeede the Kings Maiesty notwithstanding hath this right with vs in England which an inferiour and subordinate power also hath to wit right so nominate and present vnto benefices c. 3. Behotde here a triple Iarre or discord betweene these two Authors and this in a daily and vulges watter The first is that M. Henry Salclebridge saith that the collasion of benefices belongeth to the Kings of England in that they he 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 vertuâ— of their supreme Ecclesiasticall Iâ—risdiction may present 〈◊〉 benefices M. Tooker â—â—â—rrâ—th that in this point Kings hauene more right then their subiects and other inferiour persons for so he saith Hoc habet iuris Regia Maiestas quod minor subordinata potestas habet The Kings Maiesty hath in this point of conferring beneficer the same right that an inferiour and subordinate power bath c. Whether of these two then should King Iames belieue if he had a fat benefice or an Archbishopricke now to bestow English Concord HEere is also a Iesuiticall trifling altercation about words Hainric by collation of Benefices vnderstandeth Presentation Nominations to Benefices the very Donation of Benefices Doctor Tooker thereby concclueth the Institution of Presbyters and the consecration of Bishops Dr Tooker acknowledgeth the Kings Presentation Nomination Donation Hainric by no meanes attributeth to the king either Institution or Consecration as both of them being proper go the Bishops The Kings presenthig of his Clearks to the Bishoppe for institution of them into such Benefices with Cure as respect the Kings hereditary right of Patronage is nor much different from the presentations made by his subiects who haue the like right of Patronage vnlesse it be herein viz that the King by his writ may and doth compell the Bishoppe especially after recoucry by Quare Impedie opposing himselfe therein to institute fitte Clarks presented by his Maiesty or by other Patrons to the said Bishoppe But the presentation of certaine Benefices with Cure after they haue continued void of any Incumbent for the space of 18 Monethes appertaines vnto the King by way of lapse as vnto the Supreme Ordinarie in his Dominions or the only Supreme Gouernour of the Church therein and that by the common lawes of England as is expresly shewed in Becano-Baculus Page 142. 150. Moreouer there are certaine Benefices with Cure called Donatiues which admit no Institution at all of these the King by his owne Donation onely without any either Episcopall Institution or Archidiaconall Induction makes the Clearks rightfull possessours Doctor Tooker knoweth well these triuial and vulgar matters as Becane here calleth them and beares in minde our most learned Soueraigne his words in his Monitory Preface touching the Collation of Benefices Page 33. How often haue the Kings of France withstood the Pope in such sort that they would not yeeld vnto him the very Collation of Benefices And those other words concerning Bishoprickes receiued from Kings and Emperours Page 29. Euen the Pope also with all obedience and submission did acknowledge himself to hold his Popedom of the Emperour And Page 31. He that peaceably is desirous to know in what sort the Bishops of Spaine Scotland England Hungary by ancient Institution euen vntill moderne innouation came in and were inuested by Kings with quiet possession of their temporals purely and intirely he shall finde the same by searching the liues of the Fathers and by reading Histories Walthram Naumburg lib. de Inuestit Episc Behold then how a threefold Concord ariseth out of that threefold Iarre which the Iesuit faineth The first Concord Hainric saith that the conferring of certain Benefices belongs to the Kings of England by way of lapse as they are the chief Gouernours of the Church of England Doctor Tooker affirmeth that the Collation of Benefices lying void of any Incumbents aboue 18. Monethes appertaineth to the King onely by way of lapse and not to the Bishops or Archbishops or to any other subiect The second Hainric saith that Kings by their own authority haue oftentimes giuen Benefices to weet Donatiues Tooker auerreth that the King may giue 40. 50. or moe within the compasse of one yeare if so many fall void The third Hainric saith that by the lawes of England Kings because of their Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction present to free Chappels and that none of their subiects to weet Bishoppes or Archbishops haue authority to visit the said Chappels Dr. Tooker instructed by the same lawes auoucheth that Kings onely haue that authority and no subiects but by the Kings grant Finally if the hungry Iesuite who mindeth onely his meat that is far Benefices or Archbishoprickes can produce but one little either word of Scripture or sentence in Ancient Father whereby it may appeare that the Collation of Benefices belonged to the Primate of the Christian Church as Primate let him haue the victory But if he cannot vnlesse hee be more then impudent let him seale vp his lips and recognize those words of the Parisian Aduocate Arg. 11. Page 25. That of Luk. 9. The Sonne of man hath not vvhere to rest his head is Equiualent with this The Church by Diuine right hath no Territory BECAN Exam. Page 173 SMall Benefices without Cure may be conferred vpon Clearks which are neither Priests nor Bishops Therefore Tooker by Collation doth not meane Institution or Sacration Againe hee saith that the King of England hath no other right then to name or present but to giue or conferre is more then to name and present you faine Tooker by Collation to vnder stand Instuntion or Consecration Therefore you dissent from Tooker Hainric saith the Collation of Benefices belongeth to the King of England as Primate of the Church of England but this you deny for you bid mee shew out of Scripture or Ancient Father that the Collation of Benefices belongeth to the Primate of the Church Not I but Hainric who affirmed it must shew that It is my part only to shew that English Writers dissent in this point This I haue done let me therefore haue the victory Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere the Iesuit is as a chased timorous Hart which hauing his deadly wound giuen him flyeth out a while straggling from his fellowes but feeling decay of his vitall spirits and lifes bloud runs into the brakes to hide his head and there to perish Becane in his verball but in no sort reall confutation of his
his Clearks by lapse of time to weet after 18. Monethes Vacancy 3. The King onely or they only vnto whom that is granted by the King presents his Clearkes to his free Chappell 's exempted by him from Episcopall Visitation by his Regall Donation onely without any Institution or Induction of Bishop or Arch-deacon giuing his Clearks reall and lawfull possession of such Donatiues All these three particulars are vulgarly knowen and ingenuously confessed by Dr. Tooker which if hee would vouchsafe this Iesuit an answere would expreslie appeare in his after-writings as the like hath beene done in Mr. Burhill his after-writings But all these three instances of Regall Supremacy aboue all his Subiects Cleargie or Lay this vnlearned Iesuite silently passeth ouer Only as the dogge turneth to his vomit so hee in his Examen returneth to his loathsome froath and scumme of idle repetition of the selfe same things matter sentences words and syllables which in his Iarre he had ser forth in print and which said froath by the very blast of my English Concord was vtterly dissolued and scattered long before this his Examen peeped out ⧠Becans Iarre IX Question Whether the King can create and depose Bishoppes or no 1. MAister Salclebridge saith that bee can For thus he writeth pag. 121. Christiani Principes in suis Regnis cum laude propria authoritate Episcopos crearunt deposuerunt Christian Princes have 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 Episcopalem concessit Iurisdictionem The King of England granted Episcopall Iurisdiction to the Archdeacon of Richmond c. And yet further pag. 155. Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate deiure atquecum laude omnium Ordinum Episcopos elegerunt ac proinde deponere potuerunt The Kings of England of their owne supreme authority by right and with praise of all manner Estates have elected Bishops and therefore they might depose them also c. And then lastly Constat Christianos Principes cum laude Episcopos elegisse deposuisse etiam Romanos It is manifest that Christian Princes haue elected and deposed Bishops yea Popes also and that with their praise c. 2. Now M. Tooker hee denies in the place bifore cited that the King can create or depose Bishoppes For there hee assiâ—ning 〈◊〉 things necessary for the ordaining or creating of a Bishop to wit Consecration of the person and a Bishopricke addeth that the King can performe neither of these two For neithere 〈◊〉 be confer any benefice and much lesse a Bishopricke or Archbishopricke neither hath hee any power to consecrate persons In so much that in another place he confesseth that it is so farre off from King Iames to haue power to create or depose Bishops that he would rather acknowledge himselfe for one of their schollers and Disciples For thus he writeth 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 ciscipulum Archiepiscoporum fuorum 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 son of the Church and with Theoâ—â—oricus King of Italy most willingly to acknowledge himselfe a foster-childe of the Church and a disciple of his Archbishops and Bishops c. 3. This Iarre now as you see is of great moment For if the King cannot create or ordaine Bishops as M. Tooker saith hee 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 sheep fold by the doore but climbed up some other way Whereof againe ensue three other markeable points First that all other Bishops who were afterward either created by Cranmer or by the King were lake vnto Cranmer himselfe Secondly whatsoeuer was done of them by Episcopall authority or Iuresdiction was of no validity or force Thirdly that they so ordaixed are bound to restitution of all reue newes and prosies which they haue reaped by their Bishopricks What counsell now is there to be taken in this point Let your Academicks I pray you consider English Concord Concord Pag. 58 THat Christian Princes haue with commendation created and deposed Bishops yea Bishops of Rome not only Hainric but also our most drad Soueraigne Lord Iames the most learned King vpon the face of the earth hath manifested in his monitory Preface out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories in these very words Page 28. Inperatores arque Reges c. All these Emperours and Kings which liued religiously and Christianly were so farre from thinking the Pope to haue any power ouer them that they themselues haue created Popes and when they grew irregular reformed them and somtimes also deposed them And Page 291. Sed et per aetates complurimas c. But for many Ages together the most assured and inuiolable right of creating the Romane Bishops remained with the Emperors Wherin my principall witnesse shall be the Bishop of Rome who decreed in a Councel a Sigeb An. 734 Wathr de Epis Inuessat Mart Polon An. 780. of 153. Bishop and Abbats that right and power of choosing the Pope and ordaining the Sea Apostolike should remain to the Emperour Charles the great and moreouer definitiuely ordained that all Archbishops and Bishops throughout all Prouinces should take their inuestiture from him Niem de Pnuil et Jur. Dist 63 ca. Adrian that no Bishop should be consecrated vnlesse he were first commended and inuested by the King And whosoeuer shall offend against this decree hew rapped him vp in the bands of Anathema Mat Paris in H. Act. 1100. sdem An. 1112 et An. 1119 Page 34. King Henry the first of that name after the conquest gaue the Bishopricke of Winchester vnto William Gifford and presently inuested him into all the possessions appertaining to that Sea against the decrees of the late Councell The same King Henry gaue the Archbishopricke of Canterbury to Raphe Bishop of London and inuested him by a Ring and a Staffe Plat. vit Pela 2. et Gregory Besides not only Plaina but other Popish Writers do witnesse that the Emperours consent for many Ages was to be obtained for the choise of the Bishoppe of Rome which thing Bellarmine wich all his skill Declericis could not handsomely auoid Moreouer also the Romane Bishops were enioyned to pay vnto the Emperours Exchequer a certaine summe of current money for the obtaining of their confirmation which custome endured for the space of seauen hundred yeares An. 680. in vita Agatho Anastas An. 678 Dist 63. 1. Agatho after
Christ as is witnessed by Sigebert Luitprand and other Historians of the Romane faction But euery where we shal meet with examples of Emperours which cut the wings of the Romane Bishops vsurped authority All these things so substantially manifested and pithily disputed by our Soueraigne King in his Apologie for the oath of Alleageance Page 127.128 will Dr. Tooker most willingly subscribe vnto especially seeing hee demonstrateth the same by sacred text saying Sub veteri Testa 2. Chro. 19 v. 4 reges haud dubiè gubernatores erant Ecclesiae intra fines suos exauctor auerunt enim summum Pontificem aliumque in eius locū subrogauerunt 1. Reg. 2. v. 17 Vnder the old Testament there was no question but that Kings were gouernours of the Church within their dominions for they deposed the high Priest and placed another in his roome Truely Dr. Tooker affirmeth Regem non Sacrare Episcopos That the King dooth not consecrate Bishops and as truely that the King is a sonne of the Church as Valentinian or with Theodosius a pupill or a foster childe of the Church yea a disciple not onely of Archbishops and Bishoppes but also of inferiour Priests and Ministers whose Sermons he more often heareth but onely Quoad officia Ministerialia respecting the proper office of Ministeriall duties and not in the Supreme gouernment of the Church And vnto this purpose writeth Dr. Tooker Page 311. of King Edward the sixt Titulumet stolam Pontificiam aspernabatur c. Although he refused the title and robe of a high Priest yet notwithstanding he retained the Christia Supremacy to himselfe as the meane wherby he might more safely aduise the Church and prouide for it against the time to come Againe he verifieth as much of our King Iames and other Christian Princes Page 312. Sunt quidem reges Christiani c. Euen now are Christian Kings and other Princes the highest and Supreme gouernours of all persons whatsoeucr within their Empire and Dominion and haue euer so beene from the ancient time of the purer and Primitiue Church And Page 312. Non tantum sunt praesules in ordine c. Yet notwithstanding they are not Prelates in any Priestly order although they enioy a Supremacy in the Christian regiment for vvith great Constantine they ought to be common Bishops of exterior matters and with Charles the great Ludouicus Pius Lotharius make lawes Ecelesiasticall Canons if neede require or with King Dauid Salomon Ezechia and Ichoshaphat keepe visitation in the Temple and giue order to Ecclesiasticall affaires And why not then with Salomon to depose and disrobe a high Priest and put another in his place for which opinion Dr. Tooker writeth Page 152. Totumhoc quantumcunque est c. All this how great soeuer which is as great as may be is but an or dinary document of pietie religion and royall iurisdiction Wherefore this standeth a fir me foundation of our side that King Salomon out of his ordinary power might depose the high Priest and bring him into order And therefore vaine is the Challenge of the Romane Bishops boasting an immunity as though no secular Prince could remoue them For it is plaine that this is practised in sacred Scriptures Therefore with what face though of brasse could the Iesuite Becane vtter to the world this low de lye And from whence doth he in another place confesse that it is so farre from King Iames to create and depose Bishops that hee rather acknowledgeth himselfe their foster childe and disciple As though King Salomon acknowledged not himselfe a foster childe of the Church and Disciple of the Priests when hee deposed Abiathar and subrogated Zadoc in his stead the Iesuite Sophister like is alwayes wallowing in a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi Moreouer Doctour Tooker Page 37. writeth Rex concedit suam regiam licentiam eligendi As often as it happeneth to any Cathedrall Church to be destitute of a Bishoppe then the King by a vvritte giueth licence to the Deane and Chapter to elect another person Canonically But I will btiefely declare vnto thee gentle Reader the whole processe and carriage of this election for it is common and vulgar euery day Thus therefore it proceedeth When any Cathedrall Church wanteth his Pastor the King sendeth foorth his royall Writte Conge Destire directed to the Deane and Chapter commaunding them with all speed to assemble and to choose an Archbishoppe or Bishop for their Sea but with this prouiso that they choose no other than that person which shall be named by the King vnder the penaltie of a Praemunire which is the greatest punishment among vs in England except death And the same Archbishop or Bishoppe so named by the King and elected as aforesaide must be consecrated by the Archbishop or Bishops vnder the same penalty Now consider learned Reader for I will make thee my iudge what other thing is this then to create Archbishoppes and Bishoppes excepting one lie ceremoniall formalities But let vs suffer that most blessed Martyr Archbishop Cranmer to rest in glory with Christ in heanen This Iarre and difference is of great momenn I meane betwixt the Papists and vs for if it appeare as cleare as the light both by the Popes Canon lawes also by open Tables of Ecclesiastical Histories as our most drad Soueraine hath most exactly demonstrated that the Romane Emperor created elected Popes set in order the Sea Apostolike And if all Archbishoppes and Bishops throughout all Prouinces receiued their Inuestitures from them according to the popish VVriters especially the Iesuits all those Romane Bishops which haue been so created and elected for many hundred yeares to omit all inseriour Archbishops and Bishops Non extiterunt Pastores intrantes per ostium in ouile sed Praedones aliunde ascendentes haue not beene Pastors entring into the sheepefolde by the doore but thieues and robbers ascending another way that is false Bishops Archbishops and Pastors Out of which I inferre three things First that all the Bishops so created by Emperours and Kings according to the words of Genebrarde vvere disorderly and Apostaticall rather then Apostolicall Secondly whatsoeuer was done of them by Episcopallauthoritie or Iurisdiction is of no moment force or validitie Thirdly that the Bishops so ordained are bound to restitution of all reuene wes and and profits which they haue reaped by their Bishopricks Seest thou not Iesuit how thou art beaten with thine owne rodde Quid hic consilij capiendum What deuise is now to be taken Let your Academicks who now onely hauing swallowed vp the Sorbonists will rule the rost to weet the Iesuiticall Fathers if it so may please their God Layola see vnto it BECAN Exam. Page 181 YOu use three arguments to prone that Doctor Tooker agreeth with Hainric herein viz. that Kings may make and depose Bishops i. Tooker embraceth as orthodoxall all things prooued by the King But that Kings may create and depose Bishops was soundly proned by the King Therefore Tooker
embraceth it as orthodoxall Heere first the minor is false for Tooker denieth that the King can create and depose Bisoops for hee saith that the institution and destitntion of inseriour Priests belongs to Bishoppes and not to Kings therefore the King hath not solidly proued it Secondly it may thus bee returned All Academichs willingly approur all things soundly prooued by the King But the King hath soundlie prooued the Pope to be Antichrist Therefore the English Academicks willingly erâ—braec it as orthodoxall The consequenâ—â— is faise For Powell verily belioueth that the Pope is Antichrist and the King is nor cortaine of it The Syllogisticall form is goods therefore one of the premisses is false Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere haue we the picture of a very vnlearned Iesuit whose lineaments are drawn with his owne pensill and which is depainted with his owne liuely colours First ignorantly hee confoundeth as one a single narration with a double ratiocination and the institution and destitution of inferior Priests with the creation and deposition of Bishops Secondly he answereth two Syllogismes and those produced from his owne forge onely with denying the conclusions of both Thirdly he reasoneth from one indiuiduall Doctor Tooker to all our Vniuersitie Academicks Lastlie hee brings in Maister Powell disallowing that which hee chiefely approueth The single natration set downe in the English Concord was thus Doctor Tooker reading and well approuing his Maiesties solidarguments especially that from exemplary act of Salomon commended in Scriptures viz. in deposing Abiathar and placing Zadock chiefe Priests was so farre from denying the power of Kings to depose Bishops that he grounding himselfe vpon the said act of Solomon concluded with the King and Hainric That Emperours may lawfully depose Popes and so made vp the harmony of all good concord heerein The Iesuit transformeth this single narration into a double Syllogisme the former thus All which the King hath soundly prooued Tooker doth not deny but embrace as orthodoxall But that Kings may depose Bishoppes the King hath soundly proued Therefore Doctor Tooker doth not deny that Kings may depose Bishoppes To this hee answereth thus Doctor Tooker denyeth that Kings may depose Bishops therefore the King hath not solidly prooued it Then briefely and plainly his aunswer heere vnto is thus The conclusion of this syllogisme is false Therefore the minor is false Which answer proceedeth from extreame ignorance in the very principle of Logick But how proues hee for hee dare not be Respondent heere the conclusion to be false Because Doctor Tooker denieth the institution and destitution of inferiour Priests to belong to Kings as beeing proper to Bishops As though inferiour Priests and Bishops were all one As though institution and destitution of Priests were all one with election deposition of Bishops or Popes One Bishop may institute and destitute an hundred Priests but one hundred Bishoppes cannot choose or depose one Bishoppe especially an Archbishoppe or Pope Heere are some lineaments liuely colours of this Iesuits grosse ignorance moe are to be seene in the second Syllogisme following thus All things soundly prooued by the King all English Academicks approoue That the Pope is Antichrist was soundly proued by the King therefore all English Academicks allow as orthodoxall the Pope to be Antichrist To this hee answereth thus The conclusion is false and the forme good therefore the maior or minor is false It skilleth not whether so that one of them be false What is this else but to his vtter shame to display his intolerable ignorance to the world and to expose it as ludibrious to the meanest Academick Sophisters who should be well lashr or iustly exploded if they would aunswere right formed syllogismes by denying the conclusions But how doth this Iesuit proue this later conclusion to be false Because Gabriell Powell belieueth this doctrine viz. that the Pope is Antichrist which the King hath soundly prooued to be orthodoxall Wherein behold the strange blockishnes of this Iesuit who should haue instauced in one Academick denying that which the King had soundly proued viz. the Pope to be Antichrist but hee brings in Maister Powell allowing with all his 〈◊〉 what the King therein had soundly proued Moreouer if the King did not prooue soundlie the Pope to be Antichrist then the Iesuit takes away the suppositum and so she weth himselfe to be a frivolous Disputer If the King did solidly proue the Pope to be Antichrist why should not Maister Powell belieue it as orthodoxall The Iesuit saith The King doth not hold it as certaine Reply first that is nor ad idem it is no aunswere to the Syllogisme many part thereof Secondly though his Maiestie doth not hold those arguments so certain which 〈◊〉 from that mysticall booke of the Reuelation 〈◊〉 his Maiestie solidly evinceth the same from other places of holy Writ the meaning whereof is more certaine cleare and euident Thirdly Saint Paul teacheth the Iesuit that the spirits of the Prophets are subiect to the Prophers That the Lord reuealeth some things to one which he doth not to another To conclude this straine the Iesuits maior proposition of this later syllogisme doth manifest the great store of ignorance in him arguing a general of all English Academicks from the individuall Dr. Tooker BECAN Exam. Pag. 184 THe second argument Tooker asserteth the King of England to haue the primacie of the Church Therefore he confesseth that he may depose Bishops The consequence is not good with you for some of you asserting the Primacy dony the power of deposing Bishops Yoâ— take that ai granted vvhich should be prooned What is this but to begge that vvhich is questioned Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere also the ignorance of this Iesuit sillily mistaketh the meaning of the English Concord in this point Becan out of Doctor Tooker asserting the King to be a foster-child and disciple of the Bishops doth conclude that therefore Doctor Tooker denied the Kings power to rule or depose Bishops The English Concord to proue the weakenes of that consequence shewed out of Doctor Tooker that thogh Kings were not Bishops but subiect vnto them in regand of their Episcopall duties as in hearing the word preached by them in receiuing of the Sacraments administred by them yet in respect of supreame Ecclesiasticall government they were rulers ouer Bishope and might depose them As King Edward the sine did who though he disclaimed Episcopall function yet he claimed and vsed the primacy But let the argument runne from the primacie of Kings to conclude their power to depose Bishops I say it holdeth good considering that all Papists make the power of deposing Bishops a part of the primacie And that not one English Protestant Writer ascribing the primacie to the King denieth him the power to depose Bishops Heere is then no begging of that in question but a solid putting that out of question which is contrauersed and soundly concluding the power of Kings to depose Bishops BECAN Exam. Pag. 185 YOur
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
our Kings much lesse of the King himself many yeares before King Henry the eight was borne were of no force by the common lawes of England as is manifested by Hainric in Becano Baculus Where also he hath taught you out of the same lawes that the King of England is the supreme Ordinary of his Kingdome On as it is in the oath of Supremacy The onelie supreme Gouernour of the Church of England And yet wee doubt not but he may besuspended from the Eucharist by a Bishop to whom hee himselfe hath committed Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction as Theodosius was by Ambrose that is by resnsall to giue him the holy CoÌ„munion but not in any iudiciall or coÌ„sistorian form of citation appearance and sentence to be cast out of the Church The Iesuit is deeply deceiued if he imagine that the action of Ambrose was solemne and canonicall or that it was excommunication in a strict and proper sense which thing I will when need requireth convince by many solid arguments And in the meane season let him shew mee whether Theodosius was canonically cited vnto the consistory of Ambrose or whether the Emperour did answere for himselfe either in person or by his Proctor Or whether the sentence of excommunication was pronounced vpon the Tribunall of the Bishop Or whether it were canonically denounced in the open Church before hee was forbidden to enter into the Temple And againe by whose commaundement and by what example did Saint Ambrose alone without his fellow Elders or the counsell of other Bishops excommunicate the Emperour of so many kingdoms espceially seeing Ambrose was neither Pope nor Patriatch And let the Iesuit giue some good cause why Ambrose should â—am â—â—e vpon so humble and godly an emperour by his excommunicating him who erred onely in one fact and not once blame or touch Constantius a most proud godlesse and hereticall Arian Lastly whether it were the custome at Millan to excommunicate all murtherers or else Theodosius had wrong for Iassure you murtherers are not excommunicated in England and I thinke very few are so censured at Mentz where Becane liueth BECAN Exam. Pag. 191 YOu aunswere that heere is no Iarre because all your Writers vniformly agree in this That the King cannot excommunicate But heere is the greatest Iarre Because all English Writers who confesse it doe manifestly differ from themseluss as these three Arguments proue First Whosoeuer hath all mannet supreme most ample full Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical in any Kingdome he may exercise all acts vvhich pertaine to IurisdioÌ„tion Ecclesiasticall in that kingdome And so be may excommunicate to wit by a power vndependant of any man such as the Pope hath the rest hauing it from him who may giue it to them and take it away Enen as the King who hauing supreme most ample Iurisdiction ciuill in his kingdome may exercise allciuill acts of that Iurisdiction in his kingdome But the Writer's assert the Kings all manner supreme most ample and full iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall Therefore they assert the Kings power to excommunicate Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere is but an idlerepetition of the selfe same Argument which the English Concord had answered before by denying his maior Proposition Which deniall was grounded vpon the testimony of Saint Augustine whereunto this Iesuit answereth not one word The substance whereof vvas this That attacts of Ecclesiasticall gouernment and onely all those acts which the King alone may doe as King belong vnto him but Excommunication belongs to euery Archdeacon therefore that belongs not to the King The Iesuit beeing put vnto his shifts hath fansied this new starting hole viz. That power vndependant of any other to excommunicate is proper onely and to euery supreme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall Therfore if the King be supreme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall hee hath that vndependant power to excommunicate Whereunto Ireply first that no Scripture no nor ancient Father for the space of 600. years after Christ doth assert this vndependant power of excommunicating to belong to the supreme gouernment Ecclesiasticall Secondly that the ancient Fathers deny this vndependant excommunicating power to belong to Peter much lesse to the Pope but with one vniforme consent dogmatize according to the Scriptures that all the Apostles receiued from Christ immediatly not from Peter power to excommunicate equall vvith Peter Thirdly that the very principall Schoolemen as Peter Lombard the Maister of the Sentences Thomas Aquine the Doctor Angelicall Alexander Ales the Doctorirrefragable and Iohn Scot the subrle Doctor deny the same First they all foure define the keyes by the power to open and shut to binde and loose See Lombard Sent. l. 4. dist 18. et 19. Alexander SuÌ„ma Theolog. part 4. q. 20. memb 2. et 5. Aquin as in Sent. l. 4. dist 13 q. 1. art 1. Scot. in Sent. l. 4. dist 19. art 5. Secondly Alexander in Summa p. 4. q. 20. memb 5. et 6. Tho in 4. Sent. dist 24. q. 3. art 2. Scot. in Sent. l. 4. dist 19. art 1. affirme that the keyes promised to Peter in the 16. chap. of Mathew were giuen to the Apostles in the 20. chap. of Iohn Fourthly Bellarmine himselfe denieth this vndependant power of excommunicating to be proper to Peter and proueth by foure sound arguments the said power to be common to all the Apostles thus de Ro. Pontif. l. 4. cap. 23. That the Apostles receiued immediatly froÌ„ Christ their Iurisdiction First by these words of our Lord Iohn 20. As my Father sent mee so send I you Which place the Fathers Chrysostome Theophylact so expound that they say plainly The Apostles by those words were made the Vicars of Christ yea and receiued the very office and authority of Christ Cyrill vpon this place addeth that The Apostles by these words were properly created Apostles and Teachers of the whole vvorld And that wee should vnderstand stand that all power Ecclesiasticall is contayned in authoritie Apostolicall therefore Christ addeth As my Father sent mee seeing that the Father sent his Sonne endued with chiefest or highest power Cyprian in his booke of the vnity of the Church saith The Lord speaketh to Peter I vvill giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen and after his resurrection said to him Feed my Sheepe And although after his resurrection he gaue to all the Apostles equall power and said As my Father sent mee so I send you yet to manifest vnitie hee constituted one chayre Where you see the same to be giuen to the Apostles by those words I send you which was promised to Peter by that I will giue thee the keyes and after exhibited by that Feed my sheepe Now it is manifest that by those words I will giue thee the keyes and by that Feed my sheepe is vnderstood the most full euen exteriour Iurisdiction Secondly the election of Matthias vnto the Apostleship sheweth the same For we read Acts. I. that Matthias was not chosen by the Apostles nor any authoritie giuen vnto him but that his election being craued and
obtained from aboue he was presently numbred among the Apostles Surely if all the Apostles had Iurisdiction from Peter that ought to haue been shewed most of all in Matthias Thirdly it is proued out of Saint Paul who purposely teacheth that hee had his authority and Iurisdiction from Christ and thereupon proueth himselfe to be a true Apostle For Gal. I. he saith Paul an Apostle not of men neither by man but by Iesus Christ and G O D the Father And there to shew that he receiued not authoritie from Peter or other the Apostles hee saith But when it pleased him which had separated mee from my mothers wombe and called mee by his grace to reueale his Scnne in me that I should preach him among the Gentiles immediatly I communicated not with flesh and bloud neither came I againe to Ierusalem to the which were Apostles before mee but I went into Arabia and turned againe into Damascus Then after 3. yeares I came againe to Ierusalem to see Peter c. and chap. 2. For they that seemed to be somewhat added nothing to me aboue that I had Fourthly it is proued by cuident reason for the Apostles were made onely by Christ as it appeareth Luke 6. He called his Disciples chose twelue of them vvhom he also called Apostles And Iohn 6. Haue not I chosen you twelue Now that the Apostles had Iutisdiction it is manifest partly by the acts of Saint Paul who 1. Cor. 5. did excommunicate and 1. Cor. 6.7 11.14 c. made Canons Partly also because the Apostolicall dignity is the first and supreme dignitie in the Church as it appeareth 1. Cor. 12. Ephe. 4. See B. Thomas in 1. Cor. 12. Hitherto Bellarmine Vnto these I will adde the testimony of two other Fathers to weet Origen and Beda Origen Tract 1. in Matth. saith Hoc dictum Tibi dabo claues regni coelorum caeteris quoque coÌ„mune est Et quae sequuntur velut ad Petrum dicta sunt omnium communia This saying I vvill giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen is common to the rest of the Apostles and the vvords that follow as spoken to Peter are common vnto all Beda Homil. in Euangel Quem me dicunt saith Potestas ligandi et soluendi quamuis soli Petro a Domino data videatur tamen absque vlla dubietate noscenduÌ„ est quodeâ— caeteris Apostolis data est The power of binding loosing though it seeme to be giuen by the Lord onely to Peter yet without all doubt it was giuen also to the rest of the Apostles By which it is soundly prooued that all the Apostles had the full power of the keyes and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall and in one word vndependant of any other to binde to loose to open to shut to excommunicate absolue giuen by Christ equally immediatly vnto them and their successors as well as to Peter and his successors But all Bishops are successors to the Apostles therefore all Bishops haue most full vndependant Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall to excoÌ„municate And therefore by this Iesuits argument heere all Bishops are supreme Gouernors of the whole Church What then shall become of his Lord God the Pope and the Popes Primacie Whose fulnesse of power must by this orthodoxall position be distributed equally amongst all Bishops not as from Peter or Pope but as successors of the Apostles For so Cyrill in Iohn lib. 3. ca. 20. Apostolis et eorum in Ecclesijs successoribus plenam concessit potestateÌ„ Christ not Peter much lesse the Pope gaue to the Apostles and their successors fulnesse of power Where-to accordeth Saint Cyprian de simpl Praelat saying Christus candem dedit Apostolis omnibus potestatem Christ gaue vnto all his Apostles the selfe same power Bellarmine to proue the Ecclesiasticall authoritie of Matthias to be vndependant and not dependant of Petex brings in Matthias chosen an Apostle not by the Apostles but by God And so of S. Paul chosen an Apostle not by men nor of men but of God How then can the Pope challenge vndependant Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction when he is chosen and made Pope also vnpoped by men much inferiour to the Apostles If the Pope alone haue vndependant Church gouernment to giue and take Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction to and from whom he please how was the Patriarch of Alexandria made equall vnto him in the first Nicen Councell Can. 6 And why was the Archbishop of Constantinople equalled with him in authority and in all things except in Seniority in the first Councell of Constantinople cap. 3. and in the Councell of Chalcedon Can. 28 Certainly this vndependant supreme gouernment was not acknowledged to be in Anicetus Bishoppe of Rome by Polycarpus who gain-saied Anicetus in the celebration of Easter See Euseb l. 5. ca. 26. Nor in Victor who vsurping authoritie ouer the Bishops of Asia was countermaunded withstood and sharply rebuked by Irenaeus Polycrates and others Bishops in France Asia c. See Euseb l. 5. cap. 25. Touching the Iesuits argument drawen from the Kings supreme gouermment ciuill to conclude thereby his power to exercise all acts pertaining to ciuill Iurisdiction I reply and say that true it is the fountaine of all ciuill Iustice vnder God in this Kingdome is in his Maiestic That hee alone hath power to constitute ciuill Iudges and accordingly doth so But our most learned Lawyers and reuerent Iudges will teach the Iesuit that when the Iudges be so constituted by the lawes and customes of this kingdome it pertaineth to those Iudges and not to his Maiestie to iudge sentence in matters personall reall or of blood as Felonies and Treasons equally between the subiects and also betweene the King his lubiects which cuts in sunder the very hart-strings of this his main argumeÌ„t For if it pertaine not to the King to exercise all acts of inferiour ciuill gouernment though hee be the supreme ciuill Gouernour in his Kingdome a fortiori it followeth that it pertaineth not to his Maiestie to exercise all inferiour acts of Ecclesia sticall gouernment though hee be supreme Ecclesiasticall Gouernor The Lord of a Manour to which belongeth a Court Baron may constitute a Steward to haue Iurisdiction ouer his Tenants in that Court in setting fynes in amercing c. yet the Lord of the Manour cannot execute that Iurisdiction for if hee set fynes or amerce it is voide though that Court be and is also called that Lords Court BECAN Exam. Pag. 194 YOu say that although the King cannot excommunicate yet with consent of the Orders or State of the Kingdome in Parliament hee may wake Ecclesiasticall lawes by force whereof such and such ought to be excommunicated What now Richard Hainric said the King by his owne anâ— hority might make Ecclesiasticall lawes and you â—ilifying that authority restraine it to the consent of the Orders in Parliament Ton detract too much from the Primate Head of the Church of England And here you make also a new Iarre Dr.
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
his owne proper iudgement Therefore Tooker holdeth vvith the King but dissenteth from Hainric You hault on both sides Dr. HARRIS Reply HAinric in his Becane Baculus defending this found doctrine and orthodoxall which Becan heere brings in set downe by his Maiesty in his Praeface Monitorie cudgelled soundly this Iesuit for his impious scoffing at that holy good doctrine as is there to bee seene in many pages yet this shamelesse Iesuit dare heere affirme that Hainric dissenteth from his Maiestie heerein If this be Becans English Iarre thè is his English Iarre in truth the most vniforme Concord For I dare avow that not onely Hainric but all other Protestant English Writers doe embrace as true ancient catholicke and Apostolick doctrine that which the Iesuit transcribeth heere from his Maiesties Praeface Monitorie Moreouer wee may heere behold the footsteps of that old Serpent wherein this serpentine brond viz. this Iesuit treadeth His Maiestie following his Maister Christ aduised Princes To take from the Scripture diligently read ouer by them and so well vnderstood by them the rule of their faith vvhereby they might place the foundation of their faith in their owne certaine knowledge to weet solidly grounded vpon the Scriptures and not in the vncertaine opinion of others This pure doctrine the Iesuit with the aspersion of his leauen adulterateth thus This is all one as if the King had said There is no certain Iudge in the matter of faith but euery one is to rest in his owne proper iudgement wheras his Maiestie cleane contrary asserteth that GOD hath prouided to euery one of his Saints on earth a certaine Iudge in matter of their faith to weet the holy Ghost and holy Scripture the certaine knowledge whereof as touching matter of faith the holy Ghost working together with the sacred meanes of hearing reading meditaring conferring praying c. giueth sealeth vp in their soules So that they shall not place the foundation of their faith in the vncertaintie either of their owne proper iudgements or of the opinions of others but in the certaine testimonie of the foresaid Iudge Of which Iudge Saint Iohn 1. Ioh. 2. v. 27. vvriteth thus And the annoynting vvhich yee haue receiued of him dwelleth in you and yee need not that any man teach you but as the same annointing teacheth you of all things and it is true and not lying and as it taught you yee shall abide in it So that euery Christian is to rest not in his owne proper iudgement for that is vncertaine but in the certaine iudgement of the forsaid annointing working in the Saints that certaine knowledge vvherein to place the foundation of their faith vvhereof his Maiestie speaketh Constantine the great and first Christian Emperor found in himselfe by gracious effect the certainty of this said doctrine heere averred by our King for thus hee writeth in his Epistle to Sapor King of Persia registred by Theodoret Lib. 1. cap. 24. Marking the diuine faith I obtaine the light of truth and following the light of trueth I acknowledge the diuine faith The certaine truth of this doctrine is so apparant that is bath expresse testimony and acknowledgement thereof from the very Popish VVriters themselves as is to bee seene by diuerse of them in Beoano-Baculus Therfore I will here instance in one onely and that no meane one viz. Stapleton who in his second admonition to Maister Dr. Whitakers set before his Triplication writeth thus In libro meo 3. Principior Å fidei Spiritus sancti internam persuasionem ad quodlibet fidei obiectum credendum ita necessariam ita efficacem esse docui vt nec absque illa quicquam a quoquam creds possit etsi milliei Ecclesia attestetur et per illam solam quodlibet credendum credi queat tacente prorsus et non audita Ecclesia In my 8. booke of the Principles of faith I have taught that the invvard persuasion of the holy Ghost is so necessarie and so effectuall for the belieuing of euery obiect of faith that vvithout it neither can any thing bee belieued by any man though the Church testified vvith it a thousand times and by it alone any thing that is to be belieued may be belieued though the Church kept silence and never vvere heard Is not the force of this truth great and must needs preuaile sith the Aduersaries themselues write so fully and directly for it To shut vp this point and to shut the Pope cleane out from this supreme Iudgeship Panormitan the Abbat in De Elect. et Elect potest ca. Signisicasti very iudiciously writeth thus Plus credendum est vni priuato fideli quam toti Concitio et Papa si meliorem habeat authoritatem velrationem Wee ought to giue more credit to one priuate lay man then to the vvhole Councell and the Pope if hee bring better authoritie and more reason And to the same effect writeth Picus Mirandula in the question Whether the Pope be aboue the Councell thus Simplici potius rustico et Infanti et Anicula magis quam Poncifici maxima et mille Episcopis credendum est siâ—sti contra Euangelium illi pro Euangelio faciunt More credit is to be giuen to a simple plaine Rusticke to an Infant or to an old vvoman then to the Pope or a thousand Bishops if the Pope and the Bishops speake against the Gospell and the others speake with the Gospell What a silly supreme iudge and absolute in all controuersies of faith is the Pope vnto whom as oftentimes it may and hath fallen out lesse credit is to bee giuen then to a priuat man then to a woman then to an Intant BECAN Exam. Pag. 107. I Repeate that vvhich I had vvritten before If a dissention should arise in England touching some point of faith as of the Reall prefence of Christ in the Eucharist what should the subiects doe Should they goe to the King as supreame Iudge Hainrick vvould haue it so but Tooker would not suffer it The King himselfe sonds euery man to his owne conscience and you would hault on both sides Touching that vvhich you bring out of oâ—r discords touching it The Pope as vniuersal Bishop 2. Faith to be kept with Hereticks 3. The body of Christ broken and chewed or grinded in the Eucharist 4. The Reall presence of his body vvithout quantity It is false we dissent not heerein and though we did doth it therefore follow that you dissent not in the point of your Churches Primate That is most foolish Dr. HARRIS Reply INdeed the Iesuit is heere become very foolish and childish and come to this Repetamus omnia breuiter yet sets him downe in his chaire of pestilence that is scornfulnes with Iesuiticall viz. the greatest impudencie scoffing very impiously and ridiculously our Kings sacred Maiestic as those cursed miscreants did our Sauiour Christ They cried All haile King of the lewes and this Iesuit in effect cries All haile King of England supreme Iudge there in controuersies 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
amplexi idem sibi aut non multo secus asseruerunt c. The Oath of Primacy vvas first brought in vnder K. Henry the 8. vnder whom Sir Thomas More and the Bishop of Rochester vvere beheaded and that partly because they refused that Oath From him all my Predecessors dow neward as many as haue imbraced this Religion did retaine the same Oath or not much different vnto themselnes c. Novv the later Oath vvas inuented by King Iames himselfe The second poynt 6. The Question then is Whether all the Kings subiects in England are bound in conscience to tabe both these Oathes as often as the King shall exact the same Or vvhether they should suffâ—rimprisonments torments and death it selfe rather then sweare Concerning the former point the Catholiques doubt nothing for that they haue certainly and firmly determined rather to lese their lines together with the glorious Martyrs Sir Thomas More and the Bishop of Rochester then to admit the Kings Primacy and abiure the Popes Now coucerning the later Oath there hath been some doubt made these yeares past For that some Catholicks who perceiâ—ed not the force scope of that Oath did a little stagger at the beginning vvhether they might with a safe coÌ„science sâ—earâ— thereto or no. Which doubt of theirs notwithstanding did not last long but vvas soone taken away by Pope Paul the fist and Cardinall Bellarmine For the Pope forthwith directed two Apostolicall Breues to the Catholiques of England and the said Card vvrote a letter to Ma. Blackwell then Archpriest of this affaire Both Pope and Cardinall dec deny that the said Oath may be taken with a safe conscience and their reason is this Because no man with a safe conscience can deny the Catholicke faith But hee now who should take this Oath proposed by the King should deny the Catholicke faith though not generally yet in part so farre foorth as belongeth to some one article there of Ergo no man vvith a safe conscience can take this Oath 7. This reason beeing very sound all good Catholicks admit but our Adversaries doe not I in fauour and consolation of the Catholicks haue determined to adioyne heere vnto 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 conscience to sweare that which is either apparantlie false or at leastwise doubt full But that the King is Primate supreme head of the Church and for such to be obeyed not onely in temporall but also in Ecclesiasticall matters is either apparantly false or at leastwise doubt full Ergo no man is bound in Conscience to sweare the same The Maior is cuident of it selfe for that it is not lawfull to affirme any thing which is either false er doubtfull and much lesse to sweare the same The Minor is prooned thus For that it is iudged apparantly false aswell amongst the Caluinists as amongst the Catholicks that the King is Primate 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 theÌ„ 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 Primasy oner the Church 4. That hee hath power and Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall 5. That the King by his owne proper Autheritie may assemble Councelis or Synods and sit as chiefe Head or President therein 6. That hee can confer benefices or Ecclesiasticall liuings 7. That he can creats and depose Bishops 8. That hee is ludge in Controucrsies of faith c. So as truly if these and the like points be doubtfull and vncertaine amongst those who adhere vnto and fanour the King seeing that some deny them some assirme them it followeth necessarily that the Kings vvhole Primacy is an vncertaine thing What rashnes then impudencie is it to goe about to binde Catholicks in their Consciences to sweare that which they themselues doe affirme some of them to be false some others to be doubt full 8. I vvill explicate more distinctly that which I haue said The Oath of the Kings Primacy doth containe so many parts as there be or are thought to be Offices and functions of the Kings Primacy The Offices then either are or are thought to bee dinerse as we haue seen before towit to assemble Synods to exact and decree Ecclesiasticall lawes to confer benefices to create Bishops to determine controuer sies of faith and the like Therefore diuerse are the parts of the Oath of the Kings Supremacie Of these parts then let vs take one of them by it selfe to wit this I A. B. doe sweare in my conscience that I will be faithfull obedientvnto the King as often or whensoeuer he shall by his owne proper authority create Bishops whom he will againe depose from theis office or dignity whom hee will c. If this part onely of the Kings Offices shoulâ— be exacted of all his Maiesties subiects in England what do you thinke would be done Would all trow you yea they vvho most adhere now vnto the King sweare this Let them swear that would M. Tooker I am sure if hee 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 heâ— who otherwise acknowledgeth the Kings Primacie at least in words would not sweare there unto how then should Catholicks be compelled to doe the same who doe in no wise acknow ledge it And what I haue said concerning this point the same may be also said of therest 9. My other reason is this King Iames doth often protest that he claimeth no more right or Inrisdiction oner the Church then did the Kings in the olà Tistament in ancient times and therfore that this his Primacy must be coutained within the same lymits termes that theirs was in the old Testament But the Kings in the old Testament could not compell their subiects to sweare such an Oath as this I A. B. doe openly testifie and in my conscience declare that Ieroboam is the onely supreme Gonernour of this Kingdome of Israel as well in spirituall as temporall matters And that no forrayner hath any iurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority in this Kingdom c. Ergo neither King Iames can inforce his subiects to take such a like Oath The Maior is manifest out of his Maiesties owne words in his Apologie The Minor I thus explicate After the death of King Salomon his kingdome God so disposing was diuided into two parts vvhereof one contained ten Tribes the other two So as by this meanes they became two distinct kingdoms afterwards and therein raigned two distinct Kings one whereof had no depeÌ„dance of the other in temporall gonernment One was called King of Israel the other King of Iuda and both of them had
successors in their kingdoms The first Kings that ruled after the dinision of the kingdome made were Ieroboam King of Israel Roboam King of Iuda In either Kingdom were Priests and Leuits But the high or Chiefe Priest could not resid-in both kingdoms but onely in one and that ordinarily in Iuda yet not withstanding hee was Head of all the Prusts and Leuites that remained in both Kindoms Neither could Ieroboam lawfully say vnto his Priests and Leuites You shall not obey the High Priest that resideth in the Kingdom of Iuda but you shall obey me onely for you are exempted from his iurisdiction and power c. And though he shold haue so said yet no doubt but he had offended If now King Ieroboam could not exempt the Priests and Leuites of his ovvnâ— Kingdome from the Iurisdiction and Power of a sorraine High Priest by vvhat right then doth now King Iames of England doe the same especially seeing hee anerroth that hee claimeth no more right or inrisdiction vnto himselfe oner the Church then the Kings of the old Testament did The Conclusion 1. ALL then that hath beene hither to said may be reduced into three heads The first is that the Kings Primacie in the Church is a nevv thing and first brought in by King Henty the eight nor hitherto hath beene beard of or vsurped in any other place then onely in the Kingdome of England The second is that there be so manie Iarres and disagrements of the English Ministry among them selues concerning this Primacy that it is not manifest nor certaine what the said Primacy is nor what sorce and authority the same hath The third that the Oath of this Primacy can neither be exacted by the King nor may the subtects take the same 2. Heerehence three other questions which might bee made concerning the Subiects will easily be solued There be 3. sorts of Subiects in England The sirst as some call them are Henricians vvho both acknowledge and sweare vnto this Kingly Supremacy The second sort are Puritans orpure Calumists who indeed doe not acknowledge the said Supremacy but yet doe sweare thervnto The third are Catholicks which neither acknowledge it nor will sweare it 3. The first question then is What may bee said of these Henricians vvhich both acknowledge and swear to the Kings Supremacy I aunswer that they doe vnwisely and inconsideratly The reason is Because it is folly and rashâ—es as before I haue said to sweare a thing that is doubt full vncertaine But the Primacy of the King is a thing altogether doubtfull and vncertaine amongst the Henricians as is manifest by their iarres and dissentions which hither to we haue shexed 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 doe not indeed acknowledge the Kings Primacy and yet if they be commaunded doe sweare thereto I answer that they are periured persons and Politicians The reason is Because they belieâ—c one thing and sweare another They beliene with Caluin that neither Kings nor secular Princes haue any Primacy in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters but onely in temporall yet neuerthelesse they sweare Allegiance vnto the King together with the foresaid Henricians as to the Primate and supreme Head of the Church and this they doe to make an externall and politicall peace vvhich is more esteemed by them then their faith and Religion and therefore they are rather to be called Politicks then Christians Of whom his Maiestie gaue a most vvorthy testimonie in his Preface Monitory to wit That hee had found more truth and honesâ—ie in the high-land and bordering theenes then in that sort of people 5. The third question is what may bee said of Catholicks vvho neither acknowledge the Kings Primacy nor swcar thereto I answere that they be inst vpright men vvho walke before God in truth veritie They be sincere who professe with their month that vvhich they thinke in their bart They are wise indeed who with good Eleazarus had rather die then consent to any vnlaw full thing no not so much as in outward shew They be like vnto the Apostles vvho endeauour to obey God rather then men They be like vnto the Martyrs of the Primitine Church vvho freely professe themselues before the persecutors to be such as indeed they are 6. But you vvill say they be miserable For if they refuse the Oath they are forced to vndergoe impresonments torments punishments Truely they are not therefore miserable but most happy For so dâ—d our Sauiour teach vs in the Gospell Math. 5. 10. Blessed are they who suffer persecution for â—ustice for theirs is the kingdome of heanen But then you will say It is a hard thing to suffer How is that hard which is done with â—oy and delight Heare what is said of the Apostles Act. 5. 41. And they went from the sight of the Councell reioycing because they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the Name of Iesus Heare what the Apostle saith of himselfe 2. Cor. 4. Superabundo gaudio in omâ—i tribulatione nostra I exceedingly reioyce in all our tribulations 7. And from vvhence commeth this ioy Truly froÌ„ a twofold gift of the holy Ghost to wit Hope and Charity Hope of future glory that maketh vs ioâ— full and full of comfort in all adnersities Rom. 8. 18. The sufferings of these times are not condigne to the foture glory that shall bee renealed in vs. And againe Rom. 12. 12. Reioycing in hope and patient in tribulation And Heb. 10. 34. The spoyle of your owne goods you tooke with ioy knowing that you haue a better and a permanent substance Do not ther fore leese your confidence which hath a great reward For patience is necessary for you that dooing the will of God you may receiue the promise c. 8. Nor is the force of Charitie lesse Rom. 8. 35. VVho then shall separate vs from the Charitie of Christ Tribulation or distresse or famine or nakednes or danger or persecution or the sword c. But in all these things we onercome because of him that hath loâ—ed vs. For I am sure that neither death nor life nor Angells nor Principalities nor Powers neither things present nor things to come neither might nor height nor depth nor other creature shall be able to separate vs from the Charitie of God which is in Christ Iesus our Lord c. 9. Heereto belong the examples of Christ of other Saints vvhich haue great force and efficacy to stirre vp and streng then the harts of Catholicks to suffer patiently in this life prisons fetters torments yea death it selfe 1. Pet. 2. 20. If dooing well you sustaine patiently this is thanke before God For vnto this are you called because Christ also suffered for vs leaning you an example that you may follow his steppes who did not sin neither was guile found in his mouth who when he was reâ—â—led did
betwixt the Papists vvho hold obedience fidelitie to the King in things ciuill from those that were indiutdually affected to the Gun-powder treason Concerning your glorious Martyrs as you stile Bishoppe Fisher and Sir Thomas More you might haue learned out of Tortura Torti pag. 360. how the worthy Bishop of Ely stoppeth Tortus his mouth saying Dixerat Apologiae author c. The Author of the Apologie said that it was not any spirituall Primacy but a carnall matrimony that brought the supposed Martyr dome to Sir Thomas More and the Bishop of Rochester and this he spake not amisse But then replyed Tortus Then it vvas a carnall matrimany that caused holy S. Iohn Baptist to suffer martyrdome when he freely reproued King Herods mariage With this example Tortus woundeth himselfe For tell mee O Tortus vvhat was that mariage vvas it not with his brothers wife vvas not this the vvord that cost the Baptist his life It is not lawful for thee to haue thy brothers wife But what was the cause of the death of More and Fisher was it not cleane contrary It is lawful for thee to haue thy brothers wife it is not lawful for thee to put her away So that if Saint Iohn Christs forerunner died vniustly they died most iustly and if hee vvere a Martyr as he was then vvere they some other thing vvhich I will not tell you For he dyed that the King should not keepe his brothers vvife but these dyed that the King should not put away his brothers vvife Hee told King Herod it vvas not lawfull they told King Henry it was lawfull and hee must not doe otherwise Could Tortus any vvaies marre their martyr dome more deepely So far the Bishop of Ely And giue mee leaue to adde something more O glorious Martyrs who had rather consent together to die then to confesse the royall supremacy of Kings established in the Scriptures vsed and practised by all the most commended Christian Kings and withall to establish the Papall Primacy which Christ himselfe expresly forbad which the Fathers of the Councell of Ephesus called the smoake of worldly power and they of Carthage with all care and diligence admonished the Church to beware of as Typhum saeculi the arrogancie of this present vvorld Concerning that notorious fact of Pope Paul the fift and Bellarmine which heere the Iesuit remembreth full of inhumanitie impietie and audaciousnesse that excellently learned man Ma. Causabon in his Epistle to Front Ducaeus hath taught him pag. 167. thus De fidelitatis iuramento cui occasionem praebuit pulueraria coniuratio c. Concerning that Oath of Allegiance first occasioned by the Gun-powder treason I maruell vvhy the English Papists so much complaine They haue much more cause to complaine of Cardinall Bellarmine some fevv others vvho hardened the hart of Pope Paul the fift to yeeld vnto them vvho at the first vvith stood them for I speake not rashly but haue good Authours for my assurance that all the Catholicks in England should heere perish rather then a matter so iust and equall should be permitted For vvhat can be more equall then that subiects should promise fidelity to their Soueraigne especially after a treason so barbarous and notable for crueltie The King in the Common-wealth is the same that a householder is in his priuate house and doe you thinke that such a man were well advised to keepe in his family any seruaunts of whose fidelity he was not perswaded or rather whose disposution hee greatly suspecteth I thinke no bodie that is not mad would grant such a thing Wherfore either King Iames hath lesse power in his Kingdome then a householder in his house or else these complaints about the subiects Oath of Allegiance are all vniust and friuolous For in good sooth I haue met with many Papists both in France and England and I haue also read the writings of many vvho deeme this Oath not onely most iust but also most holie Wherefore many of your side some of them Priests yea the Arch-priest Black well haue taken the same without all scruple of conscience not against their wills and by their publique writings learnedly and truly though sharply against the Pope and the Iesuits haue perswaded others to doe the like such are Maister Sheldon and Maister Warmington But yet there are some vvith whom the Popes Bulls and Bellarmines Letters preuaile more then the law of God the law of nature of all Nations or the examples of vvise men And if the Law run vpon these vvhat place is there left for complaint And you your selues which call this a persecution of Catholicks cannot tell for vvhat cause and by vvhat example of antiquitie you so tearme it It was neuer done nor heard of that Christian people said they suffered persecution if they vvere commaunded to sweare Allegiance to their Soueraigne But wee read the contrary in the Councells vvhere they are accursed that breake faith to their Kings vvhich they had voxed to them for the preseruation of the slate of their Countrey and of their King And you know the fourth Councell of Toledo declareth all such excōmunicat from the Church Heere is worke for the Iesuit let him satisfie these things and in the meane time let him vnderstand that that Catholique faith is accursed with all maledictions as inhumane impious sacrilegious Antichristian diabolicall whereof this is one Article That Christian people ought not to sweare allegiance to their lawfull Soueraigne to weet that which as hath been declared the law of God the law of nature and the Canons of Councells haue ordained as most equall and most holy Orelse thus to speake after Becans manner That for Christian people to sweare allegiance to their lavvfull Prince is to deny the Catholick faith And this reason being very sound all good Catholicks admit saith Becane but in truth this reason as very rotten is onely admitted by Antichristian Catholicks but we Protestants the onely true and proper orthodoxall or right belieuing Catholicks will neuer admit it And I saith the Iesuit will adioyne two other reasons on the behalfe of Catholicks against the Oath of Supremacie which by the Aduersary cannot bee reiected Hee should rather haue said thus And I for the destruction of my friends the Romish Catholicks will adioyne two other reasons vvhich may be most iustly refused exploded by all our Aduersaries the Protestants But hath Martin the Iesuit heere forgotten himselfe were not the reasons of Pope Paul and Bellarmine lately alledged expresly brought against the oath of Allegiance which onely was in controuersie and will he now dispute against the oath of Supremacie which is distinct and seuerall from the Oath in question Martin therefore should rather say thus I haue determined for the ruine of Catholicks in England to adioyne two reasons more nothing differing from the former Well then let vs heare these two prettie reasons his first reason is this 1. It is manifestly false or at least
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
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