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-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-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-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
beincorrigible I belieue that he may be thereof accused It easily appeareth that you neuer saw the Canons or Glosses You are better seene in fables Dr. HARRIS Reply BY this it is manifest that this Iesuit neuer saw or ranne ouer cursorily the Canons Glosses but is better seene in scurrilities Otherwise hauing the 40. Dist ca. Si Papa before him in the verie next page of the next leafe to the Canon Si Papa and there in the Glosse cap. Non nos verb. quis enim with the same view hee might haue read these words Semper praesumitur pro Papa vt 93. Dist. cap. 1. Vnde sacrilegij instar esset disputare de facto suo Vel die quod facta Papae excusantur vt homicidia Samsonis furta Haebraeorum et adulterium Iacob Vt extra de diuortijs Gaudemus The Pope is presumed alwaies to be good Therefore it were a kinde of sacriledge to dispute of his fact vvhose fact viz. murder is excused as those of Samson and his thefts as the thefts of the Hebrewes and his adulteries as the adultery of Iacob This stuffe is plaine enough but it is too too filthy Therefore with what face or shew of any little skillin the Canons or Glosses could the Iesuite deny the Gloss to haue any such vvords since the very words are there in the Glosse to be found Againe considering it was the Bishop Iewell and not I as my printed booke of Concord pag. 8. shewed who cited Dist. 40 cap. Si Papa hee sheweth himselfe to be of proiected impudencie who durst so basely thinke and write of that most learned Bishop viz. That hee neuer saw the Canons or Glosses If the Glosse write contrary it writeth contrary to it selfe and to the expresse words of the Canon it selfe Si papa which are these Papae culp as redarguere praesumit mortalium nullus quod cunetos ipse iudicaturus a nemine est iudicandus nisi deprehendatur a fide deuius No mortall man presumeth to reprehend the Popes faults because he is to iudge all and to be iudged of none vnlesse he be found Apostat from the faith The Gloss in 22. q. 2. ca. Non liceat saith plainely and not as here Credo I belieue or thinke Nullus mortalium papam possit iudicare Extra de Elect. ca. Innotuit Dist 40. Si Papa No man liuing may iudge the Pope Heresie as the Gloss Dist. 40. Si Papa saith well makes the Pope no Head of the Church But other Crimes cannot make him no head and so long as hee is Head of the Church by the Canon law he is the Church and aboue generall Councels Emperours and all mortall men liuing Therefore saith Innocent the Pope Dist. 96. ca. Satis euidenter It is shewed euidently enough that the Secular power can neither binde nor loose the Pope plainely called God by the godly Emperour Constantine now it is manifest that God can not be iudged of men And in 9. q. 3. Aliorum he concludeth thus God vvould haue the causes of other men to be determined by men but he hath questionlesse reserued the Bishop of this Sea to his owne iudgement He vvould haue the successors of blessed Peter to owe their innocencie to heauen only and to keepe a conscience inuiolate to the triall of the most subtile Discussor It is manifest that the faithfull euery where are subiect to the Pope vvhen as he is designed Head of the whole Body This being the maine and cleare doctrine of the Romish Catholike faith it is much to be feared least that the Pope reading what Becane hath here written viz. That the Pope may be iudged and if he be incorrigible deposed not for Heresie alone but also for other notorious crimes will not onely be much ashamed of him as of an vnlearned Iesuite and casheer him as a miserable defendour of him but also excommunicate him as an Heretike and an Impugner of his Maiesticall Primacy whose honour will soone bee buried in the dung-hill If hee may be iudged for his crimes notorious English Concord BEcane in his eightth Question demaunded Whether the King may conferre Ecclesiasticall Benefices And I in my eightth Question demaunded Whether the Pope may conferre Ecclesiasticall Benefices Here I did instance in the Collations of Ecclesiasticall Benefices in France made by the King of France and not by the Pope for proofe whereof I produced the Epistle of King Philip the faire to Pope Boniface the eightth thus Philip by the Grace of GOD the french King to Boniface bearing himselfe for highest Bishoppe c. Let your greatest fooleshippe knowe that the collation or bestowing of the Church-liuings doe pertaine to vs by our right Regall and that the fruites of them during the vacancie are ours That the Collations made alreadie by vs or heereafter to bee made are of force and validitie and vvee repute them fooles and mad men vvho thinke othervvise Vnto this the Iesuite in his Examen answereth not one word English Concord BEcane in his Iarre and ninth Question demanded Whether the King can create and depose Bishoppes And I in my Concord and ninth Question demaunded Whether the Pope may create and depose Bishoppes Heerein I shewed how blasphemously against Christ the sole head of the Church these Popes parasites write of Papall Primacy touching this point Durand De Minist et ordin li. 2 All Bishops descend from the Pope as members from the head and of his fulnes they all receiue Petrus de Palude The Church hath not any power of Iurisdiction but from Peter From Peter after Christ all spirituall power is deriued Bellarmine The Pope alone is Iure diuino by Gods word or right diuine but Bishops by the Popes law or by Papall ordinance Hereunto the Iesuite in his Examen maketh no answere as though such blasphemies were currant among them for good Popish-catholike doctrines English Concord BEcane in his tenth Question demanded Whether the King may excommunicate stubborn and disobedient persons And I in my tenth Question demanded Whether the Pope may excommunicate and depose stubborne Emperours who vvill not obey the Popes vvill as it vvere * De Translat Epist ca. Quanto in Glosla reason it selfe And here I mentioned the Treatise of Bellarmine against William Barclay published Anno 16 11 with this inscription Of the power of the Pope in matters Temporall Which said Treatise by publike edict in France was first adiudged to be burnt and so it had beene but for the restlesse importunitie of the Iesuits yet afterward by publike edict was it vnder a great penaltie forbidden to be bought solde or read as a Trentise erronious seditious schismaticall and pestilent This also the Iesuite in his Examen is content to passe by for that belike he would not stir vp againe that ill sauour of Bellarmines exceeding great disgrace therein English Concord BEcane in his Iarre and eleuenth Question demaunded Whether the King may be Iudge of Controuersies And I in my Concord and 11. Question demanded
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
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
IN England the King doth but nominate some to be Bishops They are chosen by the Deane and Chapter The King approueth and ratifieth the Electiò but they are consecrated Bishops only by Bishops And therupon without any grant therof froÌ„ the King they haue ipso facto Episcopall function and Iurisdiction in externall Court Whereby it is apparant euen by this Iesuitesinterpretation of the words that our Bishops doe not descend from our King as the Romish Bishoppes descend from the Bishop of Rome who receiue the gifts of the Holy-ghost and the vertue and effect of their preaching from the Pope and so descend from him as members from the Head which Pope saith Bellarmine is the onely Bishoppe iure diuino by the word of GOD and all the rest of the Bishoppes Archbishops Patriarkes are but his Curates iure humanâ— by the wordor inspiration of the Pope Inspirante Petro as Leo saith The Pope breathing on them the Holy-ghost All English Academicks would detest such descending of our Bishops froÌ„ the King who giueth vnto our Bishops chosen and consecrated their Baronries and Iurisdiction coactiue by corporall or temporall mulcts which is Dr. Tookers meaning herein but not Iurisdiction meerely sacerdotall or Episcopall viz. to excommunicate to giue Orders to confirme c. And so here is still the Concord maintained BECAN Exam. Pag. 134. THE rest vvhich you cite out of Hostiensis and the Abbat you neither cite vvell nor understand It irketh mee to warne you so oft and to obtaine nothing Dr. HARRIS Reply TRuely I vnderstand that Martin Becane is a very vnlearned and slugge Iesuite as shall in this place manifestly appeare In the meane time I pray you Christian Reader to obserue how the case is now altered touching the Popish Headship from that it was heretofore for euen as Antichrist groweth on to his height of impudency and impietie so the Headship increaseth Heretofore the Pope was said to be not simply the Head of the Church as Christ is but the inferiour-ministeriall Head now hee is growen to be the Supreme Head equall with Christ as hauing the same Tribunall and Consistorie that Christ hath and being able to doe all that Christ can doe To proue this I cited the words of the two most famous and iudiciously learned Canonists that euer were Cardinall Hostiensis and Abbat Panormitane and in the margine of my booke I quoted rightly the places where those words were written The matter you see to be of the greatest moment and most fitting to the dispute of the Head of the Church here in hand yet the Iesuite hath no other thing to answere but this you doe not cite those wordes well nor vnderstand them Whereof Christian Reader be you iudge after that I haue produced at large their owne words which are as followeth Panormitan Super prima primi de Electione cap. vener abilem verb. Transtulit Papa transtulit imperium in Germanos Papa autem hoc potuit facere ex magna causa concurrente cum possit facere quicquid Deus potest Alias Christus non fuisset diligens Paterfamilias si non dimisisset in terris aliquem loco sui qui expedientibus causis possit omnia facere quae ipse Christus Hanc regulam firmauit Hostiensis in cap. Quanto De Translatione praelatorum vbi dicitur quod cum Dei et Papae idem sit consistorium omnia potest facere quae ipse Christus excepto peccato Sed improprie excipit peccatum quod Peccatum non cadit sub potentia imò sub impotentia The Pope translated the Empire to the Germanes The Pope might doe it vpon great cause because be can do whatsoeuer God can doe Otherwise Christ had not beene a diligent father of his family if hee had not left one in his owne stead on earth who as causes require can do all that Christ himselfe can doe This rule hath Hostiensis confirmed in cap. Quanto de translat Praelat where it is said that seeing there is but one and the selfe same Consistory of God and the Pope The Pope can do all things that Christ himselfe can doe except sinne But Hostiensis improperly excepted sinne because sinne falleth not vnder power but rather vnder impotency or weakenesse By these their words thus at large set downe it appeareth that I cited the words well and knew what I cited euen enough to demonstrate that the Popish Primate is a blasphemous Head and that our King is no such Head Both which are appatant to any man of reading but this slugge Iesuite is so vnlearned that hee vnderstandeth nothing which hath any sound learning or iudicious reading in it ⧠Becans Iarre V. Question Whether the Kings Primacy do consist in any Power or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall HEERE now is there a great Iaure and debate amongst our English Aduersaries nor can the same be easily vnderstood vnlesse it be first well distinguished Ecclesiasticall Power is threefold as the Diuines doe teach One of Order another of interiour Iurisdiction the third of exteriour Inrisdiction To the first belongeth to effect or consecrate and to administer Sacraments to the second to gouerne the Church in the interiour Court or Court of Conscience and to the third belongeth to gouerne the Church in the exteriour Court Now certaine it is that the King hath not the Power of Order by reason of his Primacy For this dooth M. Tooker confesse page 14. vvhere he saith Reges non habent potellatem administrandi Sacramenta Kings haue not power to administer Sacraments It is also certaine that be hath not Iurisdiction of the interiour Court or Court of Conscience For this in like manner doth M. Tooker confesse pag. 63. Omnis jurisdictio saith be in foro interiori Sacerdotum est nulla Regum All Iurisdiction in the interiour Court or Court of Conscience belongeth to Priests not ance vvaie to Kings c. 2. All the question then is whether the King hath Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the exteriour Court or no About this point are the Englishmen at a great iarre and variance amongst themselues some affirming it some denying it others distingnishing M. Tooker affirmeth it pag. 305. in these words Qui habet plenissimam amplissiman iurisdictionâ—min foro exteriore potest candem dare auferre Rex eam habet Ergo potest eandem dare auferre Totum hoc liquet ex V. N. Testamento Hee that bath most full and ample Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court can giue and take away the same at his pleasure But the King hath this Iurisdiction Ergo he can giue and take away the same All this is manifest out of the old and new Testament c. With him agreeth also M. Salclebridge pag. 140. Regesoleo sacro vncti capaces sunt Iurisdictionis spiritualis Kings saith be anointed with holy oyle are made capable of spiritual IurisdictioÌ„ c. And then again in the same place out of the Lawes of Eng. Rex saith be est persona mixta vtpote
practice in his Prouince which thing making so much for establishing and confirming the outward peace and Ecclesiasticall politie of the Christian world is much desired Cod. de sacra sa Eccl. l. omni Inno and hoped for at the next generall Councell as wee read in old time that the Emperour of Constantinople by his law did in all things equall the iurisdiction of the Bishoppe of Constantinople with the power of the Bishop of Rome Quam legem euertere nunquam potuit Papa omnia conatus Imperator is patrocinio tutam Which law maintained by the patronage of the Emperour the Pope could neuer repeale although he assaied all meanes for the same Liberat. cap. 13. And may not then I pray you sir those Kings lawfully say to their Priests Doe not obey the Bishop of Rome but obey this Patriarch alone You are exempt from all Romish power and iurisdiction If the Iesuit doubt heereof let him repaire to Gerson De Auferebilitate Papae that stiffe Patron of the Romane Religion and hee will teach him thus much Iohannes de Parisys also in his Treatise De Pot. Reg. Papal cap. 13. writeth thus Bonifacius obtinuit a Phoca c. Pope Boniface obtained of Phocas that the Church of Rome should be called the Head of all Churches Whereby we may gather such another argument That it appertaineth to the Emperour to transferre the Primacy of the Church and to order Ecclesiasticad affaires According also with the decrce of the Councell of Chalcedon cap. 28 or as it is related by Carranza Sess 16. Sedi veter is Romae patres merito dederunt Primatum quódilla ciuitas caeter is imperaret And cap. 12. Quascunque ciuitates per literas regis Metropolitico honor arunt nomine The old Fathers did worthily giue the Primacy to the See of old Rome because it then ruled ouer all the residue and all Cities vvere honoured with the title of Metropolitan by the Kings Letters Pattents But now at length I will particularly answere to the obiections of Becane 1. There were not Priests and Leuites in both the Kingdoms of Iuda and Israel as hath appeared out of the expresse words of the Scripture 2. Ieroboam might lawfully say vnto his Priests which were not Leuites but of the lowest of the people and by him made and consecrated You are exempt from the iurisdiction of the High Priest vvhich is at Ierusalem 3. If King Iames so often protest That his Primacy is defined within those bounds and limits wherein the godly Kings vâ—der the old Testament contained theirs Then it followeth that the Primacie of Kings is both godly and certaine founded on holy Scriptures and not doubtfull or false as this falsary Martin affirmeth nor containeth so many parts as are thought to be the offices thereof by Hainric Thomson Burhil Dr. Tooker or any other Protestant Secondly that King Iames may lawfully and by right compell his subiects to the Oath of Supremacie Thirdly that Pope Paul the fist Bellarmine and Becane resisted King Iames impiously and against all humanitie by seeking to avert his subiects from their allegiance from taking both the one and the other so iust and godly an oath After the same manner as Elymas did resist the Apostles seeking to turn away the Proconsul froÌ„ the faith Act. 13.8 Hauing thus satisfied the questions of Becane to the full and more then was needfull dispelling their clowdie mists and breaking the snares of these Spyders webs and so made vp into a perfect Concord and harmony all the supposed English Iarres about the Kings supremacy There now remaineth nothing but the Iesuits Epilogue or Conclusion which by changing only the persons and tearmes I may most aptly and iustly returne vpon the Papists in this manner The Conclusion ALl then that hath been hitherto said may be reduced vnto three heads The first is that the Kings Supremacy in the Church is an ancient right no new thing but first ordained by Christ the ancient of dayes and was practiced in the old time by the most approued and pious Kings in the old Testament But the Popes Supremacie was neuer vsed by any sound and godly Bishop of Rome before that infamous Emperour Phocas thefore a new thing neuer rightly claimed The other that there be so many iarres and disagreements among the Romish Clergie about this Primacie of the Pope that it is not manifest or certaine what the said Primacy is nor what force or authoritie the same hath The third that the oath of this Primacy can neither be exacted by the Pope nor may any Papist take the same but the oath of the Kings supremacy may be exacted by the King and obserued of all his good subiects Heerehence three other questions which might be made concerning the subiects will easily be answered There are three sorts of subiects which liue in those regions where the Papacy beareth sway 1. The first are Baronians who in truth acknowledge and swear to the Popes supremacy that is to his direct supremacy for his indirect supremacy is directly ridiculous 2. The second Bellarminians or Pope-puritans who doe not acknowledge this supremacy and yet sweare vnto it 3. The third are true belieuing Protestants who neither acknowledge it nor will sweare it The first question then is What may be said of these Baronians I answere that they doe vnwisely and inconsideratly The reason is because it is folly rashnesse to sweare a thing that is doubtfull vncertaine as for example The Popes supremacie as is manifest by their iarres and dissensions which heeretofore wee haue shewed The second question is What may be said of the Bellarminians or Pope-puritans I answere They are periured persons and polititians The reason is because they belieue one thing and sweare another For they agree and consent therein with the right and orthodoxall Protestant and yet with the Baronians they sweare allegiance to the Pope as to the Lord Paramount of the whole world in temporall things for Pope Paul the fift doth challenge the same And this they doe to keepe an externall and politicall peace which is more esteemed by them then their faith and religion and therefore are branded by Carerius in his publique writings and authorized to bee impious Polititians and haeretiques of this time and not to be called Christians And of whom Pope Paul the fift may truly assirme That he had found more truth and honesty in the high-land and bordering thieues then in this sort of aequinocating people The third question is What shal we say of the Protestants who are the right and true Catholicks I answere They be iustand vpright men who walke before God in truth and veritie They be sincere vvho professe with their mouth that which they belieue in their hart They are truly couragious who with good Eleazarus had rather die then consent to any vnlawfull thing no not so much as in outward shew They be like vnto the Apostles who endeuour to obey God rather
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
thing there neither yet in Platina vvho is vvell knowne to have written the life of Boniface accurately Peraduenture you found some such thing in the English fables but they out of that Iland carry no credit Dr. HARRIS Reply YEs I finde it in the Paralipom Vrspergensis page 365. thus Papa Bonifacius 8. ipso apparatu in Iubilaeo qui tunc Romae agebatur se solenniter ostentauit Primo quidem solenni die in Pontificalibus apparens populo Apostolicam ill is benedictionem impartitur postero die Imperiali habitu infula Caesarea insignis gladium ante se nudatum iussit deferri et sedens alta voce testatur Ecce duo gladij hic Boniface 8. in time of Iubile shewed himselfe the first day in his Pontificall robes the second day in his Robes Imperiall to witte the imperiall Crowne on his head c. and a naked sword borne before him vvith proclamation thus Beholde here two swords And there I reade also this exclamation Vides O Petre successorem tuum Et tu Salutifer Christe cerne tuum vicarium vide quò ascendit superbia Serui Seruorum tuorum Oh Peter thou seest vvhat manner of successour thou hast And oh Saniour Christ beholde thy vicar and see vvhither the pride of the Seruant of thy sernants hath ascended Further in Auentine vt ex concilio Vangionum I finde this written viz. The Pope vsurpeth both the Empire and high Priesthood as Decius and other vvorshippers of false Gods vvere vvont to doe The Iesuite mistooke my purpose in that marginall note Vita Bonif. 8. in Serto which was not to shew where it is written viz. that Boniface went in processioÌ„ Emperor-like apparelled but that the Christian Reader might be directed to a writing authenticall where he might see Pope Boniface 8. pictured out in far worse more odious colours namely at the end of the sixt book of the Decretals thus In the yeare 1294 Boniface got the Popedome but not without the crime of ambition and of other ill feats He pretermitted nothing vvhich either fraudor ambition could compasse Hee vvas so proud that hee contemned all men There are some vvho vvrite that hee suborned and priuily sent certaine men vvho in the night by a voyce sent downe as it vvere from heauen entering the Chamber of Pope Caelestine a simple man should perswade him to relinquish his Popedome if hee vvould be saued This is notorious that vvhen Prochetes the Archbishop of Geneua vvas before him on his knees vpon Ashwednesday vvhereas according to the manner the Pope should throwe ashes vpon his head say Remember man thou art but ashes and to ashes thou shalt returne Boniface cast ashes into Prochetes eyes and said Remember man thou art a Gibelline and vvith the Gibellines to ashes thou shalt returne The same Boniface sent his letter to Philip King of France first to exhort him and if that vvould not serue to threaten him to undertake the Hiernsalem expedition Philip commits that Legate to prison vvhereupon the Pope sends the Archdeacon of Marbon to command the King in the Popes name to dismisse his Legat and if he refused to tell him in the hearing of all men That because of his contumacy and violating the law of nations The kingdo â— of France was deuolued to the Church of Rome But Sarra sent by King Philip tooke the Pope prisoner and so brought him to Rome vvhere vvithin 35. dayes after for very griese of minde he perished In this sort dyed Boniface vvho indeauoured to cast terrour into the hearts of Emperours Kings Princes Nations and People rather then to sowe religion among them who also endeanoured to giue kingdomes and to take them awaie to put in and to put out vvhom hee vvould Learne all Princes both Secular and Ecclesiasticall learne by his example to rule the Cleary and people not proudly and contumcliously as hee did Behold here gentle Reader First how great the ignorance of this Iesuite is who knew not that the Treatise of the life of Boniface set down in the sixt of the Decretals was made by Platina Secondly how vnluckily the ignorance of this Iesuite here is which hath ministred vnto mee so iust an occasion to publish afresh vnto the world what a most shamelesse and odious Tyrant Pope their most renowmed Pope Boniface the eight was English Concord Becane in his Iarre and fourth Question demaunded Whether by reason of his Supremacy the King may be called the Supreame head of the Church And I in my Concord and 4. Question demanded Whether the Popeby reason of his Primacy may be called the supreme head of the Church considering that Gregory the great writeth thus What vvilt thou answere to Christ the head of the vniuersall Church Lib. 4. Epist. 38 at the tryall of the last iudgement vvho endeuorest by the name of Vniuersall Bishop much more by the name of the Supreme head of the vninersall Church to bring into subiection all his members vnto thee Vnto this though it touch the Pope necre the Iesuite in his Examen answereth not one word English Concord BEcane in his fift Question demanded Whether the kings Primacy consist in any power or iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall And I im my fift Question demanded Whether the Primacy of the Pope consist in any power or iurisdiction Temporall That is in a dominion temporall and coactiue considering that Christ saide thus The Kings of the nations beare rule ouer them but ye shall not be so and that Bernard writeth thus peremptorily Luke 22.25 Consider ad Eugâ—n lib. 2. It is plaine that dominion is forbidden the Apostles Therefore presume thou to vsurp to thy selfe either as a Soneraigne the Apostleshippe or as an Apostle the Soueraigntie Thou art plainely forbidden one of them If thou vvilt haue both together thou stalt lose both Otherwise thinke not thy selfe to be excepted out of the number of those of vvhome the Lord complaineth saying They ruled but not by mee And yet Martin Polon Boniface the 8 giueth the King of France to vnderstand that hee is chiefe Lord in matters Spirituall and Temporall through the vvhole vvorld and commands the saide King to acknowledge that he holds the Kingdome of France of him because it is hereticall to thinke and holde the conâ—rarie In like manner saide Pope Adrian The Emperour raigneth by vs Auentin 1.6 vvhence hath hee the Empire but from vs Beholde it is in our power to giue it to vvhom vvee vvill And according to their Canon law Kings and Emperours by the command and vvill of Christ receiue their power from the Pope as * Extran Joan. 22 Cum inter nonnullos in Gloss from their Lord God Hereunto the Iesuite makes answere as followeth BECAN Exam. Page 94. In the 7. Page you cite ex cap. Cum inter nonnullos Extrau Page 22. these vvordes Kings and Emperours c. I knowe not vvhether more falsly or ridiculouslie Indeede falsely because in that Chapter there is no such
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
in his Apology and monitory Préface to the Emperour c. endeuoureth to proue that himselfe in England and euery King in his kingdome is Head or Primat of the Church There you confound Head Primat as one thing heere by a two-fold question you sepatate them as diuerse things So the Mule scratcheth himselfe The King doth make no expresse mention of the word Primat yet as you say hee endeuoureth to proue and proueth demonstratiuely that he is Primat of the Church Therefore as the King wee and your lelfe understand it it is all one to have the Primacy of the Church and to be Primat of the Church Sith then weeagree in the thing why doe you wrafig be about the name heere of Primat as before of Primacy Doctor Tooker and Maister Burhill lume openlie professed subscribed and sworne that the King is the onely Supreme Gouernour in and ouer all causes and persons Eoclesiasticall vvithin his Realine that is â—hâ— Hainrick and Thomson and your selfe vnderstand it in one word Primat But Tooker and Burhill deny the King to be Primat of the Church They doe so that rightly to weet in your popish sense of Supreme Primat of the Church Sacer do tall or Episcopall By which distinction well vnderstood and vsed it appeareth that among vs there is no Iarre at all touching the Supremacy or Primat BECAN Exam. Pag. 120 YOu call mee an Asse because I said the English Protestant Writers Iarre in this point If I be an Asse by contend you with me Haue you learned to strine onely vvith Asses Belike you thought you had to doe vvith English Predicants I am not of that Tribe Neither am I contrary to my selfe for I doe not distinguish Primat and Head of the Church but I shevv the English Writers to dissent in both And that is very true because some afsirme and others deny the King to be either Primat or Head of the Church Dr. Harris Reply TO his quest I answere thus By Gods grace I haue learned to dispute and to grapple with the most learned Iesuit in the bunch And I am sory that it was my ill hap to meet with such a slug as this Icsuit is But sich it fulleth out so I must take vp this burden and proceedin answeting as Salomon saith a foole in his folly lest hee be proud I know by their books many Iesuits to be very learned and I knowe many English Preachers in learning to be nothing inseriour to their chiefest Iesuits Therefore this Iesuit Becane without all truth and good manners sets the Asses eares vpon so many learned English Preachers but they will nothing lesse then fit them hee must resume the eares to himselfe and carie them about with him as his owne Touching his assertion I did not say that he distinguished the Head and Primat of the Church as two things diuerse but that he confounded them as one Hcere as one that is at daggers drawing against himselfe hee confesseth hee did not nor doth distinguish them and yet heere with two disiunctiue particles hee separateth them Indeed with the Papists what is the Papall Primat of the Church but the Supreame Head of the Church Therefore iustly I found fault with the Iesuit for making two questions of one viz. I. Whether the King bee Primat of the Church 2. Whether the King be Supreme Head of the Church and not thus rather according to his words and meaning Whether the king be Head or Primate of the Church or Head that is Primate c. But in this his Examen the Iesuite doth increase and not lessen the Iarre with himselfe BECAN Exam. Page 121 I Do not inquire what Tooker and Burhill haue professed or sworne of the kings Supreme Gouernment but what they haue written of the Primate of the Church Both of them deny that the king may be called Primate of the Church Hainric saith be may be so called There is the Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply TRue it is in our English tongue as we doe not call the kings Supreme gouernment of this Church Primacy but Supremacy so doe we not cell the king Primate Ecclesiasticall or Primate at all But in respect that the English word Supremacy is translated into the Latine word Primatus as we in Latine ascribe vnto the king Primatum Ecclesiasticum or Primatum in omnibus causis et supra omnes personas Ecclesiasticas Primacy Ecclesiasticall or Primacy in and ouer all Causes and persons Ecclestasticall so wee in Latine call the king Primatem Ecclesiasticum Primate Ecclesiasticall to weet of his foresaid Regall not Episcopall Primacy or Supremacy Ecclesiasticall that is in and ouer all Ecclesiasticalls which Mr. Burhill is so far off to deny that hee hath expressely allowed them who assert it So that here is nothing but empty striuing about words which the Apostle condemneth I will therefore leaue this Iesuite snatching at syllables and catching of flics I say I will leaue him so striuing and with are him thus reasoning BECAN Exam. Page 121 〈…〉 Doctor Tooker and M. Burhill disputing against me who denied the King to be Primate of the Church doe denie it in that sense wherein I said the King vsurped the Primacy of the Church But I did not meane that the King vsurped the Primacy of the Church Sacerdorall for I elsewhere confesse that the King disclaimeth it Therefore they denying the King to haue Primacy Ecclesiasticall doe not meane that hee hath not Primacie Sacerdotall Dr. HARRIS Reply WHo taught this vnlearned Iesuite to dispute from all particulars Concerning the general do all disputers at all times reason according to the meaning of the Aduersarie which often times they vnderstand not Touching the Minor or later proposition or Assumption of Becane who would not thinke his meaning to be that the king by his confession disclaimeth all Primacy sacerdotall that is Episcopall Archiepiscopall or Patriarchall for all Bishops Archbishops and Patriarkes are Priests and therefore their Primacy Episcopall c. is Sacerdotall but this Iesuite meaneth nothing lesse For by Primacy Sacerdotall he meaneth here onely the power of inferiour Priests or Presbyters in Court internall onelie who haue no iurisdiction in Court externall as though all our dispute were not of Primates and Primacy As though any inferiour Priests who were not Bishops haue at any time bin called Primates feeling that by the Canon law Primates Patriarks are all one as though Primacy with the Papists doth not respect the externall Court only These are as plaine as the nose on Becanes face Therefore his face is hard who abuseth his Reader so grosly But I 'le returne this his argument vpon his owne head thus If Dr. Tooker and Mr. Burbill deny the King to be Primate or to haue Primacy in that dense than Becane saith The King vsurpeth Primacy and Becane saith The King vsurpeth Primacy Sacerdotall that is to say Episcopall Then it followeth that they deny the King to be Primate or
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
Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction The Bishop of Ely saith Hee hath some Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but not all So the King hath Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall with Tooker Supreme vvith the law all manner vvith the Bishop some but not all vvith Burhill and Thomson none none at all Is this your English Concord Dr. HARRIS Reply THe foole will alwaies be playing with his bable some fooles with varietie but this clay-witted Iesuit playes with his downe right repetitions of the same things in the same words wheras heeretofore he hath receiued in my English Concord a full cleare and solid answere to all and euerie one of these particular seeming Iarres but in truth no iarres at all Wherein is manifested our good Concord euen in all those seeming Iarres In short thus Master Thomson denieth the Kings Supreme Church gouernment to be called Primacy or the King Primat as Papists vnderstand it to weet Episcopall but he himselfe calleth the Kings supreme Church gouernment Primacy and the King in respect thereof Primat as the Protestants meane to weet Regall So Dr. Tooker denied the King to be called Head of this Church that is Episcopall or Papall but Doctor Tooker acknowledged expresly that the King is not onely the Head but also the toppe of the Head of this Church to weet Regall And in that sense saith Ma. Burhill they say well who call the King Caput Appendix pag. 284. Pastorē et Primatem the Head Pastour and Primat of this Church Doctor Harris saith Ma. Burhill denieth the King to haue Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in the outward Court viz. Sacerdotall that is in Dr. Harris meaning not Presbyteriall but Episcopall according to that of Lactantius who called Sacerdotium summum Episcopatum Sacerdotall that is Episcopall Archiepiscopall or Patriarchall And Dr. Tooker saith that all Iurisdiction of Priests that is of Presbyters or lowest Priests or all Iurisdiction Presbyteriall is in the inner Court. Is heere any Iarre The Bishop of Ely saith The King hath power of Censure to weet Regall and Ecclesiasticall as plainly appeared when Salomon deposed Abiathar the high Priest And againe he saith The King hath not power of Censure that is Episcopall as Excommunication Or in short thus The King hath some Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction viz. Regall And the King hath not all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction viz. Episcopall Dr. Tooker Hainric say the King hath all supreme Ecclesiastical Iurisdictiō i Regall And our English law saith The King hath not as this Iesuit writeth all manner of Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall for that would include both Episcopall and Presbyteriall or in Becane his sense Sacerdotall but all manner of supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction that is Regall Ma. Thomson saith The King hath no Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction or Primacy for Primacy and Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction are all one with Ma. Thomson Episcopall but Ma. Thomson saith The King hath Primacy or Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction Regall So the King hath all and all maner Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction Regall and The King hath not all The King hath none none at all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction Sacerdotall or Episcopall The King doth not gouern Ecclesiasticall things ecclesiastice that is Episcopally or Sacerdotally The King doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things Regally Is not heere a plaine Concord and vniforme agreement The Christian harmony whereof this Iesuit cannot dissolue though all his iarring hart-strings would burst in-sunder But whereas this Iesuit saith that M. Burhill affirmeth the King to haue no Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction none at all in Court either inward or outward hee sheweth himselfe to bee past shame in his grosse vntruths for M. Burhills express words in his a Pag. 285. Appendix are these Quomodo nullam nullam penitus huiusmodi Iurisdictionem Regiesse aio his verbis vbi propositionem qua hoc asseratur falsam esse pronuntio How do I say that the King hath none Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction none at all in Court inward or outward vvhen I pronounce that proposition to bee false vvherein this is asserted So the Iesuit brings in Ma. Burhill affirming that which hee expresly denith The particular manner and materiall points of this Supreme Gouerment Regall and Ecclesiasticall are set downe by our gracious King Iames by Queene Elizabeth by three of our most learned Bishops viz. of Salisbury Winchester and Ely as is transcribed in this Reply English Concord but especially in Hainric Salo-Brigian his Becano-Baculus with vniforme consent BECAN Exam. Pag. 141. IF supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall that is Primacy of the Church was exercised vnder Queene Mary and might lawfully be executed by the Pope then it followeth that it vvas lawfully separated from the Regall Crowne For if it vvere by Diuine right vnited vnto it it could not bee separated from it and lawfully exercised Dr. HARRIS Reply IF the heauens fall wee shall haue stoare of Larksheads Wee will as soone grant that the heauens may fall as that the Pope might lawfully exercise supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction within this kingdome If Queene Mary would wilfully superstitiously renounce that Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction which was due vnto her as Queene of England by the law of God and the law of this kingdom yet it followes not that the said supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction was not by diuine and humane right vnited to the Crowne The publique worship scruice of GOD was vnder the law vnited to the persons Leuiticall to the place where the Temple was yet Ieroboam who made all Israel to sinne as Quecne Mary more bloodie then he made all England to sinne changed both persons and place by whom and wherein Gods diuine publique worshippe was then to be performed Heere then is nought else but Becanicall folly or foppery Iesuiticall BECAN Exam. Pag. 145 THat which you cite from the Bishop of Ely and assert heere your selfe viz. That we giue more to an Abbess namely power to excōmunicat then you to the Queen is not true You ascribe all to the Queen which you doe to the King as to haue Primacy to be head of the English Church c. Abbesses with vs haue not power to excommunicate as Elizabeth with you had Hear what our Canons think of this matter It is plaine 33. q 5. ca. Mulierem that the woman is subiect to the dominion of the man or her husband hath no authority For she cannot teach nor be a witnes nor iudge how much lesse may she commaund or raigne De sentent Excommunicationis cap. De monialibus And againe If Nunnes or Monialls lay violent hands vpon themselues their Conuerts or Clerks they ought to be absolned by the Bishoppe of that Diocesse vvherein their Monasteries are Hence the canonists gather that Abbesses cannot absolue and therefore cannot excommunicate their Monialls And this is obserued in our practise See Suarez Tom. 5. d. 2. Sect. 2. et 3. Dr. HARRIS Reply THE reuerend Bishop of Ely asserted the Abbesses with Papists to haue or dinary Iurisdiction spirituall and therein to be equall with Abbats and that
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
peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take the same oath The like interpretation of the oath of Supremacy holdeth now vnder our K. Iames was of force vnder King Edward 6. and King Henry 8 whereby it appeareth that to imprison or execute any here for not taking the oath of Supremacy is all one as to imprison execute Traytors for not acknowledging their Kings Soueraigntie and for acknowledging the Popes Soueraignetie ouer their King in his prerogatiues Royall Crownes Kingdoms and life it selfe BECAN Exam. Page 154 YOu aske whether those 6. offices viz. to call Councels make Ecclesiasticall lawes confer Benefices create depose Bishops excommunicate the stubborne iudge controuersies Ecclesiasticall did properly belong to Peters Primacy or which of whose offices hoe exercised as Primate But this is not to the matter The Question is here whether your Writers agree that your king as supreme Gouernor may do those offices I say they Iarre therein Do you help them Touching the power total Councels D. Tooker iarres with himselfe with Hainric For Tooker saith that the calling of Councels doth primarily belong to Kings and from them is deriued to Bishops And yet he saith That the Apostles called Councels by Diuine right Therefore not from Kings right Therfore by Diuine right the Apostles successors that is Bishops and not Kings haue power to call Councels And this is against Hainric and Tooker himselfe Dr. HARRIS Reply OVR gratious King Iames in his booke of Apology c. vindicated and proued his rightfull Supreme Power or Gouernment in all Causes and ouer all Persons Ecclesiasticall within his Dominions Vpon that this Iesuite Becane inferred That then our King had power to call Councells To make Ecclesiasticall lawes To create and depose Bishops To conferre benefices To iudge Ecclesiasticall controuersies otherwise that he neither was nor could be Primate or Head of the Church because all those were offices properly belonging to the primacy Hainric in his Becano-Baculus denied that his consequent as Dr. Harris in his English Concord here doth because their chiefe Primate and Head Pope Peter did neuer as Primate challenge to himselfe or execute any of those offices and for that neither in Scripture nor any Ancient Father is found any of those offices properlie to belong to Peter as Primate or Head of the Church The Iesuits forces being too weake to grapple with Hainric therein Hainric tooke vp Becane his owne description And thence irrefragably concluded our King to bee Primate and Head that is Supreme Gouernour of this Church Which is all one as if he had taken from Becane his owne cudgell and beaten him soundly black and blew therewith as became Becano-Baculus to do Yet Christian Reader consider what iust cause Hainric had and I haue here to vrge the Iesuite to shew especially in this particular what generall Councell cell Peter did call as Primate or what Scripture or Ancient Father did attribute to Peter as Primate any power to call generall Councells All the Iesuites in the world with all the learning and reading they haue can not shew it Whence necessarily by Popish rule it will follow that Peter was not Supreme Primate of the whole Church and consequently that the Pope is not Supreme Primate of the said Church On the other side our Writers haue out of the Scriptures and Ecclesiastical Histories demonstrated that the most religious both Kings vnder the Law and Emperours vnder the Gospell haue called general Councels for which they are generally greatly and worthily commended The Iesuite knowing this to be most true and not able to answere it runnes into his starting hole and saith that it is not to the matter when inceed it sticks in the very bowels of the matter and hangs so fixedly in the Popes liuer as no Iesuiticall Dictamne can draw it forth In this one point of Regall Supremacy the Iesuite can not produce any two of our Writers who doe not fully agree As for Hainric and Dr. Tooker they both write vniformally that it belongeth to orthodoxall Kings and Emperors when any such are to call Councells Here therefore the Iesuite being at a non-plus and brought to his shifts faineth a Iarre betweene Dr. Tooker and himselfe Well then belike when Bellarmine in his writings differeth from himselfe that is at least an hundred times those discords must be stiled Popish Iarres but how doth Becane proue that Dr. Tooker is in this point against himselfe Forsooth because he faith that the Apostles viz. when there was no Christian Emperour by diuine right called a Councell Then the argument runneth thus All the Apostles ioyntly in time of Persecution lawfullie called one Councell onely of some few persons within one Citie Therfore in time of Peace not Christian Emperours but onely and all Bishops in the Christian vvorld ioyntly must call all generall Councells throughout the vvhole Christian vvorld What cable strong enough and long enough can the Iesuit get from all the Iesuiticall crue so to tye these together that the consequence may hold for good For heere is a manifold Non sequitur 1. From one particular act of Apostles to a generall rule of all Bishops 2. From times of Persecution to times of Peace 3. From times when there were no Christian Emperours to call Councells vnto times when there were some to call and indeed did call all euery one of the most renowned generall and orthodoxal Councells to weet the first six of them Becane dare not say that the 4. first generall Councells which Pope Gregory the great esteemed as the 4. Euangelists were vnlawfully or against diuine right indicted or called yet were they all called by Emperours and not by Popes viz. The first Nicen Councell by Constantine the great The first Councell of Constantinople by Theodosius the first The first Coūcell of Ephesus by the Emperor Theodosius the second The first Councell of Chalcedon by the Emperour Martian Vnto which Councells the Emperours by their Letters called as well the Popes of Rome as other Patriarchs If Pope Leo the first had knowne any such diuine right of calling generall Councells to be in him and not in the Emperour hee would neeuer have stooped so basely as suppliant vpon his knees to entreat the Emperour and the Empresse by himselfe and by others to call a generall Coūcell for what else had this beene but treacherously to request the Emperour to bereaue him of his Diuine right as Becane heere calls it and by usurped power to be practised by the call of generall Councells to extinguish that Diuine right Popish Primacy That is to extinguish their Catholick faith For now the Papall Supremacie is the very capitall and maine point of their Catholick faith To shut vp this chapter question Becane sitting vpon his Cathedrall Tripos should heere determine these two Questions following First whether Bishops onely or Archbishops onelie or onely Patriarches for these may not bee confounded as one and the same be the Apostles successors
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
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
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
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