embraceth it as orthodoxall Heere first the minor is false for Tooker denieth that the King can create and depose Bisoops for hee saith that the institution and destitntion of inseriour Priests belongs to Bishoppes and not to Kings therefore the King hath not solidly proued it Secondly it may thus bee returned All Academichs willingly approur all things soundly prooued by the King But the King hath soundlie prooued the Pope to be Antichrist Therefore the English Academicks willingly erâ—braec it as orthodoxall The consequenâ—â— is faise For Powell verily belioueth that the Pope is Antichrist and the King is nor cortaine of it The Syllogisticall form is goods therefore one of the premisses is false Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere haue we the picture of a very vnlearned Iesuit whose lineaments are drawn with his owne pensill and which is depainted with his owne liuely colours First ignorantly hee confoundeth as one a single narration with a double ratiocination and the institution and destitution of inferior Priests with the creation and deposition of Bishops Secondly he answereth two Syllogismes and those produced from his owne forge onely with denying the conclusions of both Thirdly he reasoneth from one indiuiduall Doctor Tooker to all our Vniuersitie Academicks Lastlie hee brings in Maister Powell disallowing that which hee chiefely approueth The single natration set downe in the English Concord was thus Doctor Tooker reading and well approuing his Maiesties solidarguments especially that from exemplary act of Salomon commended in Scriptures viz. in deposing Abiathar and placing Zadock chiefe Priests was so farre from denying the power of Kings to depose Bishops that he grounding himselfe vpon the said act of Solomon concluded with the King and Hainric That Emperours may lawfully depose Popes and so made vp the harmony of all good concord heerein The Iesuit transformeth this single narration into a double Syllogisme the former thus All which the King hath soundly prooued Tooker doth not deny but embrace as orthodoxall But that Kings may depose Bishoppes the King hath soundly proued Therefore Doctor Tooker doth not deny that Kings may depose Bishoppes To this hee answereth thus Doctor Tooker denyeth that Kings may depose Bishops therefore the King hath not solidly prooued it Then briefely and plainly his aunswer heere vnto is thus The conclusion of this syllogisme is false Therefore the minor is false Which answer proceedeth from extreame ignorance in the very principle of Logick But how proues hee for hee dare not be Respondent heere the conclusion to be false Because Doctor Tooker denieth the institution and destitution of inferiour Priests to belong to Kings as beeing proper to Bishops As though inferiour Priests and Bishops were all one As though institution and destitution of Priests were all one with election deposition of Bishops or Popes One Bishop may institute and destitute an hundred Priests but one hundred Bishoppes cannot choose or depose one Bishoppe especially an Archbishoppe or Pope Heere are some lineaments liuely colours of this Iesuits grosse ignorance moe are to be seene in the second Syllogisme following thus All things soundly prooued by the King all English Academicks approoue That the Pope is Antichrist was soundly proued by the King therefore all English Academicks allow as orthodoxall the Pope to be Antichrist To this hee answereth thus The conclusion is false and the forme good therefore the maior or minor is false It skilleth not whether so that one of them be false What is this else but to his vtter shame to display his intolerable ignorance to the world and to expose it as ludibrious to the meanest Academick Sophisters who should be well lashr or iustly exploded if they would aunswere right formed syllogismes by denying the conclusions But how doth this Iesuit proue this later conclusion to be false Because Gabriell Powell belieueth this doctrine viz. that the Pope is Antichrist which the King hath soundly prooued to be orthodoxall Wherein behold the strange blockishnes of this Iesuit who should haue instauced in one Academick denying that which the King had soundly proued viz. the Pope to be Antichrist but hee brings in Maister Powell allowing with all his 〈◊〉 what the King therein had soundly proued Moreouer if the King did not prooue soundlie the Pope to be Antichrist then the Iesuit takes away the suppositum and so she weth himselfe to be a frivolous Disputer If the King did solidly proue the Pope to be Antichrist why should not Maister Powell belieue it as orthodoxall The Iesuit saith The King doth not hold it as certaine Reply first that is nor ad idem it is no aunswere to the Syllogisme many part thereof Secondly though his Maiestie doth not hold those arguments so certain which 〈◊〉 from that mysticall booke of the Reuelation 〈◊〉 his Maiestie solidly evinceth the same from other places of holy Writ the meaning whereof is more certaine cleare and euident Thirdly Saint Paul teacheth the Iesuit that the spirits of the Prophets are subiect to the Prophers That the Lord reuealeth some things to one which he doth not to another To conclude this straine the Iesuits maior proposition of this later syllogisme doth manifest the great store of ignorance in him arguing a general of all English Academicks from the individuall Dr. Tooker BECAN Exam. Pag. 184 THe second argument Tooker asserteth the King of England to haue the primacie of the Church Therefore he confesseth that he may depose Bishops The consequence is not good with you for some of you asserting the Primacy dony the power of deposing Bishops Yoâ— take that ai granted vvhich should be prooned What is this but to begge that vvhich is questioned Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere also the ignorance of this Iesuit sillily mistaketh the meaning of the English Concord in this point Becan out of Doctor Tooker asserting the King to be a foster-child and disciple of the Bishops doth conclude that therefore Doctor Tooker denied the Kings power to rule or depose Bishops The English Concord to proue the weakenes of that consequence shewed out of Doctor Tooker that thogh Kings were not Bishops but subiect vnto them in regand of their Episcopall duties as in hearing the word preached by them in receiuing of the Sacraments administred by them yet in respect of supreame Ecclesiasticall government they were rulers ouer Bishope and might depose them As King Edward the sine did who though he disclaimed Episcopall function yet he claimed and vsed the primacy But let the argument runne from the primacie of Kings to conclude their power to depose Bishops I say it holdeth good considering that all Papists make the power of deposing Bishops a part of the primacie And that not one English Protestant Writer ascribing the primacie to the King denieth him the power to depose Bishops Heere is then no begging of that in question but a solid putting that out of question which is contrauersed and soundly concluding the power of Kings to depose Bishops BECAN Exam. Pag. 185 YOur
exteriour Court and the second that the King hath not all Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court 6. The third Aâ—gument is That whosoeuer is subiect to another in Ecclesiasticall inrisdiction of the exteriour Court hath not supreme most ample and full lurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the exteriour Court But the King is subiect to some other body in Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court to wit to the Bishop because he may by him be excommunicated by sentence and cast out of the Church as Maister Burhill doth confesse Ergo hee hath not supreme most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the exteriour Court c. Or if your will contrariwise thus Hee that is subiect to no other in Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction cannot by any man be excommunicated by sentence But the King now if he haue supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction is subiect to no other in Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall Ergo he cannot by any other be excommunicated c. I doube not but you marke well that these things doe not agree English Concord Pag. 68 IN good sooth by this precedent chapter I obserue my Aduerlary a bad Disputer by the good leaue of his fellow Iesuits For manifesting hereof let vs first handle the question You enquire whether the King may excommunicate his subiects The worthy Bishop of Ely pag. 151. Doctor Tooker pag. 15. Maister Thomson pag. 83. 84. affirme of all our Writers in these words Omnes fatemur regem excommunicandipotestatem nullam habere Wee all confesse that the King cannot excommunicate I pray tell me in so full a concord is heere any difference Surely no English Iarre except a fained Becanicall Iarre for the Iesuite followeth not the question Whether the King can excommunicate but whether the King may be excommunicated and so proceedeth as you see to discourse of the offices of supremacy that is to say Whether this be not numbred among the residue That a Primate may be excommunicated of his subiects But here like an idle Sophister he fighteth without the lists and first it is worth our labour to marke his admirable skill in Logick wherby he goeth about out of our most vniforme consent to wrest an English discord This is therefore his first reason The King cannot execute all the inferiour actions of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction that is to say He cannot excommunicate therefore he hath no supreame Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction I am ashamed of such childish Iesuiticall fancies Is the Iesuit become ignorant or forgetfull of the question Is not our controuersie about one supreame Gouernour of the Church in all matters Ecclesiastical and aboue all Ecclesiasticall persons Yes wee reason about the office of that one onely supreme Gouernor as supreme Gouernour according to Saint Augustine ad Bonifac Epist 50. Inhoc ergo seruiunt domino reges in quantum sunt reges cum eafaciunt ad seruiendum illi quae non possunt facere nisi reges In this Kings serue the Lord respecting onely their kingly office that is vvhen they doe those things to serue him which they cannot doe except they vvere Kings Now sir if excommunication belong onely to the primate or supreame Gouernour for in our question they are both one then it should follow that all Bishops and euery meane Archdeacon for both these haue power to excommunicate are also supreme Gouernours of the Church and so there must needs bee by this Iesuits Logick as many onely supreme Gouernours as there bee Bishoppes and Archdeacons Is any thing more absurd See you not in what a brake the Iesuit is caught But for the power of excommunication vnderstand thus much The King of himselfe can excommunicate no man yet notwithstanding by the consent of all the estates assembled in the Parliament he can make Ecclesiasticall lawes by force and vertue wherof this or that obstinate subiect ought to be excommunicated And besides it is in the Kings absolute power to commaund any Bishoppe within his dominion to absolue any man whom by appeale hee shall finde to be vniustly excommunicated Secondly the Iesuit reasoneth thus The King giueth to other power to excommunicate therefore he he himselfe may excommunicate The Iesuit might haue learned out of Bernard whò they take for a brother of their owne the vanitie and weakenesse of this argument who though his doctrine heerein be not orthodoxall yet to infringe this consequent doth very accuratly distinguish thus writing to Eugenius Conuerie gladium tuum in vaginam Tuus ergo et ipse two forsitan nuiu etsi non tua manu cuaginandus c. Put vp thy sword into thy sheath saith Christ to Peter Then saith Bernard to the Pope Yea that sword is thine yet not to be drawn by thy hand but at thy direction Both swords are the Churches that is to say the spirituall sword and the materiall sword but the materiall sword is drawn for the Church the spirituall sword by the Church one of them by the hand of a Priest the other by the hand of a Souldier but yet at the pleasure of a Priest and the commaund of the Emperour Thirdly hee argueth on this manner The King is subiect to the Bishop excommunicating the King as vvas Theodosius to Ambrose therefore hee is not the onelie supreme Gouernour in his dominion ouer all persons and causes Ecclesiasticall I aunswere that if this be a strong argument then shall not the Pope be Primate of the Church for the Pope is subiect to a Priest in his act of Confession So writeth Panormitan Papatenetur confiteri Extra de poenit etremiss et in illo actu Sacerdos est maior illo Sacerdos potest illum ligare et absoluere The Pope himselfe is bound to confesse to a Priest and in that action the Priest is greater then the Pope for he hath power tobinde and loose him It also appeareth by a Councellat Constance See the Councels of Coustance and Basil and another at Basil that many Popes haue beene subiect to Bishops and by them conuented iudged excommunicated and deposed from their Papacie according to that of your Canon law Cum again de fide Dist 19. Anastasius in glossa tum Synodus maior est quam Papa When a controuersie is concerning faith then a Councell is aboue the Pope Therefore the Iesuit deceiueth by Elench a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Wee teach that our Kings are not Primats but priuate men in respect of Sacerdotall functions and by that meanes not onelie are â—â—feriour to Bishops but also to euery other Minister According to that vvorthy saying of Valentinian the Emperour Egosemin sonil Plebis EtenÌ„ collocato in Pontisicale solio cui nos quoque maderatores imperij nostracapita submittamusâ—â— also an Emperor Sozome lib. 6. â—â— 7 The doâ—eâ— lib. 4. cap. 5. am like one of the common people Place such a man in the Bishops throne to whom we that are managers of the Empire may submitour necks The Popes excommunications of any the meanest subiects of
our Kings much lesse of the King himself many yeares before King Henry the eight was borne were of no force by the common lawes of England as is manifested by Hainric in Becano Baculus Where also he hath taught you out of the same lawes that the King of England is the supreme Ordinary of his Kingdome On as it is in the oath of Supremacy The onelie supreme Gouernour of the Church of England And yet wee doubt not but he may besuspended from the Eucharist by a Bishop to whom hee himselfe hath committed Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction as Theodosius was by Ambrose that is by resnsall to giue him the holy CoÌ„munion but not in any iudiciall or coÌ„sistorian form of citation appearance and sentence to be cast out of the Church The Iesuit is deeply deceiued if he imagine that the action of Ambrose was solemne and canonicall or that it was excommunication in a strict and proper sense which thing I will when need requireth convince by many solid arguments And in the meane season let him shew mee whether Theodosius was canonically cited vnto the consistory of Ambrose or whether the Emperour did answere for himselfe either in person or by his Proctor Or whether the sentence of excommunication was pronounced vpon the Tribunall of the Bishop Or whether it were canonically denounced in the open Church before hee was forbidden to enter into the Temple And againe by whose commaundement and by what example did Saint Ambrose alone without his fellow Elders or the counsell of other Bishops excommunicate the Emperour of so many kingdoms espceially seeing Ambrose was neither Pope nor Patriatch And let the Iesuit giue some good cause why Ambrose should â—am â—â—e vpon so humble and godly an emperour by his excommunicating him who erred onely in one fact and not once blame or touch Constantius a most proud godlesse and hereticall Arian Lastly whether it were the custome at Millan to excommunicate all murtherers or else Theodosius had wrong for Iassure you murtherers are not excommunicated in England and I thinke very few are so censured at Mentz where Becane liueth BECAN Exam. Pag. 191 YOu aunswere that heere is no Iarre because all your Writers vniformly agree in this That the King cannot excommunicate But heere is the greatest Iarre Because all English Writers who confesse it doe manifestly differ from themseluss as these three Arguments proue First Whosoeuer hath all mannet supreme most ample full Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical in any Kingdome he may exercise all acts vvhich pertaine to IurisdioÌ„tion Ecclesiasticall in that kingdome And so be may excommunicate to wit by a power vndependant of any man such as the Pope hath the rest hauing it from him who may giue it to them and take it away Enen as the King who hauing supreme most ample Iurisdiction ciuill in his kingdome may exercise allciuill acts of that Iurisdiction in his kingdome But the Writer's assert the Kings all manner supreme most ample and full iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall Therefore they assert the Kings power to excommunicate Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere is but an idlerepetition of the selfe same Argument which the English Concord had answered before by denying his maior Proposition Which deniall was grounded vpon the testimony of Saint Augustine whereunto this Iesuit answereth not one word The substance whereof vvas this That attacts of Ecclesiasticall gouernment and onely all those acts which the King alone may doe as King belong vnto him but Excommunication belongs to euery Archdeacon therefore that belongs not to the King The Iesuit beeing put vnto his shifts hath fansied this new starting hole viz. That power vndependant of any other to excommunicate is proper onely and to euery supreme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall Therfore if the King be supreme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall hee hath that vndependant power to excommunicate Whereunto Ireply first that no Scripture no nor ancient Father for the space of 600. years after Christ doth assert this vndependant power of excommunicating to belong to the supreme gouernment Ecclesiasticall Secondly that the ancient Fathers deny this vndependant excommunicating power to belong to Peter much lesse to the Pope but with one vniforme consent dogmatize according to the Scriptures that all the Apostles receiued from Christ immediatly not from Peter power to excommunicate equall vvith Peter Thirdly that the very principall Schoolemen as Peter Lombard the Maister of the Sentences Thomas Aquine the Doctor Angelicall Alexander Ales the Doctorirrefragable and Iohn Scot the subrle Doctor deny the same First they all foure define the keyes by the power to open and shut to binde and loose See Lombard Sent. l. 4. dist 18. et 19. Alexander SuÌ„ma Theolog. part 4. q. 20. memb 2. et 5. Aquin as in Sent. l. 4. dist 13 q. 1. art 1. Scot. in Sent. l. 4. dist 19. art 5. Secondly Alexander in Summa p. 4. q. 20. memb 5. et 6. Tho in 4. Sent. dist 24. q. 3. art 2. Scot. in Sent. l. 4. dist 19. art 1. affirme that the keyes promised to Peter in the 16. chap. of Mathew were giuen to the Apostles in the 20. chap. of Iohn Fourthly Bellarmine himselfe denieth this vndependant power of excommunicating to be proper to Peter and proueth by foure sound arguments the said power to be common to all the Apostles thus de Ro. Pontif. l. 4. cap. 23. That the Apostles receiued immediatly froÌ„ Christ their Iurisdiction First by these words of our Lord Iohn 20. As my Father sent mee so send I you Which place the Fathers Chrysostome Theophylact so expound that they say plainly The Apostles by those words were made the Vicars of Christ yea and receiued the very office and authority of Christ Cyrill vpon this place addeth that The Apostles by these words were properly created Apostles and Teachers of the whole vvorld And that wee should vnderstand stand that all power Ecclesiasticall is contayned in authoritie Apostolicall therefore Christ addeth As my Father sent mee seeing that the Father sent his Sonne endued with chiefest or highest power Cyprian in his booke of the vnity of the Church saith The Lord speaketh to Peter I vvill giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen and after his resurrection said to him Feed my Sheepe And although after his resurrection he gaue to all the Apostles equall power and said As my Father sent mee so I send you yet to manifest vnitie hee constituted one chayre Where you see the same to be giuen to the Apostles by those words I send you which was promised to Peter by that I will giue thee the keyes and after exhibited by that Feed my sheepe Now it is manifest that by those words I will giue thee the keyes and by that Feed my sheepe is vnderstood the most full euen exteriour Iurisdiction Secondly the election of Matthias vnto the Apostleship sheweth the same For we read Acts. I. that Matthias was not chosen by the Apostles nor any authoritie giuen vnto him but that his election being craued and
THE ENGLISH CONCORD IN ANSVVER TO BECANE'S ENGLISH JARRE Together with a Reply to Becan's Examen of the English Concord By Richard Harris Dr. in Diuinitie 2. Tim. 2.16 Stay profane and vaine babblings for they will encrease vnto more vngodlinesse AT LONDON Printed by H. L. for Mat. Lownes and are to be sold in Paules Church-yard at the signe of the Bishops head 1614. TO THE KINGS MOST EXCELLENT Maiestie Iames by the Grace of of God King of Great Britain France and Ireland Defender of the true auncient Catholick and Apostolike faith and Supreme Gouernour in all Causes ouer all persons Ecclesiacticall within his Dominions So ordained to be by the Diuine Masestie Most Gracious Soueragine THat busie pack-horse Iesuit Becan maintaining what in his small power lyeth diametrall opposition to your Maiesties rightfull supereminet power Ecclesiastical To make the same seem ludibrious in the eyes of his adherents as King Dauid dauncing before the Arke seemed to be in the eyes of prophane Michal in his printed empty pamphlet stiled Dissidium Anglicanú brought as it were vpon the vvorlds Theatre fiue English Protestant Writers in defence of your Maiesties said Supremacy namely the most learned Reuerend Bishop of Ely with his two Chaplaines Maister Thomson and Maister Burhill also Maister Doctor Tooker and my Selfe as iarring among our selues in many and materiall points of the said Supremacy and therevpon hee concluded that your Maiestie hath no iuct cause to vrge the taking of the Oath of Regall Supremacy vpon your subiects sith the defenders thereof in writing cannot agree in the main reall and essentiall parts of it Which pernitious proiect of the Aduersarie caused me in my most humble dutie loyall seruice to your Maiestie eftsoones to write my booke of English Concord therein shewing and prouing the sweet harmonie whereby all the fore said fiue Writers vtter the rightfull Supremacy of your sacred Maiestie Now because some of your Maiesties Popish and English subiects haue turned the said pamphlet of Becan out of Latin into English thereby to cause that poisonfull canker to spread further and that Roman leprosie to ouerrun the outward faces and inward hearts of English Papists on this side and beyond the Seas To countermine that serpentine plot viz. to suppesse or at the least to stay the further progresse of that running Canker it seemed good vnto your Maiestie to commaund the translating of my said booke into English which was done accordingly But before it could be printed Becan had written and sent to the last Frank-fort Mart his EXAMEN of my booke of English Concord which forced me to annex my REPLY and Refutation of his Examen in the Interim in English also because the other are in English intending with all conuenient speed to send the same Reply augmented beyond the Seas in Latin that this importune Aduersary may see his reed Examen shaken downe and shinered all to peeces and also may behold the English Concord fully maintained and iustified in euery part and parcell of Regall Supremacie I humbly confesse vnto your excellent Maiestie that it grieued me at my very hart to spend so many good houres in refuting the Almanack-pamphlets of this shallow and in very truth vnlearned Iesuit wherein is not to be found any learning reading or indicious discourse fitting a Father-Iesuit but onely boy-like wranglings about either seeming Iarres in vvords or syllables or escapes of the Transcriber Printer or Corrector in some abcedary letters in numerall figures in quoting the middle paragraph-word for the first vvord of the selfe same Canon vvhereas the very expresse words or the very substantiall matter according to the meaning of the Author and the purpose in hand was faithfully set downe These trifles which with his shamelesse calumniations vntruthes and scurrilities make vp the very bulke of his triobulare booke though they might well haue been let passe as things of nought or buried in silence yet because wise Salomon aduiseth Sometimes to answere a foole in his foolishnes least my silence heerin should cause this Iesuit to growe more insolent or the Popish sort in their vngrations and rebellious deniall of this Oath more confident I haue made this Reply to giue him more matter to vvorke vpon It beeing my setled resolution through Gods assistance whiles I breath to iustifie in vvriting against this Iesuit both the rightfulnesse of your Maiesties Supremacie and also the vniforme agreement of the said Writers therein The rather because though this Iesuit by his sillie scribblings brings shame and disgrace to the Pope whose cause he vndertaketh to defend yet is thought not the vnmeetest Emissary of his Vnholinesse for that this Popeparasite with his hard forhead dare set forth in print any thing for his Lord God the Pope against your sacred Maiâ—stie be it for the matter neuer so impiously grosse and for the manner neuer soimpudently sourrilous Wherfore having tasted of your Highnes most Gracious patronage in my former labours I am emboldned to present these also vnto your royall view beeing more desirous of your Maiest sole iudgement to approue the lines defending regall iurisdiction then of a whole Colledge or councell of our Aduersaries Because such is the desert of your royall minde and penne as vvas by Sabellicus attributed to Cicero Pulchriùs illi multo fuit Latinum sermonem quà m Romanum Imperium auxisse So is it more honour to your excellent Maiestie if such a Prince bee capable of accesse of Honour that you haue by writing propagated the religion of Christ then if by battell you had enlarged your Dominions and Great Britaines Monarchie The one beeing the price of the death of Iesus the other your most lawfull patrimony by the death of your royall fore-fathers Which the Lord graunt you may so long enjoy as your owne royall heart desireth and all your louing subiects doe say Amen Your Maiesties most humble and loyall subiect RICHARD HARRIS A PREFACE TO all English Papists who approue not the Gun-powder Treason aunswering the Preface of BECANE For as much as Becane hath discoursed of an English Iarre about the Supremacie I am willing to vse a few words vnto you but in no case to be troublesome with any tedious Oration About two yeares since Becane wrote two Libel-pamphlets touching the Kings Supremacie th' one against the Apologie and monitorie Preface of our most mighty and gracious Soueraigne IAMES King of great Britanne Th' other against a booke called Tortura Torti or rather against the author thereof the most reuerend Bishop of Ely The smoaky fumes of which Pamphlet for they contained no solide matter in them were dispelled by Dr. Tucker Mr. R. Tomson Mr. Rob. Burhill and by Hainricus Salo-brigiensis Notwithstanding Martin Becane abideth conceitedly obstinate although there be many things which might haue cooled his heate and taken from him all lust of further brawling And principally these First the iniquity of his Cause Then your indifferent equitie Lastly the manifolde
Or whether Patriarchs be successors of some of the Apostles and Archbishops of other-some and Bishops successors of the lowest or third rank And whether one kind onely of these successors or all three kinds may call generall Councells Secondly whether all the Bishops in the Christian world as the Apostles successors must ioyntly as all the Apostles did call generall Councells or because that would now proue too-too troublesome how many of them may serue that turne ⧠Becans Iarre VII Question Whether the King can enact Ecclesiasticall lawes or no 1. It is cleere that K. Henry the 8. did as well by himselfe as by his Vicar Generall Cromwell enact Ecclesiasticall Lawes For so saith Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England His diebus vigilantissimus hic Ecclesiae Pastor Henricus quo in posterum sciretur quae cui rite nupta eâ—â—et legem ediderat perpetuam de Nupt. js Comitiorum etiam auctoritate confirmatam qua statuebatur vt si quae personae in Leuitico non prohibitae solo consensu perverba de praesenti matrimonium nulla carnis copula subsecuta contraxerint eae verò ambae postea vel earum altera nuptijs cum altera persona in Leuitico non prohibita contractis carnali copula easdom consummauerint hae posteriores quas firmasset copula non priores illae quas solus consensus statuisset ratae atque legitimae haberentur adco vt cùm olim iuris Gentium fuisset Regula Nuptias non concubitw sed consensus facit iam deinceps Henrici regula effe coeperit Nupttas non consensus sed concubitus facit Ettamen ipse Legis-lator contra suam ipsius regulam vxorem Annam Cliuensem cuius nuptias non solo consensu sed septem etiam mensium concubitu firmauerat eo solùm praetextu reiecit ipsaque viuente aliam superinduxit quòd alteri nescio cui consensum antea praebuisse fingeretur Huius ergo legis tantopere postea puduit ipsos Potestantes vt mortuo Henrico eam ipsi reuocaucrint atque irritam fecerint c. In these daies the most vigilant Pastor of the Church K. Henry that it might be knowne to posterity what woman vvere lawfully maried to another enacted aperpetuall law concerning Marriage authorizing the same by publick Decree of Parliament vvherin it vvas ordained that if any persons not prohibited in the Leuiticall law should contract martage by only consent and by vvords de praesenti no carnaell copulation following the same and that the said persons or either of them should after vvard contract vvith another person not prohibited in the Leuiticall law and consummate the same by carnall copulation that then these later contracts vvhich vvere consummated by carnall copulation not the former that were agreed vpon by onely consent should be accounted for good and lawfull In so much that vvhereas the rule of the law of Nations in old time vvas That consent not carnall copulation did make the marriage lawfull now heere after by the law of K. Henrie it began to be arule That carnall copulation not consent did make mariage lawfull And yet for all this the law-maker himsolfe K. Henry did against his owne proper rule and law reiect Anne of Cleeue his vvife vvhose mariage vvas not onely contracted by consent adone but consummated also by seauen moneths carnall copulation vpon this onely pretence that shee had giues her consent to another before I know not vvhom and vpon this fiction he maried another shee yet remaining aliue And of this law afterward the Protestants themselues vvere so much ashamed that after K. Henries death they recalled and disannulled the same 2. Concerning his Vicar generall Cromwell thus writcth also the said Doctor Sanders in the same booke Septembri meÌ„se authoritatesua Vicaria Canones quosdam Ecclesiasticos quos Iniunctiones vocabat sigillo Vicariatus sui munitos Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus reliquo Clero praescripsit in quibus praeter caetera iubebantur Parochi sub grauissimis poenis vt OrationeÌ„ DominicaÌ„ cum salutatione Angelica Symbolum item fidei decem Decalogi praecepta aliaque huiusmodi Anglicè in posterum in Ecclesijs docerent In the moneth of Septemb. K. Henries Vicar Generall by the authoritie of his Office prescribedcertain Ecclesiastical Canons which he called Iniunctions signed vvith the seale of his Office of Vicar Generall to the Archbishops Bishoppes Abbots and the rest of the Clergie vvher in among other things the Pastors of Churches vvere commaundâ—d vnder most setere punishment hereafter to readin their Churches the Lords prayer the Aue Mary the Creed ten Commandements in English c. 3. Now our English Aduersaries that vvite in these dates of the Kings Supremacy doc not agree in this poynt For that some of them say that the enacting or decreeing of Ecclesiasticall lawes doth by diuine Right belong vnto Bishops others say that it belongeth to Kings and Emperours The first apinion holdeth Marster Tooker pag. 42. of his booke where be saith that the Apostles in the first Councell at Ierusalem did enact this Ecclesiasticall law Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis nihil vltra imponere vobis oneris nisi haec necessaria vt abstineatis vos ab immolatis simulachroruÌ„ sanguine sussocato It hath seemed good vnto the holy Ghost and to vs to lay no further burthen vpon you then these necessary things that you abstaine from the things immolated to Idols and from bloud and that vvhich is strangled c. And this saith hee the Apopostles did by diuineright The other opinion holdeth Maâ—ster Thomson pag. 80. where he affirmeth that Bishops and Councells cannot enact or decree any Ecclesiasticall law which hath the force of lavv vnlesse Kings and Emperours consent therevnto His vvords are these Decreta Conciliorum Patrum Ecclesiasticis Censuris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantùm stetliIent nisi legum vim Caesarea auraipsis afflasser The Decrees of the Councells of the Fathers had been held but onely for ecclesiasticall censures and penalties vnlesse the Emperours fauour had imparted the force of lawes vnto the said Decrees c. 4. Heere now the Iarre is euident For without doubt that ecclesiasticall law vvhich the Apostles decreed had the force of a law for that so mush is gathered out of these vvords Visum est nihil vltra imponere vobis oneris nisi haec necessaria It hath seemed good to lay no further burtheÌ„ vpon you then these necessary things c. But this Ecclesiasticall law had not it force froÌ„ any fauor of the Emperor seeing that neither Tyberius nor Pilate nor Herod nor any other secular Prince which theÌ„ liued did by his fauour authorize the force of the law but that it came from the Apostles themselues For that they by their Apostolicall authoritie and power which they had reciued from Christ did decree and promulgate that lavv And the same power and authoritie haue Bishops now adaies not Kings nor Emperours English Concord
his Clearks by lapse of time to weet after 18. Monethes Vacancy 3. The King onely or they only vnto whom that is granted by the King presents his Clearkes to his free Chappell 's exempted by him from Episcopall Visitation by his Regall Donation onely without any Institution or Induction of Bishop or Arch-deacon giuing his Clearks reall and lawfull possession of such Donatiues All these three particulars are vulgarly knowen and ingenuously confessed by Dr. Tooker which if hee would vouchsafe this Iesuit an answere would expreslie appeare in his after-writings as the like hath beene done in Mr. Burhill his after-writings But all these three instances of Regall Supremacy aboue all his Subiects Cleargie or Lay this vnlearned Iesuite silently passeth ouer Only as the dogge turneth to his vomit so hee in his Examen returneth to his loathsome froath and scumme of idle repetition of the selfe same things matter sentences words and syllables which in his Iarre he had ser forth in print and which said froath by the very blast of my English Concord was vtterly dissolued and scattered long before this his Examen peeped out ⧠Becans Iarre IX Question Whether the King can create and depose Bishoppes or no 1. MAister Salclebridge saith that bee can For thus he writeth pag. 121. Christiani Principes in suis Regnis cum laude propria authoritate Episcopos crearunt deposuerunt Christian Princes have in their Kingdomes by their owne proper authority created and deposed Bishops and that with praise c. And then againe pag. 144. Rex Angliae Archidiacono Richmundiae Episcopalem concessit Iurisdictionem The King of England granted Episcopall Iurisdiction to the Archdeacon of Richmond c. And yet further pag. 155. Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate deiure atquecum laude omnium Ordinum Episcopos elegerunt ac proinde deponere potuerunt The Kings of England of their owne supreme authority by right and with praise of all manner Estates have elected Bishops and therefore they might depose them also c. And then lastly Constat Christianos Principes cum laude Episcopos elegisse deposuisse etiam Romanos It is manifest that Christian Princes haue elected and deposed Bishops yea Popes also and that with their praise c. 2. Now M. Tooker hee denies in the place bifore cited that the King can create or depose Bishoppes For there hee assiâ—ning 〈◊〉 things necessary for the ordaining or creating of a Bishop to wit Consecration of the person and a Bishopricke addeth that the King can performe neither of these two For neithere 〈◊〉 be confer any benefice and much lesse a Bishopricke or Archbishopricke neither hath hee any power to consecrate persons In so much that in another place he confesseth that it is so farre off from King Iames to haue power to create or depose Bishops that he would rather acknowledge himselfe for one of their schollers and Disciples For thus he writeth pag. 311. Serenissimus ac pientissimus Rex noster Iacobus non habet quicquam antiquius honorificentius quà m vt cum Valentiniano filium se Ecclesiae profiteatur cum Theodorico Italiae Rege se alumnum Ecclesiae ciscipulum Archiepiscoporum fuorum Episcoporum libenter recognoscat Our most Gratious and most pious King Iames doth esteeme or accompt nothing more noble and more honorable then with Valentinian the Emperour to professe himselfe a son of the Church and with Theoâ—â—oricus King of Italy most willingly to acknowledge himselfe a foster-childe of the Church and a disciple of his Archbishops and Bishops c. 3. This Iarre now as you see is of great moment For if the King cannot create or ordaine Bishops as M. Tooker saith hee cannot then it followeth euidently that Thomas Cranmer who was made Archbishop of Canterbury by the King Henry the 8. was no true but a false Bishop no pastour but a robber one that entred not into the sheep fold by the doore but climbed up some other way Whereof againe ensue three other markeable points First that all other Bishops who were afterward either created by Cranmer or by the King were lake vnto Cranmer himselfe Secondly whatsoeuer was done of them by Episcopall authority or Iuresdiction was of no validity or force Thirdly that they so ordaixed are bound to restitution of all reue newes and prosies which they haue reaped by their Bishopricks What counsell now is there to be taken in this point Let your Academicks I pray you consider English Concord Concord Pag. 58 THat Christian Princes haue with commendation created and deposed Bishops yea Bishops of Rome not only Hainric but also our most drad Soueraigne Lord Iames the most learned King vpon the face of the earth hath manifested in his monitory Preface out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories in these very words Page 28. Inperatores arque Reges c. All these Emperours and Kings which liued religiously and Christianly were so farre from thinking the Pope to haue any power ouer them that they themselues haue created Popes and when they grew irregular reformed them and somtimes also deposed them And Page 291. Sed et per aetates complurimas c. But for many Ages together the most assured and inuiolable right of creating the Romane Bishops remained with the Emperors Wherin my principall witnesse shall be the Bishop of Rome who decreed in a Councel a Sigeb An. 734 Wathr de Epis Inuessat Mart Polon An. 780. of 153. Bishop and Abbats that right and power of choosing the Pope and ordaining the Sea Apostolike should remain to the Emperour Charles the great and moreouer definitiuely ordained that all Archbishops and Bishops throughout all Prouinces should take their inuestiture from him Niem de Pnuil et Jur. Dist 63 ca. Adrian that no Bishop should be consecrated vnlesse he were first commended and inuested by the King And whosoeuer shall offend against this decree hew rapped him vp in the bands of Anathema Mat Paris in H. Act. 1100. sdem An. 1112 et An. 1119 Page 34. King Henry the first of that name after the conquest gaue the Bishopricke of Winchester vnto William Gifford and presently inuested him into all the possessions appertaining to that Sea against the decrees of the late Councell The same King Henry gaue the Archbishopricke of Canterbury to Raphe Bishop of London and inuested him by a Ring and a Staffe Plat. vit Pela 2. et Gregory Besides not only Plaina but other Popish Writers do witnesse that the Emperours consent for many Ages was to be obtained for the choise of the Bishoppe of Rome which thing Bellarmine wich all his skill Declericis could not handsomely auoid Moreouer also the Romane Bishops were enioyned to pay vnto the Emperours Exchequer a certaine summe of current money for the obtaining of their confirmation which custome endured for the space of seauen hundred yeares An. 680. in vita Agatho Anastas An. 678 Dist 63. 1. Agatho after
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
Niniuch serued by compelling the vvhole Citie to pacifie the Lord. Euen as King Darius serued by breaking the Idol in pecces Euen as King Nabuchodonosor serued by making a godly and laudable lawe that vvhosoeuer blasphemed the God of Sydrach hee should be destroyed and his house razed In this therefore Kings serue the Lord in that they are Kings vvhen they doe those things for his seruice which they cannot doe but as they are Kings If therefore the Iesuit had seriously knowen how to distinguish these things hee might haue acknowledged that Maister Burhill and Maister Thomson agreed with the reuerend Bishop in this point Especially when Maister Thomson in pag. 78. writeth thus expresly and distinctly Omnes principes etiam pagani c. All Kings yea very Pagan Kings objectiuely haue supreme power ouer all the persons of their subiects both in sacred and ciuill things especially to attemper their measure and permit their exercise vvhich thing is witnessed by the Chronicles of all Nations Although the Pagans vsed that their power against the Lord yet vvas it a fault of the men abusing their power giuen them of God to a good end and not any fault of the power at all But yet by a farre more speciall regard did this power in Ecclesiasticall matters of old belong to the good Kings of Israell and now also to Christian Princes For they as bceing of the lewish Synagogue and these as beeing of the Church haue a greater and more speciall right in all causes of the Church then if they were meerely and onely Kings Wherefore in one respect it was said to Cyrus Pastor incusestu Thou art my Shepheard and in another respect to Dauid Tu pasces populum meum Israel Thou shalt feed my people Israel Which thing Iremember our reuerend Bishop hath admonished in another place And speaking to Becan himselfe pag. 94. hee concludeth with these words Haec facilia sunt intellectu miror te tantum Theologum hic haesisse These things saith hee are easie to be vnderstood and I cannot but vvonder that Becane vvho is magnified by the Papists for so great a Diuine should faile in a point of such facilitie Heere you may perceiue Readers that there is a constant English concord and no Iarre among vs at all wherein these two things offer themselues to bee considered First the Logick and secondly the plainnesse or rather ignorance of this Iesuit or at the least a Iesuiticall iarre or the Primacy of Kings established by the Iesuits themselues 1. Thus he reasoneth out of Maister Thomsons and Maister Burhills opinion All Kings yea popish and pagan haue a primacy in their Kingdoms Ergo saith the Iesuit it must needs follow that all persons liuing in those Kingdoms are bound to doe all things though neuer so vvicked which are by them commaunded Is this the Diuinitie of the Iesuits Math. 23. 2. Our Sauiour speaketh thus to his Disciples The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire all things therefore vvhich they commaund you to doe that obserue and doe Acts 4.18 There the same Pharisees out of the same chaire forbid the Apostles that they speake and preach any more in the Name of Iesus Therefore may not the Iesuit as Logically conclude that the Apostles are bound to obey them and then no more teaching in the Name of Iesus But Peter and Iohn answered them other wise Whether it be more iust vvee obey GOD or man iudge yee And after this manner writeth Isidore in the Canon law Si is qui praeest 11. q. 3. out of Basil St is qui praeest prohibet vobis quod a Domino est proeceptum c. If hee that sitteth chiefe forbid you that vvhich is commaunded of the Lord or on the contrary commaund that vvhich is forbidden of the Lord let him bee accursed of all them that loue God and reckoned a false vvitnesse and sacrilegious person The Romane Catholiques of Venice of Sorbona many other Noble-menan France acknowledge the Popes supremacy in the church but if the Pope should commaund them to become his subiects in temporall things etiam in ordine ad spiritualia in behalfe of spirituall causes or if hee should authorise the Alcoran and commaund them to follow it would they thinke you obey his vvill Then must they doe against their conscience If they doe not obey him then what shall become of the Popes Primacie I will beate you with the scourge of your owne tongue Perhaps they vvill aunswere They vvill obey vvhen they thinke good Shall therefore the papislicall Catholiques in France and in Venice take vp this saying Heere O Pope wee thinke good to obey your Holinesse commaund in this point and not in that and then farewell the Popes supremacy Thus much of the Logicke of Becane Now for his plainenesse or plaine ignorance these are the words of the Bishoppe of Ely in Tortura Torti pag. 39. Dominia non fundantur in fide sic infidelitate non euertuntur Quin rex quinis cum de Ethnice Christianus fit non perdit ius terrenum sed acquirit nouum Gouernments and principalities are not founded vpon belieuing and therefore are not ouerthrowne by infidelitie But vvhen any King is made a Christian of a Pagan hee loseth not the earthly right he had before but acquireth a new right Thus farre our vvorthy Bishoppe Now saith the Iefait in these words The Chaplaine teacheth that Pagan Kings haue no Primacie in the Church but they receiue it by their conuersion to Christianitie But I say that these are not the words of the Bishop of Ely onely but before him of Cardinall Bellarmine De Roman Pont Lib 5. cap. 2. et 3. Dominium non fundatur in gratia aut fide Christus non abstulit regna ijs quorum erant c. Lordshippe and principalitie is not grounded on grace or belieuing Christ tooke not away Kingdoms frons them to vvhom they belonged for hee came not to destroy things vvell established but to perfect them Therefore vvhen a King is made a Christian which vvas a Pagan hee loseth not his earthly Kingdome which hee had obtayned by right but acquireth nouum ius a nevv right Which nevv right if Becane may be belieued as an Interpreter or Concluder or Iudge is the Primacie in the Church And so we haue him crying guiltie confessing the question let vs sound the victory For if there be no iarre heere betwixt the Iesuits about this Primacie then haue wee plainly confirmed and euicted them that Christian Princes haue a Primacie in the Church For so Bellarmine expresly and dogmatically affirmeth That Ethnick Kings becomming Christians acquire a nevv right Which new right by confession of Becane is the Primacy in the Church Therefore Christian Kings haue a Primacie in the Church But vvhat is the Primacie of Pagan Kings as Pagans I leaue it to the Papists themselues to consider BECAN Exam. Pag. 212 I Doe not take away the Supposition out of mine ovvne opinion