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
* Deu. 13 10 Leurt 24.23 matter of religion and by Regall authoritie to punish the transgressors of them To call Councells of Synods by his authoritie f 1. Câ—ton 13.3 for reducing of the people to Gods worship h 2. Chr. 19.4 and purifying of the Templepolluted Touching persons To administer iustice vnto all of all sorts i 2. Chr. 29.5 who should be To speake as the Scripture doth The head of the Tribe of Leuie k 1. Sa. 15.17 no lesse then of the other Tribes The king no lesse of Clerkes then of Laikes To depriue the high Priest if he do deserue of his high Priesthood l 1. Reg. 2.27 In matters of Religion To breake down the high places To abolish strange worship m Exo. 32.10 to breake in peeces the brasen Serpent which Moses erected n 2. Reg. 18.4 In matters of Order To ordaine such things as pertaine to the comlinesse o 2. Chro. 24 12 Socrat. lib. 2 ca. 17 of GODs house and to suppressefriuolous and vnprofitable questions These by Dinine right are the rights of Regall Primacie To weet wherby the king may 1. Be called p Tort. Tort. p. 339 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Supreme head of the Church 2. Call Councells and presede in them 3. Make Lawes Ecclesiasticall 4. Constitute and depose the High Priests 5. Binde his subiects by oath to keep the lawes by him made To conclude hereby may the Aduersaries see that Regall Primacy is founded in the Scriptures and propagated from the first religious kings vnder the olde to the first religious Emperours and kings and so to our Soueraigne Lord King Iames vnder the new Testament and in that long distance of time nothing impaired or diminished What then neuer to decay I doubt it not What 's the reason Heare it out of Gods booke not out of triuials Iesuiticall q If it be of God Acts 5.39 you can not dissolue it Goe now Icsuite and play with your sooleries and very childish questions In the meane time let mee aske and answere in your owne words The Primacy Iesuiticall hath it lesse power in France for in Venice it hath none at all than it hath had there or else where So it appeareth Is it then in so short a time abated and diminished in France So men say Is it therefore neere his end I doe not doubt it What 's the reason Heare it from the Iesuites triuiall That which suddainly came for we know wel the swaddling clouts of Loyola the Iesuits Syre is soone gone BECAN Exam. Page 112 THE Primacie or Supremacie vnder King Henry King Edward and Qucene Elizabeth was Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall but vnder King Iames it is not so and what it will be is vncertaine Here is a Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply IN my Concord booke I shewed in generall and in particular the Regall Primacy vnder K. Iames to be the selfe same which was vnder K. Henry K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth adding that it so would continue as certainely it will during this orthodoxall Religion among vs which I hope shall continue so long as the sunne and moone endure though the Iesuiticall and all other Papisticall bowels burst thereat I shewod it in general for that the Supremacie then was and now no lesse is The kings Supreme power in and ouer all causes and all persons within his kingdom Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall and therefore in the selfe same lawes of this kingdome then and now in force called The kings supreme Power Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall In particular I demonstrated the same by setting downe the most materiall points out of the expresse words of Scirpture wherein the kings saide Supreme power Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall consisteth in which saide both generall and particular points as there they are set downe all English Protestant Writers with full consent agree without any Iarre or difference whatsoeuer If this shallow Iesuite had had any sound matter in him in this his ExameÌ„ he would haue answered to the matter especially to those materiall points founded vpon the Scriptures and haue proued that either those particular points belong not to the office of Regall Supremacy or else that wee Protestant Writers iarre in some one or moe of those said materiall points gathered by the R. Bishop of Ely and there set downe as not warranted by holy writte to belong to kings but this Iesuite passeth them ouer with Noli metangere and onely sets before the Reader his twise sodden Ioathsome Colewoorts viz. That Mr. Burhill writeth thus We doe not giue vnto the king Primacy Spirituall or Ecclesîasticall but rather Primacy in and ouer causes and persons Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall whereas Mr. Burhil in his Appendix to the confutation of Eudaemon Page 283. cuts this Iarre all in sunder writing thus In the 21. chapter of my booke against Becane I purposely and plainly taught how the said Regall Primacy may be called both waies to weet Primacy Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall or Primacy in matters and ouer persons spirituall or Ecclesiasticall and that they who call it spiritual Primacy meane nothing else then wee vvho in regard of the cauillations and calumnies of the Aduersarie by Spirituall power vnder standing nothing else but power Sacerdotall or Episcopall call it Primacy in ouer causes and persons spirituall or Ecclesiasticall And that in the very thing there is no dissent at all among vs. What could be spoken more fully and plainly to put to silence the lying and iarring lips of this Iesuit BECAN Exam. Pag. 114. IT is your priuat fansy none but you will say that the King hath or that himselfe challengeth power to appoint or depose summos Pontifices the highest or chiefest Bishoppes vvho should rule ouer all the Christian vvorld and vvho dwell out of his kingdome as hee hath in his Preface monitorie protested Dr. HARRIS Reply BElike the Iesuit hath not read this Question in Saint Augustine and the answere vnto it Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Presbyter hocest Summus Sacerdos What is a Bishop but the chiefe Priest And accordingly Lactantius lib. 4. ca. 30. calleth euery Bishoprick Supremum Sacerdotium the highest Priesthood If the Iesuit could vnderstand Greeke I would produce Ignatius ad Trallianos putting the question and making answere vnto it as Augustine did thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What other thing is a Bishoppe but one hauing principality and power ouer all men Belike the Iesuit will be bold with Ruffin and tax him for calling Athanasius who was no Pope Pontificem maximum the highest Bishop But then comes in Hierom speaking of euery Bishoppe and dogmatizing thus Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet The safety of the Church dependeth vpon the dignity of the highest Priest With vs in England are not only Bishops but Archbishops also euen Primats that is Patriarks ouer whoÌ„ the King in his Supremacy is Supreme Gouernour whom as he may nominat and appoint so vpon
qui EcclesiasticaÌ„ temporaleÌ„ iurisdictioneÌ„ habet quideÌ„ Supremá The king is a person mixt to wit that hath both Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall and Temporall that in the highest degree c. And yet more p. 144. Perleges Ecclesiasticas in hoc Regno approbatas vnus Sacerdos duo beneficia habere non potest nec Bastardus Sactis initiari Verùm Rex Ecclesiastica potestate iurisdictione quam habet in vtroque dispensate potest By the Ecclesiasticall Lawes approned in this Kingdom of England one Priest may not have two Benefices nor a Bastard be made a Priest But the King by the Iurisdiction And Power Ecclesiasticall which hee hath can dispense in both c. 3. M. Tompson and M. Burhill doe absolutely deny it M. Thomson pag. 80. of his booke writing thus Primatus Ecclesiae non est definiendus per iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam sed per gubernationem supremam The Primacie of the Church is not to be defined by Iurisdiction Ecclesisstical but by supreme GouernmeÌ„t c. And againe pag 95. Diximus Regem gubernare quidem Ecclesiastica sed non Ecclesiasticè Wee haue said before that the King indeed doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically And why I pray you Because for sooth be hath not Iurisdiction Ecclesiatically but onoly Temporall And heerounto agreath Must Buchill pag. 234. granting this negatine proposition Rex saith he nullam habet Iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam nec in foro interiori nec inexteriori The King hath no Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall neither in the interiour nor exteriour Court c. 4. Now my Lord of Ely hee distinguisheth in this case as may be seene in M. Tookers Booke pag. 305. in these vvords Habet Rex omnem iurisdictionem spiritualem in foro exterioti exceptis quibusdam Censuris The King hath all inrisaction spirituall in the extoriour Court except is certain Consures c. So as now to this question to weet vvhether the King as hee is Primate and Head of the Church haue any Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall or spirituall in the exteriour Court we must anâ—were thus First with M. Tooker and M. Salclebridge That he hath most ample most full and supreme Iurisdiction Secondly with my Lord of Ely That he hath indeed some but notall And lastly with M. Burhill and M. Thomson That hee hath none no not any one iote at all English Concord Pag. 38 THese are the very expresse words of the law of England which is now in force Star 1. Elzab That Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction vvhich was exercised heeretofore or lawfully might be exercised by any spiritual or Ecclesiasticall power to visit the Ecclesiasticall state order also to reforme to bring into order and to correct Ecclesiasticall persons all errours heresies schismes c. is for euer vnited and annexed to the imperiall Crowne of this kingdome vvhereby the King of England through his full power by his Letters Patents may assigne authorise such persons being naturall borne subiects as he shall think meet to exercise execute vnder his Highnes all manner of Iurisdictions priuiledges and preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction within his Highnesse Dominions Now all Protestant English Writers in the Oath of Supremacy which they haue takeÌ„ Lorament Primat in Apol. Reg. pag. 56. haue openly testified in their conscience declared that they will with all their power ayde defend all Iurisdictions Priuiledges and prehemiâ—eâ—ces vnited and annexed to the Crowne of this kingdom Wherefore all plainly agree in the thing it self But that which the Iawes of Engl. call Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction define to be the supreme Gouernmet in all Ecclesiasticall things ouer all Ecclesiasticall persons M. Thomson would rather call Supreme Gouernment The R Tortur Tort. p. 151 Bishop touching this matter writeth thus This I vrge that the IurisdictioÌ„ which Abbesses haue with you is ordinary spirituall IurisdictioÌ„ For the Abbat hath ordinary in her administration the Abbess is equalled with the Abbat And what should let it Because they cannot exercise censures excoÌ„municate But excoÌ„munication doth not directly belong to the key of order In 4. SenteÌ„ Dist 18. q. 2. art 2. Aquinas asserteth this Excommunication is no act of the key directly but rather of the externall court And it is a common opinion with you that he that hath not the key of order may excommunicate Those things which are of order and the inner court are denied to women but things belonging to the outward court are coÌ„municated to Layiks of those things there is no reason but that women may be capable As Stepha d'Aluin doth stiffly argue for his Abbesses and therein takes our part the Sorbon approuing his opinion therein Although we ascribe not to our King power of Censure and therein you giue much more to your Abbesses then we to our Prince Ma. Burhill demes the King to haue any Iurisdiction in the outward court to weet Sacerdotall So the King of England hath all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction that is Supreme and Regall wherof onely our controuersie is but no Sacerdotall no none at all and yet without any Iarre whatsoeuer But oh Becane can you without blushing if there be but a graine of pudency in you obstinatly detract froÌ„ most religious Kings all supreme Iurisdiction properly Regall when women of whom St. Paul 1. Tim. 2. v. 12. I permit not a woman to vse authority ouer the man with you are capable Fran. Steph. D' Aluin de Potestat Episc Abbatú Abbatiss ca. 2.3 4.11 c. and partakers of Spirituall Iurisdiction Sacerdotall or Episcopall viz. Of power to excoÌ„municate Clerks to absolue to visit to institute to present to Benefices Prelatures dignities Ecclesiasticall yea of hauing all administration as wel spirituall as temporall but only of those things of order wherof a woman is incapable Lastly al those things which Salobrigiensis doth heer recite touching Kings anointed with sacred oyle c. Mixt persons c. which may dispense against lawes Ecclesiasticall are transcribed out of the expresse words of the common lawes of England which in this kind of argument might haue satisfied to the full BECAN Exam. Pag. 139 THomson saith expresly that The Primacy of the Church is not to be defined by Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but the law of England doth so define it Thomson saith that The King doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically therefore his Iurisdiction is not Ecclesiasticall Burhill detracteth from the King all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in the outward Court that is as you say Sacerdotall but Tooker faith that All iurisdiction of Priests is in the inward Court The Bishop of Ely saith The King hath no Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the outward Court but onely power of Censure And saith againe The King hath not power of censure But Hainric and Tooker say The King hath all supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction The English law saith The King hath all manner
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
HARRIS Reply WHata malicious scoffing Sycophant is this who being perswaded in his coÌ„science that I euen in this straine ascribe too much to our Primate the King saith I detract too much from the King heerein First this rude and ignorant Iesuit must be taught that according to the lawes and customs of this kingdome though the King be heere immediatly next vnder Christ the supreme Gouernor Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill yet it pertaineth not to his Maiestie alone without consent of the Orders of the kingdom in Parlament to make any law euen ciuill thereby absolutely to binde all the subiects of his Kingdom which all Statutes made by the vniform consent of the said Orders in the Parliament with the approbation of the Kings Maiestie doe manifest Touching the supposed Iarre betweene Hainric mee Hainric writing generally of the power of all Christian Kings and Emperours to make Ecclesiasticall lawes asserted that the said Kings and Emperours laudably by their owne power made such lawes which I also auerre And I heere writing of the power of his Maiestie therein as it is vsed and limited by the lawes and customes of this Land assert that his Maiestie by consent of the Orders or States of the Kingdome in Parliament may make Ecclesiasticall lawes by force whereof such and such should be excommunicated which Hainric will averre to be very true So this seeming Iarte in the view of the goggle eyed Iesuit is in very deed a sound concord Further I reply that Queene Elizabeth of blessed memory by her own authority set forth Iniunctions as Ecclesiasticall lawes And our gracious King Iames by his owne authority confirmed the last Ecclesiasticall law-Canons made in the Conuocation house Lastly I say That by the lawes of this kingdom his Maiestie by his owne authoritie and letters Patents may authorize any persons beeing naturall borne subiects to his Highnes whom he shall thinke meet to exercise vse occupy and execute vnder him all manner of Iurisdictions priuiledges preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdictions within his Reasmes to visit reforme redresse order correct and amend all such errors heresies schismes abuses offences contempts and enormities whatsoeuer which by any manner sprituall or Ecclesiasticall power authority or Iurisdiction can or may lawfully be reformed ordered redressed corrected restrained or amended to the pleasure of Almightie GOD for increase of vertue c. Will the vile Iesuite call this vilifying of our Ecclesiasticall Gouernour Questionlesse it grindeth his hart that our Church the true visible Church of Christ Iesus ascribeth so much vnto his Maiestie BECAN Exam. Pag. THat which you adde is a new Paradox viz. That Ecclesiastic all lawes made by the King haue force to excommunicate and yet that the King cannot excommunicate It is the most certaine rule of Lawyers that vvhoseuer hath power to make apenall law hath also power to punish This common rule holds in matters Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall vvhy exempt you your King from the common rule confine him into such straights Dr. HARRIS Reply TO an vnlearned Iesuit plaine vulgar things seeme Paradoxes Date the Iesuit deny that Clergie men haue power to make lawes for putting to death of Hereticks and against such such erroncous obstinate persons as hereticks and dare he affirme that Clergy men may giue the sentence of death or shed the bloud of any heretick sith by their triuiall and vulgarly known popish Canon they may not sit vpon the bench when the sentence of death is pronouÌ„ced by the ciuil Iudges That most certain rule of his Lawyers is most plainly false viz. That whosoeuer hath power to make a penall law hath power to punish vnlesse the meaning be of power to punish by commaunding such Officers to punish vnto whom the inflicting of such punishment appertaineth In which sense our King also may be said to excommunicate or absolue that is to coÌ„mand Bishops to excoÌ„municate or absolue men according to the lawes prouided in that behalfe Yea further the Kings writ of prohibition absolueth that subiect of his which is wrongfully excommunicated by Ecclesiasticall censure And this is not to straighten but to enlarge much more then the Iesuit would haue it his Maiesties supreme power heerein Who knowes not that Christian Kings and Empeperours haue made Ecclesiasticall lawes by vertue whereof such and such Priests should be suspended depriued degraded and others chosen and instituted into their Benefices and yet it pertained not to those Emperours to suspend depriue degrade choose or institute the same in their own persons And that this rule holdeth not in ciuil matters was shewed before BECAN Exam. Pag. 196 MY second Argument was this The King giues vnto another power to excommunicate therefore himselfe hath power to excommunicate or if he haue not that power he cannot giue it to another You deny the Argument alleaging Bernard to shew the invalidity thereof But Bernard rather hindereth then helpeth your cause for he reasâ—noth as I doe thus Peter had no temporall possessions therefore he could not giue them to another Hee had care of the vvhole Church therefore he gaue it to his successor Bernard saith nothing of this consequent but of a double power of the Pope the one temporall indirectly all offices of which power Bernard denieth that the Pope by himselfe way execute the other his power spirituall directly vvhich hee granteth may be executed by the Pope himselfe This Position viz. No man can giue to another that which hee hath not himselfe Bernard and I assert to which you answere nothing Dr. HARRIS Reply THe Iesuit is heere ensnarled by the testimony of Bernard as one fallen into a quagmire who the more hee struggleth to get out plungeth himselfe deeper into it Bernard asserteth the right and power of both swords equally to be in the Pope for that of Directly and Indirectly is not Bernards distinction but the Iesuits vaine and new found fiction and therefore be may giue power to others ad nutum ipsius to execute the Materiall sword yet by himselfe cannot vse or draw out the same What is this else but that one may giue power to another to doe that which hee cannot doe himselfe The Iesuit is intolerably ignorant if he know not that by their Canon law the Pope is made Lord of the whole vvorld in temporalibus by vvhom Kings raigne and of vvhom they hold their Scepters In popish books printed and allowed They who hold the materiall sword to be in the Pope not directlie but indirectlie are censured for Politilian Hereticks these times-seruers But what if I should vse the same distinction heere and say that supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall were it the King indirectly to weet in or dine ad custodiam vtriusque tabulae to pronide and procure that all Ecclesiasticks performe their duties according to the prescript of Gods law Were not this Iesuits Argument according to his owne dispute heere dasht in peeces For as the Pope
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
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
misliked the one for vanitie and approued the other as a good thing giuen by God whereas the expresse words of Chrysostome are cleane contrary thus Nune scimus c. Now vve knowe that a good vvorke is one thing and the Primacy of honour is another thing And that it is good to desire a good thing but to couet the Primacie of honour is vanitie To shut vp this point The Christian Reader may here vnderstand that the Pope euen by the vertue of this testimony of Chrysostome set down in and authorized by the Canon law is incapable of Ecclesiasticall Primacy For if he be no Priest indeede he can be no Ecclesiasticall Primate indeede But by this Canon indeede he is no Priest because he is no Priest Opere in Priestly work that is as S. Paul expounds it to preach the vvord in season 2. Tim. 4.2 1. Pet. 5.2 Heb. 5.14 out of season c. or as Saint Peter explaines it To feede Christs flocke vvith the sincere milke or strong meat of the vvord or as Chrysostome here describes it To serue his inferiours by ministring vnto them all that hee hath receiued from Christ ready not onely to neglect his owne profit to procure theirs but also if neede vvere to lay down his life for them The Pope therfore being lesse in nothing then in this work is by the expresse words of this Canon nothing lesse then a Priest indeede and by necessary ineuitable consequence nothing lesse then Ecclesiasticall Primate indeede Here is now high time for this Iesuite to lay-vnder his shoulders for support of the tottering Primacy of his Pope very sore shaken by this Canon law-shot and ready to fall down into the dust Wherein pittiful is the Popes case who in this conflict for his defendour bath so seelie a weakeling and so ignorant a Iesuite as this Becane is and hereafter will more and more appeare to be English Concord BEcane in his book of Iarre in his second Question demanded Whether that Primacy of the King be Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall And I in my booke of Concord Page 4. and in my second Question demanded Whether that Primacy of the Pope be Secular and Temporall Because on the one side the Pope Lucifer-like asserteth All power to be giuen vnto him as vvell in heauen as in earth Which power Pope Boniface the eightth went about to put in practise vvhen hee endeuoured to strike a Terrour into Kings Princes Nations and people on the earth rather then to plans Religion in them And on the other side Chrysostome saith They who belieue not the Iudgement of God nor feare it abusing their Primacy secularly turne it into the Secular And Christ saith first vnto Peter I vvill giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen not of earth and then of himselfe My kingdom that is my Primacie which to the Pope is in stead of his kingdome is not of this world Ioh 18.36 If it vvere of this vvorld my seruants would surely fight that I should not be deliuered to the Iewes And this said diametrall opposition betwixt the Primacy of Christ and the Primacy of the Pope-Antichrist caused Pasquill to write in verse no lesse truely then eloquently thus Christus regna fugit sed vi Papa subingat vrbes Spinosam Christus Triplicem gerit ille coronam Abluit ille pedes Reges his of cula praebent Pauit oues Christus Petit hic Regna omnia mundi Pace venit Christus venit hic radiantibus armis Christ worldly kingdoms offered did eschew The Pope by force seeks kingdoms to subdue A Crowne of Thorne our Sauiour Christ did beare The Pope a triple Crowne of gold doth weare Christ vvasht the feet of his disciples all But all must kisse the Popes feet great and small Christ fed his sheepe and lambs most carefully The Pope to worldly kingdoms casts his eye Christ to his owne both milde and meeke did come The Pope with Armes the world doth ouerun Here is a matter very dangerous to the Popes Primacy which this shallow Iesuite not daring to denie and yet not able to answere vnto it leauing it as it were the body flyeth onely vpon the shadow that is the Citation as it followeth BECAN Exam. OVs of Gratian Page 92. Dist 9. cap. Innocen you 〈◊〉 the Pope asserting All power to be giuen to him as well in heauen as in earth but falsly For in Dist 9. there is no such Canon to be found Yea runne ouer all the Distinctions that are in Gratian yet you shal not finde it Indeede there is such a Canon in the second part of the Decree 22. Question 4. which begins thus Innocens but there it no mention of those words which are cited by you Dr. HARRIS Reply IS this beseeming the grauitie of Iesuiticall Fatherhood so childishly to snatch after flyes that is Escapes in Citations either of the transcriber or composer or correctour and sometimes peraduenture of the Author himselfe seeing those escapes are so frequent in most bookes printed The Glosse of the Canon law is so accurately and iudiciously written that the most learned Canonists circ it often for good Canon law as they doe the very text of the Canon law and yet the saide accurate Glosse faileth often in the Citations which it vseth whereof these two Escapes may serue for a taste viz. Dist 81. ca. Si qui verb. Emendent The Glosse citeth Dist. 22. ca. Nullus and yet in that Distinction there is no such chapter to be found Againe in Dist. 96. ca. Si Imperator verb. Definimus the Glosse citeth Cause 20. Quest 3. ca. Quasitum and yet there is no such chapter or Canon to be found in that third Question nor in that twentieth Cause If this Iesuite had written against the Authors of that learned Glosse he would haue strewed vpon them as he hath done vpon me in like case these his rhetoricall flowers or rather boyish scurrilities viz You cite the Canon falsely You haue not read the Canon You vnderstand nothing How ost shall I warne you to cite truly It irketh mee to warne you so often I see I doe but lose my my labour in desiring you to cite truely since I can obtaine nothing c. In Page 8. of my English Concord I cited Iewell his Apologie part 4. cap. 21. Dinis 7. collecting certaine reasons to proue that which I there alleaged Iewell for proofe of his collections cited First 9. q. 3. Neque ab Augusto Secondly Dist. 40. Si Papa Thirdly Dist. 19. Si Romanorum For my part the authoritie and most profound learning of that reuerend Father bred such a reuerence in mee towards him that I would not so much as examine the saide Citations but set them downe as I found them written in his booke Now the Iesuite in his Examination of the saide Citations finding some small slips in some of them bestowed vpon the Bishop through or by my sides these scurrile and disgracefull flowers
matter Ridiculously because vvhen as in the sixt of the Decretalls are found these vvordes Extrauag Cum inter de verborum significatione you out of meere ignorance and sluggishnesse sette downe these vvords Extrauag Cum inter Page 22. What is Iohn and Page all one with you Truelie children cannot be more foolish in citing then thus Vnlesse you profit better the Doctours of the Canon law vvill neuer admit you to the degree of a Batchelour Dr. HARRIS Reply EXcuse mee Christian Reader vttering the truth of this scornefull Iesuite in more tart manner here and there than otherwise is vsuall with me or fits my disposition If euer there were or be an ignorant slug trifling lie friuolous boyish lie scurrilous a lying forsooth Father Iesuite this Becane is one among such may bear the bell as I wil make it appeare before I dismisse him His boyish scurrilities are two In the former hee asketh whether Iohn and Page be all one with mee A question fitter to be made by a Petite school-boy to his fellow then by a Father Iesuite to an ancient Diuine In the second hee would cut-off all my hope to attaine the degree of Batchelour The Iesuite may knowe that I am a Doctour in Diuinity of 19. yeares standing it may bee as ancient Doctour as himselfe Howsoeuer that I dare boldly auerre this that Becane in comparison of Doctour Harris is in manner but an Abecedary scholler in the varietie of all good literature diuine and humane in all the liberall sciences and in all the learned tongues as he shal find to his shame if therein hee dare grapple with mee I must confesse and say with Saint Paul I vvas a foole to boast my selfe But the scurrilous disgracings of this seelie Iesuite haue enforced mee As his scurrilities so his lies are also two The former That I cited out of the Chapter Cuminter nonnullos Pag. 22. whereas in my paper book it was cited thus in short Extrauag 22. ca. Cum inter nonnullos But the transcriber corrector or compositor put-in Page And is not this a boyish feather for the boyish father-Iesuite to play withall As though such ouersights in printing are not vsuall This Iesuite himselfe Exam. pag. 98. will haue an escape of farre greater moment to passe in the printed books of Tertullian against Praxeas His second vntruth is That I cited it so falsly not of ouersight but of meere ignorance and dulnesse Alas for this feely ignorant and here impudently lying Iesuite vnto whom vpon pawne of all my books I will vndertake and performe it to read Lectures out of the Canon law in the studie whereof I haue spent more weeks yea moneths then this Iesuite hath bestowed houres His extreame ignorance in the Canon law is made Here apparant in these 3 points following First in that he confoundeth the 6. book of the Decretals with the Extrauagants whereas they are distinct parts of the Canon law which law is diuided into these 6. generall parts 1. The Decrees gathered by Gratian. 2. The Decretals compiled by Gregory 9. 3. The Sixt of the Decretals made by Boniface 8. 4. The Clementines by Pope Clement the fist 5. The Extrauagants of Iohn 22. 6. The Extrauagants common made by diuers Romane Bishops after the Sixt of the Decretals The second point of his ignorance is in confounding cap. Cum inter with cap. Cum inter nonnullos viz. as like as an apple is to an oyster The third point who in his ignorance is apparant is in citing thus Extrauag Cum inter Ioan. 22. Deverborum significatione When as the Canon or chapt Cum inter is to be found neither in that Title Deverborum significatione nor in all the Extrauagants of Ioan. 22. Now therfore the Iesuit is to answere mee to those fine questions touching the three points of his verie grosle ignorance in the Canon law heere manifested 1 Whether the Decretalls Extrauagants be all one with him 2 Whether Boniface and Iohn be all one with him 3 Whether 8. and 22. be all one 4 Whether cap. Inter. and cap. Inter nonnullos be all one 5 Whether a chapter of a Title extant and a chapter of the same Title not extant be all one with him And then let the indifferent Readr iudge whether any child could be more foolish in citing than he and how vndeseruedly he obtained his degree of Doctorship The truth is that place viz. Extrauag Ioan. 22. cap. Inter nonnullos in gloss was cited by mee to shew that Kings receiue their power non simply of the Pope but more then so viz. of the Romish Bishop as of Their Lord God the Pope The Iesuit Eudaemon Ioannes writing in defence of the Iesuit-traytor Garnet saith he could not find in any printed booke of Extra Ioan. 22. those words Our Lord God the Pope Yet afterwards finding those verie words he ingenuously confessed the same I knowe not neither doe I much care whether Becane haue like ingenuitie in him but sure I am these verie words are in that Gloss Printed in folio at Paris Auno 1513. Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam conditorem dicti decreti non potuisse statuere proat statuit hareticum censeretur To belieue that our Lord God the Popo c. Is not this pretie heathenish blaspnemie The heathen called their Emperour Our Lord God Domitian The Papists call their Primar Our Lord God the Pope English Concord BEcane in his Iarre and sixt Question demaunded Whether the King by his Primacie may call CouÌ„cells and presede in them And I in my sixt Question demaund Whether the Pope by his Primacie may call Councells and prese de in them I instanced in two generall Councells the one of Constance wherein three Popes Iohn 24. Gregory 12. and Benedict 13. were deposed The other of Basil in which Pope Eugen. 4. was depriued of his Popedom and another chosen in his roome But this the Iesuit silently passeth ouer though it may happely rend the Popes hart-strings in-sunder English Concord Becane in his Iarre and 7 Question demanded Whether the King can make Ecclesiasticall lawes And I in my Concord 7 Question demand Whether the Pope can make lawes Ecclesiasticall disannull lawes Temporall Heerein I produced 4 Ecclesiasticall lawes against the Pope and his Primacy The first Dist 99. ca. Primae That the Bishop of the first Sea or Seat be not called Prince of Priests or high Priest or any such like but onely The Bishoppe of the first Sea neither let the Bishop of Rome himselfe be called Vniuers all Bishop The second Cyprian in Concâ—lio Carthagi Concil CoÌ„stantin 6. cap. 36. Concil Afric ca â—2 That no Bishop should make himselfe Bishop of Bishops or Papa that is Pater Patrum The third That the Bishop of Constantinople should haue equall authority with the Bishop of Rome The fourth That they should not be receiued to the CoÌ„munion of any within Africk who held Appeales lawful to any Iudgements beyond
matter of the Kings Primacy or Supremacie and that Becane throughout his Iarre striueth onely about words or syllables Against which kind of contention St. Paul writeth thus vnto Timothy 2. Tim. 2. ver 14. Protest before the Lord that they striue not about vvords vvhich is to no profit but to the peruerting of the hearers Vnto all this in my Concord from page 12. vnto page 19 Becane in his Examin answereth not one word ⧠Becans Iarre The I. Question Whether the King of England haue any Primacie in the Church 1. THE first Iarre or contention then is concerning the name of Primacy Many of our Aduersaries admit this Name but M. Richard Tompson had rather haue it called Supremacy then Primacie His reason is because Primacy doth signifie a power of the same Order Now the King hath not power in the Church of England of the same Order with Bishops and Ministers but a power of higher and different Order from them Ergo hee hath not the Primacy but the Supremacy The vvords of M. Tompson pag. 33. of his booke are these Nos in Anglico nostro idiomate belliores longè sumus quà m per inopiam Latini sermonis nobis Latinè esselicuit NoÌ„ enim dicimus The Kings Primacy Regis Primatum sed The Kings Supremacy Regis Suprematum Quo vocabulo nos quoque deinceps vtemur Multùm enim differunt Primatus Suprematus Illud enim Potestatem eiusdem Ordinis videtur significare hoc non item Wee in our English tongue doe speake much more properly then vvee can doe in the Latine speech through the penury thereof For wee doe not say The Kings Primacy but The Kings Supremacie which word 〈…〉 For that Primacy and Supremacie doe greatly differ Primacie seeming to signifie a power of the same Order but Supremacie not so 2. Out of which words wee gather two things The one that all Englishmen vvho vse the Name of Primacie doe either erre or speake improperly if vve beleeue M. Tompson For if they speake propertie seeing that the vvord Primacy doth properly siguifie a Power of the same Order they doe plainely vnderstand that the King hath Power of the same order with the Bishops and Ministers of his Church But this now according to M. Tompsons opinion is an error wherefore either they doe erre or speake improperly 3. The other is that a Coniecture may be made of the thing signified from the word signifying The vvord Supremacie is a new and lately inuented vvord vnknowne to the Ancient Fathers not vsed in Scriptures vnheard of in the Christian world Moreouer vvhat doth it signifie The Supreme power forsooth of the King in the Church Wherefore this is new also Surely if the ancient Fathers either Latine or Greeke had knowne this power they would haue found out at least som word whereby to haue expressed the same properly But this it seemes none of them did English Concord Page 20 IS Becane the Iesuite become a captious cauiller at syllables Pri. and Sapre Our Soueraigue Lord K. Iames translated the english word Supremacy a Apol. â—ur fid pag. 54 into the Latin word Primatum and Mr. Thomson translated the same English Supremacy into his Latine word Suprematum Here is full agreement in the thing it selfe and will the Iesuit striue about words or diuâ—rs names of the selfe same thing Certainely a Christian king is neither Presbiter Priest nor b August Q ex viroq Testa mixt Q. 101 chiefe of Presbiters that is Bishop nor chiefe among the Bishops that is Archbishoppe nor chiefe of Archbishops that is Patriarke nor chiefe of Patriarkes to weet Pope and in that sense he is no Primate or hath Primacy but he is the onely Supreme gouernour of all Presbiters Bishops Archbishops Patriarkes and Popes within his dominions whose supreme gouernment we call in English Supremacy or after the Latin word which our king vâ—ed Primacy and acknowledge the same by our oath thereof taken But now let vs attend these two goodly consequences which the Iesuite maketh 1. R. Thomson hath deuised a new Latin name to expresse the selfe same thing and the selfe same English name of the same thing Therefore the thing it selfe is new The Fathers of the Nicene Councell deuised a new name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to expresse the Deitie of Christ or Christ in respect of his Deity Therefore is Christ his Deitie new or Christ in respect of his Deitie new Take heede Becane of such a consequent Thus rather perhaps the sequell would runne more roundly The name Iesuits is new Therefore deseruedly may the Iesuits be called as blasphemous so new sectaries Indeede if the ancient Fathers had acknowledged the power of Vniuersall Bishoppe they would haue found at least one word whereby to haue expressed the same properly especially considering that if we will beleeue Gregory the great Gregor li. 4. Ep it 76.78.80 et lib. 7 Epist 79 To assume that arrogant profane sacrilegious Antichristian name of Vniuersall Bishoppe is all one and the same as to be the king of pride Lucifer who set himselfe before his bretheren to be an Apostate from the faith and the forerunner of Antichrist In the Canon law we read thus Dist 99 Primx Let not the Bishop of the first Sea be called the Prince of Priests or high Priest or any the like but onely the Bishop of the first Sea but let not the very Bishop of Rome be called Vniuersall Bishop Let Becane tell me which of the ancient Fathers either acknowledged the Popes supreme power ouer the whole Church or in proprietie of speech and as proper vnto him called the same Primacy touching which Chrysostom as hee is cited in the Canon law Dist 40 Multi writeth thus Whosoeuer shall desire Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heauen neither shall he be numbred among the serwants of Christ who doth handle or contend for Primacy His second consequence is this Mr. Thomson deuised a new word or name whereby to expresse in Latin more fully and properly as be tooke it the English word Supremacy Therefore whosoeuer doe not call Supremacy in Latin Suprematum speake improperly Fy how hang these together Forsooth please it the Iesuites as scattered broomeshaggs To conclude Becane himselfe Quest 12. page 43. brings in Mr. Thomson speaking thus Primacy is a royall good thing or the Prerogatiue royall vvhich can not be taken away by Ecclesiasticall censure neither is it absurd that an heathen king should be Primate of the Church Therefore according to Becane his dispute here They vvho ascribe Primacy to the king and call him Primate of the Church erre not but speake properly BECAN Exam. Page 106 YOu say this strife is about the name It is so I vrge nothing else But of they strine as you say where is the concord which you promise In the very beginning you despaire of concord And of you cannot dissolue the strife about the name what shall become
of the thing it selfe Dr. HARRIS Reply I Did not say our Writers did striue about the namer but I asked the Iesuit why he would brawl about the name when the thing it selfe was fully agreed vpon Here then in the beginning of this Iesuits examination wee haue him taken in a grosse vntruth For in my English Concord chap. 1. I prooued an vniforme consent of all not onely in the matter that is the kings Supreme Gouernment ouer all persons and in all Causes Ecclesiasticall or ciuill within his dominions but also in the very English name thereof to weet Supremacy vnto which selfe same thing and selfe same name of the same thing all our Protestant English Writers haue sworne and in our publike prayers in pulpit we solemnlie professe our allowance thereof and our concord therein as being our Kings most iust title As for the Latine name Primatus into the which the English word Supremacy is translated we all agree therein also For Becane Question 12. page 43 brings in Mr. Thomson calling the kings Supremacy in Latine Primatum and the king in respect thereof Primatem How hard then is this Iesuites forehead affirming that I granted discord in the name to be among vs Indeede Mr. Thomson in regard of the Papists who vnderstanding no Primacy but Sacerdotall that is Episcopall for by their Canon law all Patriarks are Primates and all Primates Patriarks so all Primates Sacerdotall clamour that we ascribing Primatum Primacy to our King yeeld him Iurisdiction Sacerdotall that is Episcopall to reforme their misconceit therein wisheth there were made some Latine word as Suprematus or the like to expresse fully our English word Supremacie thereby to cut off all Popish and childish cauills and to let them vnderstand that we by Primacie after the Latin word as it is now translated or Supreme Gouernment of the Church called in our English tongue Supremacy meane not Ecclesiastical Supreme gouernment Sacerdotall or Episcopall but onely Regall In England our two Archbishoppes are called Primates as being superiour gouernours Sacerdotall ouer all the Bishoppes and other inferiour clergie men within their Archbishopriks in causes Ecclesiasticall but because our king is supreme gouernour euen ouer those archbishops and all other persons Ecclesiasticall and Temporall and in all causes Temporall and Ecclesiasticall within his dominions wee call in English that his supreme gouernment not Primacy but Supremacie as if it were Supre-Primacy or aboue Primacie Therefore I had iust cause to aske the Iesuite why his friuolous fatherhood wold contend about names when there was and is so full agreement in the verie thing it selfe In regard whereof S. Paul depainteth this Becane as hee sheweth himselfe here to be in his orient colour thus 1. Tim. 6.4 He is puft vp and knoweth nothing but doteth about questions and strife of words vvhereof commeth enuy strife rayling and euill surmising euerie word falling so pat vpon the Iesuites head as it S. Paul had pointed him out with the finger Indeede Becane in asking me how I vvill concord them in the matter vvhen I see and grant varietie of the names prooueth those words of S. Paul to fit him well viz. That he is puft vp and knowes nothing For here he knoweth not which countrey swaynes do know that there may be and is identity of matter or person when there is variety of names of that matter or person But because I doe commiserate his fatherhoods ignorance herein I will vouchsafe to teach him this one lesson taken out of their owne Canon law which in Dist. 80. ca. Loca in the Gloss schooleth him thus Idem est Primas et Patriarcha sicut et dicit lex differentia tantum nominis est inter pignus et Hypothecam A Primate and a Patriarke is one and the same as the law faith the difference is onely in the name of Pignus and Hypotheca in Latin in English of pledge and pledge and so of these two words in Latine Primatus and Suprematus in English as wee in England vnderstand it Supremacy and Supremacy And the saide Canon law Dist. 99. ca. de Primatibus in the very text it selfe schooleth him more fully thus De Primatibus quaeritur quem gradum in Ecclesia obtineant an in aliquo a Patriarchis differant Primates et Patriarchae diuer sorum sunt nominum sed eiusdem officy Primates and Patriarks haue diuers names but one office so the kings Supremacy may in Latine haue diuers names but it is one and the selfe same Regall office BECAN Exam. Page 106 BVt if Thomson be heard They who say the king hath Primaâ—â—â— Primacy of the Church signifie that hee hath power of the same order with Bishops and Pastors But this is a great errour not onelie in the word but in the thing it selfe Therefore they erre not onely in the word but in the very thing who speake so What answere you to this you plainely dissemble Dr. HARRIS Reply I Answere plainely and truely first that Mr. Thomson said that the word Primatus did signifie power of the same order with Bishops onely in the Papists sense and vnderstanding but nothing lesse then so in the Proâ—estants sense who meane by Primatus Primacie power Regall only and not Episcopall In whose sense Mr. Thomson himselfe calleth that Regal power Primatum as was shewed by Becane himself producing Mr. Thomsons owne words Q. 12. Pa. 43. Therfore they who speake so erre neither in word nor in the thing it selfe Secondly I answere plainely without dissimulation that the Iesuites mouth here runnes ouer with a palpable vntruth since it is most certainely true that not any one Protestant English Writer calling the kinges Supremacy in Latine Primatum signifieth or would haue signified thereby that the king hath power Sacerdotall with Bishops and Pastors Indeede the Papists did and doe seeke thereby openly to scandalize vs as though we ascribed to our King Queen power Sacerdotall or Episcopall in the Church which moued Queen Elizabeth of blessed and famous memorie in the later end of her Iniunctions to commaund this explanation following to be published in Print with this Title AN ADMONITION TO SIMple men deceiued by the malitious Her Maiestie forbiddeth all her subiects to giue eare or credit to such peruerse and malitious persons which most sinisterly and malitiously labour to notifie to her louing subiects how by the words of the oath of Supremacie it may be collected that the Kings or Queens of this Realm possessioners of the Crown may challenge authority and power of Ministery of Diuine offices in the Church wherein her said subiects be much abused by such euill disposed persons For certainely her Maiestie neither doth ne euer will challenge any other authoritie then that which was of ancient time due to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme That is to say vnder God to haue the Soueraignety rule ouer all maner persons borne within these her Maiesties Dominions Countries of what estate
either Ecclesiasticall or Temporall soeuer they be so as no forraine power shal or ought to haue any superiority ouer the. And if any person that hath conceiued any other sense of the form of the said Oath shal accept the same Oath with this interpretation sense or meaning her Maiestie is well pleased to accept euery such in that behalfe as her good obedient subiects and shall acquite them of all manner penalties contained in the said Act against such as shal peremptorily or obstinatly refuse to take the same Oath What could be written more plainly and fully against this Iesuit not onely to stop his mouth heerin but also to take vp at once his whole Iarre following euen by the very rootes BECAN Exam. Pag. 107 THose vvords of mine Thomson deuised a new name of this thing Supremacy Suprematus therefore the thing is now I did not call a consequent but a coniecture Againe you are contrarie to your selfe reasoning thus The name of Iesuit is new therfore the thing is new If the consequent hold in this why not in the other c. And further it is ridiculous to compare one Thomson with so many Fathers of the Nicen Councell and to affirme that lawful for him which was lawfull for them Dr. HARRIS Reply HEre haue we the Iesuit lying in his byrdlime Wherin the more he struggleth the worse he is enwrapped and whence he seeks to go out by going out of his wits saying it was his coniecture from no consequent of reason As though euery coniecture reasonable doth not leane vpon some reason probable If therefore his coniecture was grounded vpon no reason it followeth that he with his coniecture was vnreasonable But with what face vnlesse hee be extreamely ignorant in the very petite rules of Logick can hee deny it to bee a consequent standing vpon two Propositions reduced by himselfe into forme Enthymematicall The later the Conclusion inferred vpon the former containing the Medium in it viz. a new name imposed with the particle-note of inference or consequence viz. Igitur therefore hauing his forerunner-watch-word colligimus wee gather giuing warning of a consequent to follow Now then draw out this reason into his full syllogisticall forme it will runne and can runne no otherwise than thus What thing soeuer hath a new name imposed vpon it that thing is new Hence the Iesuit assumed thus But the Kings Supreme power in the Church hath a new name Suprematus imposed vpon it Ergo the Kings Supremacy is new And I thence assumed thus But Christ in respect of his Deity had in the Nicen Councell a new name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imposed vpon him Ergo Christ in respect of his Deity or Christs Deity was then new The Iesuit beeing invery great streights and not able to beare the stroake of this argument for the former or Maior proposition is his own The later proposition called the Minor or Assumption hee durst not deny The forme is rightly syllogisticall To deny the Counclusion is against all rules dialecticall To grant it is hereticall creepeth into a bench-hole and then laugheth saith It is ridiculous to compare one Thomson a priuat man vvith so many Fathers in the Nicen Councell representing the Church that it should be as lawfull for Thomson as for them to impose a new name Could any man imagin that Martin Becan a father Iesuit and a publique Reader of Diuinitie should be so vnlearned a slugge as hee palpably heere shewes himselfe to be Truly if a Cambridge Sophister had aunswered so he should haue beene either corrected in the Schooles or hissed out of the Schooles For let the like arguments be framed thus Euery man is a liuing creature The king is a man Therefore the King is a liuing creature And thus Euery man is a liuing creature The Kings scullian is a man Ergo the Kings scullian is a liuing creature If any silly fellow vsing Becanes words should with Becan answer thus It is ridiculous to compare the Kings scullian vvith the King should he not as a ridiculous asse be ludibriously exploded These as the other syllogismes respect not Quis who is a man or who gaue the new name but Quid whether hee be a man whether it be a new name imposed Nay rather thence the argument runneth vpon the Iesuit with greater force thus If the imposition of a new name vpon a thing by a priuat man shall inferre the thing to be new much more shall the imposition of a new name vpon a thing by publique authority conclude that thing to be new Now it is time that I answere his Question heere proposed viz. Why I vse that consequent against the Iesuits thus The name of the Iesuiticall Sect is new Therefore that Sect is new which my selfe misliked I answer If he had well obserued those my words before going viz. â—llud fortasse rectius hee should easilie haue perceiued that I misliked that consequence as it is indeed most childish and ridiculous yet by the way of Sarcasmus ironically I vsed it to thump Iesuits there-withall because their Sect the name of their Sect is new indeed BECAN Exam. Pag. 108. THe name of Iesuits is as ancient as the name of Christians By both those names one and the same thing is signified But the name of Caluinists Hugonots c. is new Heerein peraduenture the comparison is fit That as those Fathers denised a new word or name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abolish the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Arians vsed so Thomson deuised a new name Suprematus to abolish the name Primatus which the King Burhill and other Academiks vse And again as the Nicen Fathers reputed all for hereiticks vvho vsed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Thomson should account those to be hereticks that vse the word Primatus But what Concord is this Rather a huge Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply THe vniforme concord in the thing it selfe name of the thing hath bin heertofore in this booke demonstrated sufficiently The Iesuits eyes therfore seeming to see heer an huge discord are as Samsons foxes tyed together by the tayles within his head but separatly set in his face looking asquint which appeareth the rather to be true because hee seemes heere to behold things and like which are eucry way vnlike As first those Fathers did not deuise a new word for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was long before onely they ascribed it as a new attribute to Christ in respect of his Godhead but Mr. Thomsons word Suprematus is spanne new Secondly the Fathers did not giue both those name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto Christ but Master Thomson calleth the Kings Supreme Gouernment of this Church both Suprematum and Primatum Thirdly the Fathers held them for hereticks who did vse the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Becane heere saith but Mr. Thomson holdeth our King the Bishop of Ely and others
our vniforme agreement in truth touching the kings Supremacy to be a seeming discord So that a short Reply to all the rest will be sufficient with reference vnto this yea euen to this one distinction of Regall and Sacerdotall rightly vnderstood ⧠Becans Iarre II. Question Whether that this Primacy which the King hath in the Church be Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall 1. THis is now another Iarre Vnder King Henry the 8. and King Edward this Primacy was alwaies called Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall as it appeareth out of Doctour Sanders whose words are these Caluinus Henrici Primatum Ecclesiasticum oppugnauit Caluin did oppugne King Henries Ecclesiasticall Primacy Againe Episcopus Roffensis quòd Heurici Primatum Ecclesiasticum nollet confiteri ad mortem producitut The Bishop of Rochester because he denied King Henries Ecclesiasticall Primacy was brought forth to die c. Andagaine Multi in custodijs propter negatum Ecclesiasticum Regis Primatum detenti Many were kept in prison for denying the Kings Ecclesiasticall Primacy In like manner Henricus mandauit vt filius in fide Catholica educaretur excepto Primatus Ecclesiastici titulo quem ei reliquit King Henry commanded that his Sonne Edward should be brought vp in the Catholike faith excepting the title of Ecclesiasticall Primacy which he left vnto him And yet more Stephanus Wintoniensis Edmundus Londinensis Cuthbertus Dunelmensis Nicolaus Wigorniensis Datus Cicestrensis Episcopi timide restirerunt pueri Regis Primatui spirituali imò simpliciter subscripserunt The Bishops of Winchester London Dutham Worcester Chichester did fearefully with stand the Spirituall Primacy of the Childe King nay they absolutely subscribed thereunto 2. Vnder Queene Mary that succeeded to her Brother King Edward in the Crowne this Title of Primacy was taken away in a Parliament held at London as witnesseth Iacobus Thuanus in the 9. book of the History of his time in these words Antiquatus ijsdem Comiths Primatus Ecclesiastici titulus The title of Ecclesiasticall Primacy was abolished in that Parliament The same was againe restored vnder Queen Elizabeth as testifieth the same Author in his 15. booke c. 3. But now in these our dayes vnder King Iames this matter is called into question Some not daring to call it Primacy Ecclesiasticall and spirituall but only Primacy belonging to Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall matters amongst whom is M. Doctor Andrewes or the Kings Chaplaine in his Torture of Tortus pag. 90. where he writeth thus Neque verò quoad spiritalia alium nos Regi Primatum tribuimus neque quoad temporalia alium Pontifici detrahimns quà m debemus Prior ille Regibus omni iure postertor hic Pontifici nullo iure debetur Neither doe we attribute one Primacy concerning spirituall matters vnto the King nor doe wee take from the Pope any other Primacy concerning temporall matters then vvee ought to doe The first is due vnto Kings by all right the later no way pertaineth to the Pope c. I vvhen I first read these vvords in the Chaplaines booke did thinke that hee had taken these two towit Primacy spirituall and belonging to spirituall as also these other Primacy temporall and belonging to temporall for one and the same thing But now it seemes that the Defenders and Interpreters of the Chaplaine to wit M. Tompson and M. Burhill do take it otherwise For so writeth M. Burhill pag. 55. of his Booke concerning this point Non dicit Primatum spirituatem sed Primatum quoad spiritualia deberi Regibus omni ture He the Chaplame doth not say that Spirituall Primacy but Primacu belonging to Spirituall is due vnto Kings by all right c. And theeag une pag. 133. in fine Etsi enim Regi tribuimus Primuth in Ecclesia non tamen Primatum spiritualent aut Eâ—â—â—siassicum ei tribuimus sed potius Primatum quoad les personas spirituales Ecclesiasticas For although we giue vnto the King Priâ—acy ouer the Church yet doe wee not gine vnto him Primacy spirituall or Ecclesiasticall but rathor Primacy belonging to things and persons spiritual and Ecclesiasticall c. And M. Tompson pag. 31. of his Booke also saith Non dixit Primatum Ecclesiasticum aut Spiritualem quasi formaliterintelligat sed quoad Spiritualia idest obiectiuè materialiter The Chaplaine said not the Primacy Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall as though hee vnder stood it form ally but for so much as it belong eth to Spiritual that is to say obiectiuely and materially c. In which sense the same Author pag. 95. saith Dicimus Regem gubernare quidem Ecclesiastica sed non Ecclesiasticè We say indeede that the King gouerneth Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically 4. So as if you aske in England whether the King hath Primacy Ecclesiasticall or no It will be answered thus King Henry K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth had Ecclesiasticall Primacy K. Iames hath not Primacy Ecclesiasticall but onely so far forth as it belongeth to Ecclesiasticall things Hath then his Maiestie that now is lesse then they had So it seemes Is then the Kings Primacy in England so nipped and pared in so short a space So they say Is it then almost decayed and at anend I doubt not but it is What is the cause Hearben to the common saying What 's quickly got is quickly lost as also to that of the holy Scritture Si est ex hominibus consilium hoc aut opus dissoluetur Act. 5. 38. If this deuise or worke be of men it will be dissolued English Concord THE Primacy or Supremacy Regall Page 14 vnder K. Henry 8. K. Edward 6. Q. Elizabeth and K. Iames hath been is and will be one and the same That is to say Supreme Power Regalin the church Iewel Defons par 6 ca. 9. Duasi 1. et 2. wherby Kings may not Burne incense as Ozias did nor rush vpon Episcopall function nor preach the Gospell nor administer the Sacraments to the people nor bind nor loose The which with som of our Writers spoke of by Becane in this Question is to gouerne Ecclesiasticall things Ecclesiastically but execute those things only which belong vnto them as kings to performe that kinglie function therein which Dauid Salomon Ezechias Tortura Tort. pa. 381 Iosias and other of the most noble and most religious kings haue done and which was euer lawfull fora king to doe or particularly if you had rather thus The right and power by Regall authoritie to make Church lawes as that GOD should not be blasphemed a Dan. 3. 29 That God should be pacified in a fast b Iona. 3.7 and honoured in a festiuall day c Ester 9.26 and all such as we read to haue been made in the Code Authentiks and Capitulars by Constantine Theodosius Iustinian and Carolus Magnus Moreouer to delegate such as should iudge of the lawes so made d 2. Chr. 19.8 Further to binde his subiects by oath to keep those lawes e 2. Chro. 15 14. et 34. 32 yeain
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
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
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
large That an Abbesse may haue a Praelature and dignity with administration and a right to visit euen without the Monastery which right she may also commit to others And the Bishop Bitontine very lately holdeth and proueth the same in his works dedicated to Pope Clement 8. See the very Text. Sext. de Elect ca. Indemnitatibus prouing the same Barthol in l. 1. cod de dign lib. 12. n. 4. saith that Abbesses haue dignity with administration not onely ouer their Nunnes but also without for that they haue Castles c. as Abbats haue dignity with administration Sext. de Priuilegijs ca. Apostolicae And therefore by a ruled case among the Doctors grounded vpon ca. Attendentes in Clemētin de stat Monachor they ought to visit or to commit the visitation to others Extra con ca Vas electionis Out of these the like Steph. d' Aluin ca. 2. sect 12. of the power of Abbesses concludeth that Abbesses Prioresses claustrall by a certaine right constitutions and rule of S. Benedict from whence all the rest in a manner are drawne as also by custome haue authority and power ordinary spirituall and Ecclesiasticall ouer those that are vnder them And cap. 3. sect 8. That Abbesses Prioresses ex cardin concil 17. cal 4. bj cap. Dilecta and the Gloss adioyned haue all administration as well spirituall as temperall of those monasteriall Nuns saue only of those things whereof a woman is vneapable to weet of Order Now touching the power which Abbesses haue to excommunicate Because Tho. Aqui. in 4. sent dist 18. q. 2. art 2. in corpore writeth thus Excōmunicatio non est actus clanis directe sed magis exterior is iudicij Excommunication is not an act of the key directly but rather of external court Nauarre lib. quinto consil 1. de sentent Excom concludeth that a vvoman by priuiledge may also excommunicate Tabiena and Arnilla verbo Abbatissae nu 3. besides Panormitan Astensis and others That an Abbess may cōmand the Priests her subiects to excōmunicate their rebellious obstinat Nunnes or to absolue them Whereupon Steph. d'Aluin cap. 3. sect 12. concludeth thos Proinde omnis habens Iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam et si non habeat clauem ordinis potest excommunicare ex D. Thoma Therefore all hauing Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction may excommunicate according to Tho. Aquin. Now that they haue Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction witnes Panormitun in ca. De stat Monachor Iason consil l 40. lib. 2. Flaminius deresig lib. 3. q. 12. n. 12. saying Dispositum iur is in Abbate habere locum in Abbatissis What right Abbats haue Abbesses haue the same And againe Panormitan Arnilla Flaminius write That Abbesses exempt haue right or iurisdiction to visit the places and persons subiect to them and that they haue Clerks subiect vnto them Pleno iure that is vnder their gouernment as well Ecclesiasticall as Temporall Now say Card. Parisius and Flaminius Out of the right to visit or from visiting by her selfe or her deputie followeth her Iurisdiction to depriue depose correct punish and chastise And to haue them subiect to her Pleno iure by full right doth plainely import Iurisdiction Depriuation Visitation and Correction To conclude this point If priuat men and vvomen be capable of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction If Abbesses haue and execute the same in collating Benefices instituting suspending depriuing visiting iudging crimes and imposing and receiuing purgations of Bishops lastly excommunicating and absoluing according to Popish Canons Canonists Custome and practise among them with what face doth this Iesuit or any other Papist scandalize our Kings or Queenes for taking or vs for ascribing vnto them Supreme Ecclesi Iurisdiction yet not that wherby our Kings or Queens may institute Clerks excōmunicate or absolue them oras King Iames and late Queen Elizabeth haue in their writings published to the whole world Therefore most impudently false is the Iesuit heere asserting that Queen Elizabeth had power to excommunicate Touching Suarez let this Iesuit know that Steph. D' Aluin hath refuted in this point a farre greater better learned man then Suarez is to weet Franciscus a Victoria in his Relect. 2. de potest Ecclesiae and shewed the practise of the Church to be as heere hath beene declared Christian Reader I haue beene much heere in this point because it is of that moment and so remarkable for recompence in replying to the remainder of Becanes Examivation I promise to bee short the rather because in truth it is but froth not deseruing any other answere at all but that which is already set down in my English Concord ⧠Becans Iarre VI. Question Whether the King of his owne Authority can assemble or call together Councells 1. NOvv follow the Iarres and debates of our Aduersaries concerning the Offices and Functions of the Kings Primacy and they are sixe in number which may be disputed of The first is of assembling or calling together of Synods The second of enacting of Ecclesiasticall lawes The third of conferring or bestowing of Benefices The fourth of creating and deposing of Bishops The fift is about Excommunication The sixt and last is about the decision and determining of Controuersies The question then is vvhether these offices belong to the Kings Primacy I will speake a vvord of each in order 2. First it may bee demaunded vvhether the King by vertue of his Primacy may of his owne authority call or assemble together Synods therein sit as chiefe head This was certainly perswaded that it might be done in the time of King Henry K. Edward and Queene Elizabeth but now vnder King Iames the matter is called into question M. Salclebridge pag. 121. affirmeth that be can dot it in these vvords Christiani Principes in Regnis suis cum laude propria auctoritate Synodos conuocarunt Constitutiones condiderunt causas audierunt cognouerunt Christian Princes haue with great praise assembled Synods by their owne authority in their Kingdoms haue made Constitutions heard and examined causes c. And again pag. 146. Rex Angliae potest Synodos indicere omnium Ordinum Oecumenicas et in ijsdem praesidere The King of England saith he may assemble Generall Councells of all Orders or degrees and therein sit as President or Chiefe c. And pag. 155. hee saith in like manner Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate deiure Synodos conuocarunt The Kings of England haue by their owne supreme authority and by right assembled Synods c. 3. Now Ma Tooker in this point is very variable one vvhile contradicting himselfe another while others And this is manifest out of the diuerse testimonies he produceth The first is pag. 37. where hee hath these words A quibus magis aequum est indici Concilia quà mabillis penes quos semper fuit authoritas ea congregandi Cùm autem communiter triplex ponisoleat Concilium Generale Prouinclale Dioecesanū Concilium Generale solius Papae iussu celebrari vultis sed nequeillud nisi ab
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
vvhether Bishopâ—ickes or Archbishoprickes throughout the whole circuits of their Kingdomes For this truely belongeth vnto those whose office it is to dispose there of to wit to the Compreninciall Bishops who haue power to consecrate the saide persons on vvhome they bestowe them Indeede the Kings Maiesty notwithstanding hath this right with vs in England which an inferiour and subordinate power also hath to wit right so nominate and present vnto benefices c. 3. Behotde here a triple Iarre or discord betweene these two Authors and this in a daily and vulges watter The first is that M. Henry Salclebridge saith that the collasion of benefices belongeth to the Kings of England in that they he the Primates of the Church of England M. Tooker saith to the contrary that it belongeth not to Kings at all but to Bishops The second Iarre is that M. Salclebridge saith that Kings by their owne authority haue conferred benefices M. Tooker saith that they neuer do nor haue done The third is that M. Salclebridge saith that Kings by vertuâ— of their supreme Ecclesiasticall Iâ—risdiction may present 〈◊〉 benefices M. Tooker â—â—â—rrâ—th that in this point Kings hauene more right then their subiects and other inferiour persons for so he saith Hoc habet iuris Regia Maiestas quod minor subordinata potestas habet The Kings Maiesty hath in this point of conferring beneficer the same right that an inferiour and subordinate power bath c. Whether of these two then should King Iames belieue if he had a fat benefice or an Archbishopricke now to bestow English Concord HEere is also a Iesuiticall trifling altercation about words Hainric by collation of Benefices vnderstandeth Presentation Nominations to Benefices the very Donation of Benefices Doctor Tooker thereby concclueth the Institution of Presbyters and the consecration of Bishops Dr Tooker acknowledgeth the Kings Presentation Nomination Donation Hainric by no meanes attributeth to the king either Institution or Consecration as both of them being proper go the Bishops The Kings presenthig of his Clearks to the Bishoppe for institution of them into such Benefices with Cure as respect the Kings hereditary right of Patronage is nor much different from the presentations made by his subiects who haue the like right of Patronage vnlesse it be herein viz that the King by his writ may and doth compell the Bishoppe especially after recoucry by Quare Impedie opposing himselfe therein to institute fitte Clarks presented by his Maiesty or by other Patrons to the said Bishoppe But the presentation of certaine Benefices with Cure after they haue continued void of any Incumbent for the space of 18 Monethes appertaines vnto the King by way of lapse as vnto the Supreme Ordinarie in his Dominions or the only Supreme Gouernour of the Church therein and that by the common lawes of England as is expresly shewed in Becano-Baculus Page 142. 150. Moreouer there are certaine Benefices with Cure called Donatiues which admit no Institution at all of these the King by his owne Donation onely without any either Episcopall Institution or Archidiaconall Induction makes the Clearks rightfull possessours Doctor Tooker knoweth well these triuial and vulgar matters as Becane here calleth them and beares in minde our most learned Soueraigne his words in his Monitory Preface touching the Collation of Benefices Page 33. How often haue the Kings of France withstood the Pope in such sort that they would not yeeld vnto him the very Collation of Benefices And those other words concerning Bishoprickes receiued from Kings and Emperours Page 29. Euen the Pope also with all obedience and submission did acknowledge himself to hold his Popedom of the Emperour And Page 31. He that peaceably is desirous to know in what sort the Bishops of Spaine Scotland England Hungary by ancient Institution euen vntill moderne innouation came in and were inuested by Kings with quiet possession of their temporals purely and intirely he shall finde the same by searching the liues of the Fathers and by reading Histories Walthram Naumburg lib. de Inuestit Episc Behold then how a threefold Concord ariseth out of that threefold Iarre which the Iesuit faineth The first Concord Hainric saith that the conferring of certain Benefices belongs to the Kings of England by way of lapse as they are the chief Gouernours of the Church of England Doctor Tooker affirmeth that the Collation of Benefices lying void of any Incumbents aboue 18. Monethes appertaineth to the King onely by way of lapse and not to the Bishops or Archbishops or to any other subiect The second Hainric saith that Kings by their own authority haue oftentimes giuen Benefices to weet Donatiues Tooker auerreth that the King may giue 40. 50. or moe within the compasse of one yeare if so many fall void The third Hainric saith that by the lawes of England Kings because of their Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction present to free Chappels and that none of their subiects to weet Bishoppes or Archbishops haue authority to visit the said Chappels Dr. Tooker instructed by the same lawes auoucheth that Kings onely haue that authority and no subiects but by the Kings grant Finally if the hungry Iesuite who mindeth onely his meat that is far Benefices or Archbishoprickes can produce but one little either word of Scripture or sentence in Ancient Father whereby it may appeare that the Collation of Benefices belonged to the Primate of the Christian Church as Primate let him haue the victory But if he cannot vnlesse hee be more then impudent let him seale vp his lips and recognize those words of the Parisian Aduocate Arg. 11. Page 25. That of Luk. 9. The Sonne of man hath not vvhere to rest his head is Equiualent with this The Church by Diuine right hath no Territory BECAN Exam. Page 173 SMall Benefices without Cure may be conferred vpon Clearks which are neither Priests nor Bishops Therefore Tooker by Collation doth not meane Institution or Sacration Againe hee saith that the King of England hath no other right then to name or present but to giue or conferre is more then to name and present you faine Tooker by Collation to vnder stand Instuntion or Consecration Therefore you dissent from Tooker Hainric saith the Collation of Benefices belongeth to the King of England as Primate of the Church of England but this you deny for you bid mee shew out of Scripture or Ancient Father that the Collation of Benefices belongeth to the Primate of the Church Not I but Hainric who affirmed it must shew that It is my part only to shew that English Writers dissent in this point This I haue done let me therefore haue the victory Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere the Iesuit is as a chased timorous Hart which hauing his deadly wound giuen him flyeth out a while straggling from his fellowes but feeling decay of his vitall spirits and lifes bloud runs into the brakes to hide his head and there to perish Becane in his verball but in no sort reall confutation of his
Maiesties Apologie and Preface Monitory sets down the Conferring of Benefices as one of the proper offices of the Supreme Primate Ecclesiasticall as hee vnderstood it Sacerdotall or Episcopall Hainric in his Becano-Baculus tolde the Iesuite that although by none either Scripture or Ancient Father it can be shewed that Collation of Benefices belonged as proper to the said Primate Ecclesiasticall yet hee would encounter him therein and beat him with his owne weapon as he did soundly prouing that good Emperours haue giuen Popedoms and that according to the Canon Law That Catholike Kings by their prerogatiue Regall haue giuen as to this day they giue Archbishopricks Bishopricks and other Benefices Because Becane the Iesuit neuer as yet answered nor euer will be able to answere Hainric therein I vrged the Iesuit by Scripture or Ancient Father to shew the Collation of Benefices to belong to their Ecclesiasticall to weet Episcopall Primate promising vpon that condition that we would yeeld the victory vnto him But this seely Iesuit not being able for his life produce the least either word of Scripture or sentence of Ancient Father for it runnes away into the brakes of his clouded ignorance crying out thus Let mee haue the victory for I haue proued an English Iarre How ridiculous is this Iesuit here Hainrie as hath appeared denied the Collation of Benefices to belong to the Supreme Primate Episcopall yet supposed that it did appertaine to a Supreme Primate to weet Regall that thereby he might cudgell the Iesuite with his owne weapon and according to Becane his dispute proue the King to be Primate to weet Regall because the Collatiò of Benefices belongs vnto him Therfore not Hainric but onely Becane was to shew it out of Scripture or Ancient Fathers which because he neither hath nor can doe his mouth is to be stopped vp herein euer hereafter Touching the Benefices he speaketh of the Iesuite cannot name any small Benefices without Cure conferred vpon Clearkes that are neither Priests nor Bishops which may not by the lawes of this Kingdom be giuen as well by the King as by the Bishops or Archbishops But what a trifling Sophister is this going about to proue that Doctor Tooker by Collation did not mean Institution sacration when as these his expresse words shew that he meant therby nothing else Duel Page 36. Reges Angliae Beneficia Curata vel non Curata non conferunt omnino in quempiam Maiora Minoraue multo minus Episcopatus per vniuersum ambitum regni sui illorum certe Collatio vel Institutio est quorum est destitutio id est Episcoporum comproumcialium qui potestatem habent personas ipsas facrandi In short and in English thus The Collation of Benefices or Bishopricks belongs not to the Kings but to Bishops whose office is to Institute and Consecrate Certainely in the Iesuites sense the inferiour Bishops doe not conferre that is doe not giue Archbishopricks But in Doctor Tookers sense they doe conferre Archbishopricks that is they doe consecrate Archbishops being nominated not by Bishops but by the King being chosen not by Bishops but by the Deane and Chapter Whereby it is most manifest that Doctor Tooker by Collation meant Consecration Collation as say the Canonists in the large signification thereof containeth Presentation Nomination Donation and Institution or Consecration Hainric by Collation vnderstandeth Presentation Nomination and Donation all which he proueth to belong to the King as Dr. Tooker also acknowlegeth Dr. Tooker by Collation vnderstandeth Institution and Consecration which he and also Hainric assert to belong to Bishops and not to Kings So that Hainric and Dr. Tooker agree fully in this point being vnderstood according to their expresse words My selfe and Hainric also conspire wholly heerin for Hainric in his Becano-Baculus and I in my English Concord assert expressely that the Collation or Presentation of Benefices by way of lapse after 18. Monethes belongeth to the King as Supreme Primate Regall Therefore with very great either ignorance or impudency dooth the Iesuite obiect any Iarre between me and Hainric in this point Both Hainric and my selfe auerre that Collation of Benefices cannot be shewed in Scripture or Ancient Father to belong to the Episcopal Supreme Primate But Hainric hath proued it sufficiently that Collation of Benefices and Bishopricks did of old belong to the Supreme Primates Regall Therfore this imputation of a Iarre between Hainric and Harris or Hainric and Tooker or Tooker Harris deserueth a whip or a cudgell for Becane rather then a garland of victory BECAN Exam Page 176 IF by Collation of Benefices Hainric and Tooker meane diuers things then there is a Iarre If they meane the same thing then Tooker did not meane Institution and Sacration Therefore you dissent from your selfe Dr. HARRIS Reply THe two hornes of this Dilemma as of the former are thus bent directly into the Iesuites face If by Collation of Benefices Hainric and Tooker meane things diuers then Hainric may alcribe Collation to the King and Tooker may deny Collation to belong to the King without Iarre If they mean the same thing then according to Becane his dispute here there is no Iarre between Hainric and Tooker For if their meaning of things diuers doth arguea Iarre their meaning of the selfe same thing must argue Concord BECAN Exam. Page 177 IF by Collation Tooker meant only Institution and Sacration and yet acknowledge the King to conferre 40. or 60. Benefices in the yeare then b◠granteth that the King doth Institute 40. or 60. into Benefices in the yeare Euery where you intangle your selfe Tooker saith nothing of Presentation by way of lapse nor to free Chappell 's exempt from Episcopall Visitation but rather the contrary in these words Hoc habetiuris Regia Maiestas quod minor et subordinata potestas habet ius inquam Nominandi et Praesen andi apud nos The King and his Subiects haue like right to nominate and present their Clearks Dr. HARRIS Reply VVHat a clay-witted Sophister is this Martin Father Iesuit forsooth Diuinity reader in Mentz reasoning thus Tooker vnderstanding by Collation of Benefices Presentation Nomination Donation as Hainric doth acknowledgeth the Kings right to conferre 60. Benefices or moe in a yeare and 10. or 12. Bishopricks in a yeare as they may fall void Therefore Tooker taking Collation for Institution and Sacration granteth right and power to the King to Institute and Consecrate so many Priests and Bishops yearely So boyishly daunceth this Iesuite vnder the net of Equiuocation easily perceiued by all who running do but cast their eyes vpon him The Kings different and supereminent right and power aboue all his subiects in bestowing of Benefices hath in the English Concord beene vnfolded distinctlie and more sufficiently then Becane deserueth thus 1. The King only by his Breue Episcopo Writ to the Bishop after presentation in his Maiesties Court recouered compelleth the Bishops to institute the Presentee 2. The King onely presenteth
his Clearks by lapse of time to weet after 18. Monethes Vacancy 3. The King onely or they only vnto whom that is granted by the King presents his Clearkes to his free Chappell 's exempted by him from Episcopall Visitation by his Regall Donation onely without any Institution or Induction of Bishop or Arch-deacon giuing his Clearks reall and lawfull possession of such Donatiues All these three particulars are vulgarly knowen and ingenuously confessed by Dr. Tooker which if hee would vouchsafe this Iesuit an answere would expreslie appeare in his after-writings as the like hath beene done in Mr. Burhill his after-writings But all these three instances of Regall Supremacy aboue all his Subiects Cleargie or Lay this vnlearned Iesuite silently passeth ouer Only as the dogge turneth to his vomit so hee in his Examen returneth to his loathsome froath and scumme of idle repetition of the selfe same things matter sentences words and syllables which in his Iarre he had ser forth in print and which said froath by the very blast of my English Concord was vtterly dissolued and scattered long before this his Examen peeped out ⧠Becans Iarre IX Question Whether the King can create and depose Bishoppes or no 1. MAister Salclebridge saith that bee can For thus he writeth pag. 121. Christiani Principes in suis Regnis cum laude propria authoritate Episcopos crearunt deposuerunt Christian Princes have in their Kingdomes by their owne proper authority created and deposed Bishops and that with praise c. And then againe pag. 144. Rex Angliae Archidiacono Richmundiae Episcopalem concessit Iurisdictionem The King of England granted Episcopall Iurisdiction to the Archdeacon of Richmond c. And yet further pag. 155. Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate deiure atquecum laude omnium Ordinum Episcopos elegerunt ac proinde deponere potuerunt The Kings of England of their owne supreme authority by right and with praise of all manner Estates have elected Bishops and therefore they might depose them also c. And then lastly Constat Christianos Principes cum laude Episcopos elegisse deposuisse etiam Romanos It is manifest that Christian Princes haue elected and deposed Bishops yea Popes also and that with their praise c. 2. Now M. Tooker hee denies in the place bifore cited that the King can create or depose Bishoppes For there hee assiâ—ning 〈◊〉 things necessary for the ordaining or creating of a Bishop to wit Consecration of the person and a Bishopricke addeth that the King can performe neither of these two For neithere 〈◊〉 be confer any benefice and much lesse a Bishopricke or Archbishopricke neither hath hee any power to consecrate persons In so much that in another place he confesseth that it is so farre off from King Iames to haue power to create or depose Bishops that he would rather acknowledge himselfe for one of their schollers and Disciples For thus he writeth pag. 311. Serenissimus ac pientissimus Rex noster Iacobus non habet quicquam antiquius honorificentius quà m vt cum Valentiniano filium se Ecclesiae profiteatur cum Theodorico Italiae Rege se alumnum Ecclesiae ciscipulum Archiepiscoporum fuorum Episcoporum libenter recognoscat Our most Gratious and most pious King Iames doth esteeme or accompt nothing more noble and more honorable then with Valentinian the Emperour to professe himselfe a son of the Church and with Theoâ—â—oricus King of Italy most willingly to acknowledge himselfe a foster-childe of the Church and a disciple of his Archbishops and Bishops c. 3. This Iarre now as you see is of great moment For if the King cannot create or ordaine Bishops as M. Tooker saith hee cannot then it followeth euidently that Thomas Cranmer who was made Archbishop of Canterbury by the King Henry the 8. was no true but a false Bishop no pastour but a robber one that entred not into the sheep fold by the doore but climbed up some other way Whereof againe ensue three other markeable points First that all other Bishops who were afterward either created by Cranmer or by the King were lake vnto Cranmer himselfe Secondly whatsoeuer was done of them by Episcopall authority or Iuresdiction was of no validity or force Thirdly that they so ordaixed are bound to restitution of all reue newes and prosies which they haue reaped by their Bishopricks What counsell now is there to be taken in this point Let your Academicks I pray you consider English Concord Concord Pag. 58 THat Christian Princes haue with commendation created and deposed Bishops yea Bishops of Rome not only Hainric but also our most drad Soueraigne Lord Iames the most learned King vpon the face of the earth hath manifested in his monitory Preface out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories in these very words Page 28. Inperatores arque Reges c. All these Emperours and Kings which liued religiously and Christianly were so farre from thinking the Pope to haue any power ouer them that they themselues haue created Popes and when they grew irregular reformed them and somtimes also deposed them And Page 291. Sed et per aetates complurimas c. But for many Ages together the most assured and inuiolable right of creating the Romane Bishops remained with the Emperors Wherin my principall witnesse shall be the Bishop of Rome who decreed in a Councel a Sigeb An. 734 Wathr de Epis Inuessat Mart Polon An. 780. of 153. Bishop and Abbats that right and power of choosing the Pope and ordaining the Sea Apostolike should remain to the Emperour Charles the great and moreouer definitiuely ordained that all Archbishops and Bishops throughout all Prouinces should take their inuestiture from him Niem de Pnuil et Jur. Dist 63 ca. Adrian that no Bishop should be consecrated vnlesse he were first commended and inuested by the King And whosoeuer shall offend against this decree hew rapped him vp in the bands of Anathema Mat Paris in H. Act. 1100. sdem An. 1112 et An. 1119 Page 34. King Henry the first of that name after the conquest gaue the Bishopricke of Winchester vnto William Gifford and presently inuested him into all the possessions appertaining to that Sea against the decrees of the late Councell The same King Henry gaue the Archbishopricke of Canterbury to Raphe Bishop of London and inuested him by a Ring and a Staffe Plat. vit Pela 2. et Gregory Besides not only Plaina but other Popish Writers do witnesse that the Emperours consent for many Ages was to be obtained for the choise of the Bishoppe of Rome which thing Bellarmine wich all his skill Declericis could not handsomely auoid Moreouer also the Romane Bishops were enioyned to pay vnto the Emperours Exchequer a certaine summe of current money for the obtaining of their confirmation which custome endured for the space of seauen hundred yeares An. 680. in vita Agatho Anastas An. 678 Dist 63. 1. Agatho after
Christ as is witnessed by Sigebert Luitprand and other Historians of the Romane faction But euery where we shal meet with examples of Emperours which cut the wings of the Romane Bishops vsurped authority All these things so substantially manifested and pithily disputed by our Soueraigne King in his Apologie for the oath of Alleageance Page 127.128 will Dr. Tooker most willingly subscribe vnto especially seeing hee demonstrateth the same by sacred text saying Sub veteri Testa 2. Chro. 19 v. 4 reges haud dubiè gubernatores erant Ecclesiae intra fines suos exauctor auerunt enim summum Pontificem aliumque in eius locū subrogauerunt 1. Reg. 2. v. 17 Vnder the old Testament there was no question but that Kings were gouernours of the Church within their dominions for they deposed the high Priest and placed another in his roome Truely Dr. Tooker affirmeth Regem non Sacrare Episcopos That the King dooth not consecrate Bishops and as truely that the King is a sonne of the Church as Valentinian or with Theodosius a pupill or a foster childe of the Church yea a disciple not onely of Archbishops and Bishoppes but also of inferiour Priests and Ministers whose Sermons he more often heareth but onely Quoad officia Ministerialia respecting the proper office of Ministeriall duties and not in the Supreme gouernment of the Church And vnto this purpose writeth Dr. Tooker Page 311. of King Edward the sixt Titulumet stolam Pontificiam aspernabatur c. Although he refused the title and robe of a high Priest yet notwithstanding he retained the Christia Supremacy to himselfe as the meane wherby he might more safely aduise the Church and prouide for it against the time to come Againe he verifieth as much of our King Iames and other Christian Princes Page 312. Sunt quidem reges Christiani c. Euen now are Christian Kings and other Princes the highest and Supreme gouernours of all persons whatsoeucr within their Empire and Dominion and haue euer so beene from the ancient time of the purer and Primitiue Church And Page 312. Non tantum sunt praesules in ordine c. Yet notwithstanding they are not Prelates in any Priestly order although they enioy a Supremacy in the Christian regiment for vvith great Constantine they ought to be common Bishops of exterior matters and with Charles the great Ludouicus Pius Lotharius make lawes Ecelesiasticall Canons if neede require or with King Dauid Salomon Ezechia and Ichoshaphat keepe visitation in the Temple and giue order to Ecclesiasticall affaires And why not then with Salomon to depose and disrobe a high Priest and put another in his place for which opinion Dr. Tooker writeth Page 152. Totumhoc quantumcunque est c. All this how great soeuer which is as great as may be is but an or dinary document of pietie religion and royall iurisdiction Wherefore this standeth a fir me foundation of our side that King Salomon out of his ordinary power might depose the high Priest and bring him into order And therefore vaine is the Challenge of the Romane Bishops boasting an immunity as though no secular Prince could remoue them For it is plaine that this is practised in sacred Scriptures Therefore with what face though of brasse could the Iesuite Becane vtter to the world this low de lye And from whence doth he in another place confesse that it is so farre from King Iames to create and depose Bishops that hee rather acknowledgeth himselfe their foster childe and disciple As though King Salomon acknowledged not himselfe a foster childe of the Church and Disciple of the Priests when hee deposed Abiathar and subrogated Zadoc in his stead the Iesuite Sophister like is alwayes wallowing in a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi Moreouer Doctour Tooker Page 37. writeth Rex concedit suam regiam licentiam eligendi As often as it happeneth to any Cathedrall Church to be destitute of a Bishoppe then the King by a vvritte giueth licence to the Deane and Chapter to elect another person Canonically But I will btiefely declare vnto thee gentle Reader the whole processe and carriage of this election for it is common and vulgar euery day Thus therefore it proceedeth When any Cathedrall Church wanteth his Pastor the King sendeth foorth his royall Writte Conge Destire directed to the Deane and Chapter commaunding them with all speed to assemble and to choose an Archbishoppe or Bishop for their Sea but with this prouiso that they choose no other than that person which shall be named by the King vnder the penaltie of a Praemunire which is the greatest punishment among vs in England except death And the same Archbishop or Bishoppe so named by the King and elected as aforesaide must be consecrated by the Archbishop or Bishops vnder the same penalty Now consider learned Reader for I will make thee my iudge what other thing is this then to create Archbishoppes and Bishoppes excepting one lie ceremoniall formalities But let vs suffer that most blessed Martyr Archbishop Cranmer to rest in glory with Christ in heanen This Iarre and difference is of great momenn I meane betwixt the Papists and vs for if it appeare as cleare as the light both by the Popes Canon lawes also by open Tables of Ecclesiastical Histories as our most drad Soueraine hath most exactly demonstrated that the Romane Emperor created elected Popes set in order the Sea Apostolike And if all Archbishoppes and Bishops throughout all Prouinces receiued their Inuestitures from them according to the popish VVriters especially the Iesuits all those Romane Bishops which haue been so created and elected for many hundred yeares to omit all inseriour Archbishops and Bishops Non extiterunt Pastores intrantes per ostium in ouile sed Praedones aliunde ascendentes haue not beene Pastors entring into the sheepefolde by the doore but thieues and robbers ascending another way that is false Bishops Archbishops and Pastors Out of which I inferre three things First that all the Bishops so created by Emperours and Kings according to the words of Genebrarde vvere disorderly and Apostaticall rather then Apostolicall Secondly whatsoeuer was done of them by Episcopallauthoritie or Iurisdiction is of no moment force or validitie Thirdly that the Bishops so ordained are bound to restitution of all reuene wes and and profits which they haue reaped by their Bishopricks Seest thou not Iesuit how thou art beaten with thine owne rodde Quid hic consilij capiendum What deuise is now to be taken Let your Academicks who now onely hauing swallowed vp the Sorbonists will rule the rost to weet the Iesuiticall Fathers if it so may please their God Layola see vnto it BECAN Exam. Page 181 YOu use three arguments to prone that Doctor Tooker agreeth with Hainric herein viz. that Kings may make and depose Bishops i. Tooker embraceth as orthodoxall all things prooued by the King But that Kings may create and depose Bishops was soundly proned by the King Therefore Tooker
embraceth it as orthodoxall Heere first the minor is false for Tooker denieth that the King can create and depose Bisoops for hee saith that the institution and destitntion of inseriour Priests belongs to Bishoppes and not to Kings therefore the King hath not solidly proued it Secondly it may thus bee returned All Academichs willingly approur all things soundly prooued by the King But the King hath soundlie prooued the Pope to be Antichrist Therefore the English Academicks willingly erâ—braec it as orthodoxall The consequenâ—â— is faise For Powell verily belioueth that the Pope is Antichrist and the King is nor cortaine of it The Syllogisticall form is goods therefore one of the premisses is false Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere haue we the picture of a very vnlearned Iesuit whose lineaments are drawn with his owne pensill and which is depainted with his owne liuely colours First ignorantly hee confoundeth as one a single narration with a double ratiocination and the institution and destitution of inferior Priests with the creation and deposition of Bishops Secondly he answereth two Syllogismes and those produced from his owne forge onely with denying the conclusions of both Thirdly he reasoneth from one indiuiduall Doctor Tooker to all our Vniuersitie Academicks Lastlie hee brings in Maister Powell disallowing that which hee chiefely approueth The single natration set downe in the English Concord was thus Doctor Tooker reading and well approuing his Maiesties solidarguments especially that from exemplary act of Salomon commended in Scriptures viz. in deposing Abiathar and placing Zadock chiefe Priests was so farre from denying the power of Kings to depose Bishops that he grounding himselfe vpon the said act of Solomon concluded with the King and Hainric That Emperours may lawfully depose Popes and so made vp the harmony of all good concord heerein The Iesuit transformeth this single narration into a double Syllogisme the former thus All which the King hath soundly prooued Tooker doth not deny but embrace as orthodoxall But that Kings may depose Bishoppes the King hath soundly proued Therefore Doctor Tooker doth not deny that Kings may depose Bishoppes To this hee answereth thus Doctor Tooker denyeth that Kings may depose Bishops therefore the King hath not solidly prooued it Then briefely and plainly his aunswer heere vnto is thus The conclusion of this syllogisme is false Therefore the minor is false Which answer proceedeth from extreame ignorance in the very principle of Logick But how proues hee for hee dare not be Respondent heere the conclusion to be false Because Doctor Tooker denieth the institution and destitution of inferiour Priests to belong to Kings as beeing proper to Bishops As though inferiour Priests and Bishops were all one As though institution and destitution of Priests were all one with election deposition of Bishops or Popes One Bishop may institute and destitute an hundred Priests but one hundred Bishoppes cannot choose or depose one Bishoppe especially an Archbishoppe or Pope Heere are some lineaments liuely colours of this Iesuits grosse ignorance moe are to be seene in the second Syllogisme following thus All things soundly prooued by the King all English Academicks approoue That the Pope is Antichrist was soundly proued by the King therefore all English Academicks allow as orthodoxall the Pope to be Antichrist To this hee answereth thus The conclusion is false and the forme good therefore the maior or minor is false It skilleth not whether so that one of them be false What is this else but to his vtter shame to display his intolerable ignorance to the world and to expose it as ludibrious to the meanest Academick Sophisters who should be well lashr or iustly exploded if they would aunswere right formed syllogismes by denying the conclusions But how doth this Iesuit proue this later conclusion to be false Because Gabriell Powell belieueth this doctrine viz. that the Pope is Antichrist which the King hath soundly prooued to be orthodoxall Wherein behold the strange blockishnes of this Iesuit who should haue instauced in one Academick denying that which the King had soundly proued viz. the Pope to be Antichrist but hee brings in Maister Powell allowing with all his 〈◊〉 what the King therein had soundly proued Moreouer if the King did not prooue soundlie the Pope to be Antichrist then the Iesuit takes away the suppositum and so she weth himselfe to be a frivolous Disputer If the King did solidly proue the Pope to be Antichrist why should not Maister Powell belieue it as orthodoxall The Iesuit saith The King doth not hold it as certaine Reply first that is nor ad idem it is no aunswere to the Syllogisme many part thereof Secondly though his Maiestie doth not hold those arguments so certain which 〈◊〉 from that mysticall booke of the Reuelation 〈◊〉 his Maiestie solidly evinceth the same from other places of holy Writ the meaning whereof is more certaine cleare and euident Thirdly Saint Paul teacheth the Iesuit that the spirits of the Prophets are subiect to the Prophers That the Lord reuealeth some things to one which he doth not to another To conclude this straine the Iesuits maior proposition of this later syllogisme doth manifest the great store of ignorance in him arguing a general of all English Academicks from the individuall Dr. Tooker BECAN Exam. Pag. 184 THe second argument Tooker asserteth the King of England to haue the primacie of the Church Therefore he confesseth that he may depose Bishops The consequence is not good with you for some of you asserting the Primacy dony the power of deposing Bishops Yoâ— take that ai granted vvhich should be prooned What is this but to begge that vvhich is questioned Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere also the ignorance of this Iesuit sillily mistaketh the meaning of the English Concord in this point Becan out of Doctor Tooker asserting the King to be a foster-child and disciple of the Bishops doth conclude that therefore Doctor Tooker denied the Kings power to rule or depose Bishops The English Concord to proue the weakenes of that consequence shewed out of Doctor Tooker that thogh Kings were not Bishops but subiect vnto them in regand of their Episcopall duties as in hearing the word preached by them in receiuing of the Sacraments administred by them yet in respect of supreame Ecclesiasticall government they were rulers ouer Bishope and might depose them As King Edward the sine did who though he disclaimed Episcopall function yet he claimed and vsed the primacy But let the argument runne from the primacie of Kings to conclude their power to depose Bishops I say it holdeth good considering that all Papists make the power of deposing Bishops a part of the primacie And that not one English Protestant Writer ascribing the primacie to the King denieth him the power to depose Bishops Heere is then no begging of that in question but a solid putting that out of question which is contrauersed and soundly concluding the power of Kings to depose Bishops BECAN Exam. Pag. 185 YOur
third argument is Tooker writes that Salomon deposed high Priests therefore the King of England may doe the same This also is no consequence for most graue Authors teach that These and such like consequences are not good c. The Kings in the old Testament had that power therefore Kings in the nevv Testament haue the same Dr. HARRIS Reply THis brew-bate Iesuit would faine haue made a Iarre betweene Hainric asserting the Kings power to depose Bishops and Doctor Tooker The English Concord sheweth that Doctor Tooker did not onely assert but also proue the same by the exemplarie act of Salomon deposing the high Priests Against this cleare concord the Icsuit opposeth nothing but this That most graue Authors deny the argument Which is nothing to the purpose For heere the question is not whether other Popish Writers dissent from Hainric or Tooker but whether Hainric Docter Tooker dissent heerein Neither in this case mattereth it whether this Argument from Salomons act be good or not It sufficeth that Doctor Tooker tooke it to be good BECAN Exam. Pag. 1â—2 THese your arguments help not your cause For either they are sound or not sound If sound they prone Tooker to dissent from himselfe and so there is a Iarre If not sound why doe they occupy any paper Dr. HARRIS Reply THis Iesuit is very vnlucky in his Dilemmaes For as the former haue been so this is thus retorted vpon him These arguments helpe my cause well for if they be vnsound by Becans dispute they prooue not Doctor Tooker to dissent from himselfe and so no Iarre if sound what cause hath the Iesuit to dislike either them or the printing of them Thus is his whole Examen in this ninth Chapter vtterly dissolued and brought to naught ⧠Becans Iarre X. Question Whether the King can excommunicate his obstinate subiects or no 1. HEere now doe our Adversaries ranke their King amongst ordinary men what they granted vnto him before heere now they seeme to revoke For they say that the King cannot excommunicate any of his subiects yet himselfe may be excoÌ„municated by them and expelled out of the Church of England whereof himselfe is supreame Head The former part heere of doth Maister Tooker affirme pag. 15. in these vvords Rex non habet potestatem distringendi gladium spiritualem vel quempiam excommunicandi The King hath no power to vnsheath the spirituall sword nor to excommunicate any man c. And the Chaplaine my Lord of Ely pag. 151. saith Nos Principi censurae potestatem non facimus Wee doe not giue authoritie to our Prince to vse Censures c. And againe Maister Thomson pag. 83. Excommunicare nullo modo ad Suprematú Ecclesiae pertinet To excommunicate doth no way belong to the Supremacie of the Church And againe pag. 84. Omnes fatemur Regem excommunicandi potestarem nullam habere Wee doe all confesse that the King hath no power to excommunicate c. 2. The later part of the former point affirmeth Ma. Burhill pag. 137. when he saith Quod Ambrosio licuit in Theodosium idem alijs in Regem simili de causa liceat c. As it was lawfull for Ambrose to proceed against Theodosius so is it lawfull also for others to proceed against the King in the like cause c. To wit hee vvould say as it was lawfull for S. Ambrose beeing a Bishop to excommunicate Theodosius the Emperour so in like manner it is lawfull for our Bishops of England to excommunicate King Iames if hee offend in like manner And then againe pag. 242. Supremus Ecclesiae Gubernator potest eijci ex Ecclesia The supreme Gouernor of the Church to wit the King may be cast forth of the Church c. And pag. 267. Rex etsi iustusimè excommunicatus non amittit Primatum The King although he should be most instly excommunicated yet hee doth not loose his Primacie c. 3. Now I doe not sec how these things can possibly hang together or agree vvith those vvhich hitherto before haue beene attributed to the King For vnto him is attributed That hee is primate and the supreme head of the Church of England That be is aboue all persons as well Ecclesiasticall as temporall in his Kingdome That hee bath supreme most ample and ful iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall no lesse then politicall and temporall And notwithstanding all this beeing so great a person yet can hee not excoÌ„municate any one of his subiects either Laicke or Church-man although neuer so rebellious and obstinate Nay although hee be so great as hee is hee may neuerthelesse be excommunicated by his subiects and cast out of the Church of England wherof he is supreame Head I cannot vnderstand this mysterie 4. Heerevnto will I adde three arguments more which will increase the difficultie The first is He that hath supreme most ample most full Iurisdection Ecclesiasticall in any Kingdom may exercise all the actions and offices that belong vnto Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of that Kingdom But now the King hath supreame most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the Kingdome of England as Maister Tooker and Maister Salclebridge doe confesse Ergo he may exercise all offices belonging to Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the Kingdom of England Ergo be may also excommunicate for that excommunication which is denounced by sentence is an act of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction Or else contrariwise if you will thus Hee that cannot exercise all acts of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in any Kingdome hath not supreame most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in that Kingdome But the King of England cannot exercise all acts of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdection in his Kingdome because hee cannot excommunicate any man Ergo hee hath not supreme most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in his Kingdome 5. The second argument is this Hee that giueth to another power to excommunicate without doubt hath power himselfe to excommunicate because no man can giue to another that which hee hath not himselfe But the King of England giueth power to his Bishoppes to excommunicate Ergo hee hath power to excommunicate The Minor is prooued out of Maister Tooker pag. 304. vvhere hee affirmeth That the Bishops of England doe receiue all their Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court from the King But now power to excommunicate belongeth to Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court as the Chaplaine pag. 41. and Maister Tooker pag. 305. expresly teach vs saying Rex habet omnem iurisdictionem spiritualem in foro exteriori exceptis quibusdam censuris The King hath all Iurisdiction spirituall in the exteriour Court excepting certaine Censures But now he excepteth ExcoÌ„munication wherin you see is to be noted againe a contradiction in Ma. Tooker for that he referreth Censures amongst which excommunication is one to the Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court True indeed But yet he adioyneth two other things that are contradictorie The first that the King can give vnto Bishops all Iurisdiction of the
our Kings much lesse of the King himself many yeares before King Henry the eight was borne were of no force by the common lawes of England as is manifested by Hainric in Becano Baculus Where also he hath taught you out of the same lawes that the King of England is the supreme Ordinary of his Kingdome On as it is in the oath of Supremacy The onelie supreme Gouernour of the Church of England And yet wee doubt not but he may besuspended from the Eucharist by a Bishop to whom hee himselfe hath committed Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction as Theodosius was by Ambrose that is by resnsall to giue him the holy CoÌ„munion but not in any iudiciall or coÌ„sistorian form of citation appearance and sentence to be cast out of the Church The Iesuit is deeply deceiued if he imagine that the action of Ambrose was solemne and canonicall or that it was excommunication in a strict and proper sense which thing I will when need requireth convince by many solid arguments And in the meane season let him shew mee whether Theodosius was canonically cited vnto the consistory of Ambrose or whether the Emperour did answere for himselfe either in person or by his Proctor Or whether the sentence of excommunication was pronounced vpon the Tribunall of the Bishop Or whether it were canonically denounced in the open Church before hee was forbidden to enter into the Temple And againe by whose commaundement and by what example did Saint Ambrose alone without his fellow Elders or the counsell of other Bishops excommunicate the Emperour of so many kingdoms espceially seeing Ambrose was neither Pope nor Patriatch And let the Iesuit giue some good cause why Ambrose should â—am â—â—e vpon so humble and godly an emperour by his excommunicating him who erred onely in one fact and not once blame or touch Constantius a most proud godlesse and hereticall Arian Lastly whether it were the custome at Millan to excommunicate all murtherers or else Theodosius had wrong for Iassure you murtherers are not excommunicated in England and I thinke very few are so censured at Mentz where Becane liueth BECAN Exam. Pag. 191 YOu aunswere that heere is no Iarre because all your Writers vniformly agree in this That the King cannot excommunicate But heere is the greatest Iarre Because all English Writers who confesse it doe manifestly differ from themseluss as these three Arguments proue First Whosoeuer hath all mannet supreme most ample full Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical in any Kingdome he may exercise all acts vvhich pertaine to IurisdioÌ„tion Ecclesiasticall in that kingdome And so be may excommunicate to wit by a power vndependant of any man such as the Pope hath the rest hauing it from him who may giue it to them and take it away Enen as the King who hauing supreme most ample Iurisdiction ciuill in his kingdome may exercise allciuill acts of that Iurisdiction in his kingdome But the Writer's assert the Kings all manner supreme most ample and full iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall Therefore they assert the Kings power to excommunicate Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere is but an idlerepetition of the selfe same Argument which the English Concord had answered before by denying his maior Proposition Which deniall was grounded vpon the testimony of Saint Augustine whereunto this Iesuit answereth not one word The substance whereof vvas this That attacts of Ecclesiasticall gouernment and onely all those acts which the King alone may doe as King belong vnto him but Excommunication belongs to euery Archdeacon therefore that belongs not to the King The Iesuit beeing put vnto his shifts hath fansied this new starting hole viz. That power vndependant of any other to excommunicate is proper onely and to euery supreme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall Therfore if the King be supreme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall hee hath that vndependant power to excommunicate Whereunto Ireply first that no Scripture no nor ancient Father for the space of 600. years after Christ doth assert this vndependant power of excommunicating to belong to the supreme gouernment Ecclesiasticall Secondly that the ancient Fathers deny this vndependant excommunicating power to belong to Peter much lesse to the Pope but with one vniforme consent dogmatize according to the Scriptures that all the Apostles receiued from Christ immediatly not from Peter power to excommunicate equall vvith Peter Thirdly that the very principall Schoolemen as Peter Lombard the Maister of the Sentences Thomas Aquine the Doctor Angelicall Alexander Ales the Doctorirrefragable and Iohn Scot the subrle Doctor deny the same First they all foure define the keyes by the power to open and shut to binde and loose See Lombard Sent. l. 4. dist 18. et 19. Alexander SuÌ„ma Theolog. part 4. q. 20. memb 2. et 5. Aquin as in Sent. l. 4. dist 13 q. 1. art 1. Scot. in Sent. l. 4. dist 19. art 5. Secondly Alexander in Summa p. 4. q. 20. memb 5. et 6. Tho in 4. Sent. dist 24. q. 3. art 2. Scot. in Sent. l. 4. dist 19. art 1. affirme that the keyes promised to Peter in the 16. chap. of Mathew were giuen to the Apostles in the 20. chap. of Iohn Fourthly Bellarmine himselfe denieth this vndependant power of excommunicating to be proper to Peter and proueth by foure sound arguments the said power to be common to all the Apostles thus de Ro. Pontif. l. 4. cap. 23. That the Apostles receiued immediatly froÌ„ Christ their Iurisdiction First by these words of our Lord Iohn 20. As my Father sent mee so send I you Which place the Fathers Chrysostome Theophylact so expound that they say plainly The Apostles by those words were made the Vicars of Christ yea and receiued the very office and authority of Christ Cyrill vpon this place addeth that The Apostles by these words were properly created Apostles and Teachers of the whole vvorld And that wee should vnderstand stand that all power Ecclesiasticall is contayned in authoritie Apostolicall therefore Christ addeth As my Father sent mee seeing that the Father sent his Sonne endued with chiefest or highest power Cyprian in his booke of the vnity of the Church saith The Lord speaketh to Peter I vvill giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen and after his resurrection said to him Feed my Sheepe And although after his resurrection he gaue to all the Apostles equall power and said As my Father sent mee so I send you yet to manifest vnitie hee constituted one chayre Where you see the same to be giuen to the Apostles by those words I send you which was promised to Peter by that I will giue thee the keyes and after exhibited by that Feed my sheepe Now it is manifest that by those words I will giue thee the keyes and by that Feed my sheepe is vnderstood the most full euen exteriour Iurisdiction Secondly the election of Matthias vnto the Apostleship sheweth the same For we read Acts. I. that Matthias was not chosen by the Apostles nor any authoritie giuen vnto him but that his election being craued and
obtained from aboue he was presently numbred among the Apostles Surely if all the Apostles had Iurisdiction from Peter that ought to haue been shewed most of all in Matthias Thirdly it is proued out of Saint Paul who purposely teacheth that hee had his authority and Iurisdiction from Christ and thereupon proueth himselfe to be a true Apostle For Gal. I. he saith Paul an Apostle not of men neither by man but by Iesus Christ and G O D the Father And there to shew that he receiued not authoritie from Peter or other the Apostles hee saith But when it pleased him which had separated mee from my mothers wombe and called mee by his grace to reueale his Scnne in me that I should preach him among the Gentiles immediatly I communicated not with flesh and bloud neither came I againe to Ierusalem to the which were Apostles before mee but I went into Arabia and turned againe into Damascus Then after 3. yeares I came againe to Ierusalem to see Peter c. and chap. 2. For they that seemed to be somewhat added nothing to me aboue that I had Fourthly it is proued by cuident reason for the Apostles were made onely by Christ as it appeareth Luke 6. He called his Disciples chose twelue of them vvhom he also called Apostles And Iohn 6. Haue not I chosen you twelue Now that the Apostles had Iutisdiction it is manifest partly by the acts of Saint Paul who 1. Cor. 5. did excommunicate and 1. Cor. 6.7 11.14 c. made Canons Partly also because the Apostolicall dignity is the first and supreme dignitie in the Church as it appeareth 1. Cor. 12. Ephe. 4. See B. Thomas in 1. Cor. 12. Hitherto Bellarmine Vnto these I will adde the testimony of two other Fathers to weet Origen and Beda Origen Tract 1. in Matth. saith Hoc dictum Tibi dabo claues regni coelorum caeteris quoque coÌ„mune est Et quae sequuntur velut ad Petrum dicta sunt omnium communia This saying I vvill giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen is common to the rest of the Apostles and the vvords that follow as spoken to Peter are common vnto all Beda Homil. in Euangel Quem me dicunt saith Potestas ligandi et soluendi quamuis soli Petro a Domino data videatur tamen absque vlla dubietate noscenduÌ„ est quodeâ— caeteris Apostolis data est The power of binding loosing though it seeme to be giuen by the Lord onely to Peter yet without all doubt it was giuen also to the rest of the Apostles By which it is soundly prooued that all the Apostles had the full power of the keyes and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall and in one word vndependant of any other to binde to loose to open to shut to excommunicate absolue giuen by Christ equally immediatly vnto them and their successors as well as to Peter and his successors But all Bishops are successors to the Apostles therefore all Bishops haue most full vndependant Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall to excoÌ„municate And therefore by this Iesuits argument heere all Bishops are supreme Gouernors of the whole Church What then shall become of his Lord God the Pope and the Popes Primacie Whose fulnesse of power must by this orthodoxall position be distributed equally amongst all Bishops not as from Peter or Pope but as successors of the Apostles For so Cyrill in Iohn lib. 3. ca. 20. Apostolis et eorum in Ecclesijs successoribus plenam concessit potestateÌ„ Christ not Peter much lesse the Pope gaue to the Apostles and their successors fulnesse of power Where-to accordeth Saint Cyprian de simpl Praelat saying Christus candem dedit Apostolis omnibus potestatem Christ gaue vnto all his Apostles the selfe same power Bellarmine to proue the Ecclesiasticall authoritie of Matthias to be vndependant and not dependant of Petex brings in Matthias chosen an Apostle not by the Apostles but by God And so of S. Paul chosen an Apostle not by men nor of men but of God How then can the Pope challenge vndependant Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction when he is chosen and made Pope also vnpoped by men much inferiour to the Apostles If the Pope alone haue vndependant Church gouernment to giue and take Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction to and from whom he please how was the Patriarch of Alexandria made equall vnto him in the first Nicen Councell Can. 6 And why was the Archbishop of Constantinople equalled with him in authority and in all things except in Seniority in the first Councell of Constantinople cap. 3. and in the Councell of Chalcedon Can. 28 Certainly this vndependant supreme gouernment was not acknowledged to be in Anicetus Bishoppe of Rome by Polycarpus who gain-saied Anicetus in the celebration of Easter See Euseb l. 5. ca. 26. Nor in Victor who vsurping authoritie ouer the Bishops of Asia was countermaunded withstood and sharply rebuked by Irenaeus Polycrates and others Bishops in France Asia c. See Euseb l. 5. cap. 25. Touching the Iesuits argument drawen from the Kings supreme gouermment ciuill to conclude thereby his power to exercise all acts pertaining to ciuill Iurisdiction I reply and say that true it is the fountaine of all ciuill Iustice vnder God in this Kingdome is in his Maiestic That hee alone hath power to constitute ciuill Iudges and accordingly doth so But our most learned Lawyers and reuerent Iudges will teach the Iesuit that when the Iudges be so constituted by the lawes and customes of this kingdome it pertaineth to those Iudges and not to his Maiestie to iudge sentence in matters personall reall or of blood as Felonies and Treasons equally between the subiects and also betweene the King his lubiects which cuts in sunder the very hart-strings of this his main argumeÌ„t For if it pertaine not to the King to exercise all acts of inferiour ciuill gouernment though hee be the supreme ciuill Gouernour in his Kingdome a fortiori it followeth that it pertaineth not to his Maiestie to exercise all inferiour acts of Ecclesia sticall gouernment though hee be supreme Ecclesiasticall Gouernor The Lord of a Manour to which belongeth a Court Baron may constitute a Steward to haue Iurisdiction ouer his Tenants in that Court in setting fynes in amercing c. yet the Lord of the Manour cannot execute that Iurisdiction for if hee set fynes or amerce it is voide though that Court be and is also called that Lords Court BECAN Exam. Pag. 194 YOu say that although the King cannot excommunicate yet with consent of the Orders or State of the Kingdome in Parliament hee may wake Ecclesiasticall lawes by force whereof such and such ought to be excommunicated What now Richard Hainric said the King by his owne anâ— hority might make Ecclesiasticall lawes and you â—ilifying that authority restraine it to the consent of the Orders in Parliament Ton detract too much from the Primate Head of the Church of England And here you make also a new Iarre Dr.
may haue the materiall sword indirectly and yet haue no power by himselfe to vse the same so may a King haue supreame Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall indirectlie and yet not haue power by himselfe to execute the functions of Iurisdiction Ecelesiasticall and so not to excommunicate True it is No man can giue that vnto another which himselfe hath not to giue yet the King may giue authoritie to another to doe that which pertaines not to himselfe to doe as formerly was shewed This is a decided case amongst the Canonists Decis 2. Tit. de Praebend Quia licet Abbatissae aut Monialibus cur a committi non possit quoad exercitium actuale tamenius potest ipsis competere vtexercitium faciant per virum illius potestatis capacem Vide notatum per Innocent de Praeb c Lateran et per gloss in ca. Cum et plantare Though vvomen be vncapable of the cure of soules as touching the actuall exercising thereof themselues yet Abbasses and Monials may haue right and power to exercise the same by a man capable of that power But it is not amiss to obserue some conclusions from the Iesuits Positions heere First that the Popes supreme power Ecclesiasticall is dependant vpon another that is vpon Peter For he asserteth out of Bernard That not Christ but Peter gaue vnto the Pope the cure of the vvhole Church Secondly that the Pope as Peters successor neither hath nor can giue any temporall possessions For so he makes Bernard concluding thus Peter had no temporall possessions himselfe therefore he could give no temporall possessions to his successor the Pope Thirdly That a man may giue that to another which hee hath not himselfe For the Pope as Peters successor giues temporall Kingdoms Empires and yet the Pope as Peters successor hath no temporall posselsions much lesse Kingdoms and least of all Empires Out of these conclusions growe these two Quaeres following 1. Whether the Pope in giuing Kingdoms distributing the vastest parts of the earth the Indians East West viz. among the Kings of Spaine and Portugall and in translating Empires from one Nation to another because heerein hee succeedeth not Peter succeed not the God of this world who said vnto our Sauiour Christ Math. 4. All these Kingdoms vvith the glory thereof I vvill giue vnto thee 2 How the Popes Kingdom in Italy is Peters Patrimony if no temporall possessions belong to Peter BECAN Exam. Pag. 198. MY third Argument was this Hee that is subiect to another in Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of exteriour Court hath not supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of exteriour Court But the King is subiect to another that is the Bishop vvho by Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of exteriour Court may excommunicate him and throwe him out of the Church Therfore he hath not supreme power Ecclesiasticall of exteriour Court Your answere vvas That so the Pope is not Primat of the Church for hee is subiect to the Priest to whom bee confesseth and vvho may binde and loose his sinnes The Primacy doth not consist in Iurisdiction of the interiour but exteriour Court The power of absoluing from sinnes or the inward Iurisdiction is giuen by Christ immediatly to all Priests equally by force of Order vvhich Iurisdiction is not greater in the Pope then in any other Priest The Pope may be subiect to the Priest in Iurisdiction interiour Richard you erre greatly not distinguishing between these Iurisdictions of the internall and externall Court Dr. HARRIS Reply IT seemeth the wits of this Iesuit are much wasted for he knowes not the way wherein or the place whereto hee intendeth to goe Amongst vs Writers who all deny the King hath power to excommunicate hee said there was a great Iarre because vvee also held the King to be supreame Ecclesiasticall Gouernour in his dominions By which Medium viz. The Kings supremacie supposed to be true the Iesuit endeuoured to inferre necessarily that therefore the King might excommunicate But in this his third Syllogisme the Iesuit goeth about to ouerthrowe the supposed truth of the said Medium namely to proue that the King is not supreme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall And what is this to the matter in hand viz. to proue a Iarre VVhich answere is more sufficient then his fondnesse deserueth Yet because hee imagineth this Syllogisme to be invincible I will answere directly vnto it shiuer it all to naught I deny both the Maior and Minor Proposition thereof I say The Maior is false shew it thus The Pope is subiect to other Bishops who in exteriour Court that is in Councells haue not onely excommunicated whereof see Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. Nicephor lib. 17. cap. 26. Concil Constantinopol 6. Act. 13. but also anathematized him Yet saith this Iesuit The Pope in Court exteriour is supreame Gouernour ouer all Bishoppes to vvhom hee giueth and from vvhom hee taketh away at his pleasure power to excommunicate Againe The Pope is subiect to a Priest his Confessor vvho hath power to exercise the keyes against the Pope viz. to open vnto him heauen gates and to shut them against him To binde his sinnes and to loose them To throwe him out of that communion of Saints whereof wee read in the Creede To deliuer him to Sathan and therfore to excommunicate him The Iesuits starting hole heere is That the Priest may binde the Popes sinnes in the internall Court but not in the externall As though the Court of Conscience were not the highest Court vnder Heauen As though that Communion which stands onelie of Saints indeede and all those Gods Elect vvere not aboue that Communion which consisteth of holy ones and vnholie of the Elected and Reprobated For as by popish Canons The Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction is aboue the Temporall so the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction internall is aboue the externall If therefore the Priest Confessour bee aboue the Pope vvhose sinnes hee bindeth vvhom hee deliuereth to Sathan vvhom hee excommunicateth from that inward Communion of Saints Elect by vertue of his invvard Iurisdiction vvhy may hee not much more excommunicate him from the Communion of the righteous and vnrighteous the Elect and Reprobate by externall Iurisdiction vvhich is farre inferiour to the other But because the Iesuit heere taxeth mee for not distinguishing betweene Iurisdiction internall and externall between the binding of sinnes in Court exteriour and interiour I answere him as Tertullian did to another Heretick Ostendat Hermogenes scriptum aut vae illi Let Becan shevv vvhere this distinction is vvritten or vvoebe vnto him If he cannot then let him heare what the Church of England in her Apologie the second part chap. 7. Diuis 5. hath orthodoxally and iudiciously determined heerein viz. Seeing one manner of vvord is giuen to all and one onely key belongeth vnto all we say there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerning opening and shutting So that if the Priest by this one key shutte out the Pope that is binde his sinnes then he excommunicateth the Pope or if with that selfe-same
key hee open to the Pope that is remit his sinne then heab solueth the Pope For wherefore is one excommunicated but because his sinnes are bound wherefore is one absolued but because his sinnes are remitted If it bee not in respect thereof the King may be said to haue power to excoÌ„municate that is to say to keep men from the Communion viz. when he committeth some to close prison where neither any can speake to them nor they to any Now therefore if the Priest may be the cause of the cause that is if hee can binde the Popes sinnes vvhy may he not be the cause of the effect that is why may he not excommunicate the Pope or which with S. Paul is all one deliuer him to Sathan According to that of Saint Hierome to Heliodore of the Eremiticall life God for bid that I should speak any euill of those who succeeding the Apostolike degree make the body of Christ vvith their sacred mouth vvho hauing the keyes of the kingdome of heauen in sort iudge before the day of Iudgement It is not lawfull for mee to sit before a Priest hee may if I sinne deliuer mee to Sathan for the destruction of the flesh that the Spirit may be saued And so Saint Rasil of the solitarie life cha 23. Peter inquit Amas me c. Christ said vnto Peter Louest thou mee Feed my sheep And in like sort vnto all Pastors and Doctors hee gaue the same power A token vvhereof is this that all binde and loose equally as vvell as Peter If euery Pastor and Doctor binde and loose equally as well as Peter vvhy not in Court exteriour as well as Peter sith the sheep are committed vnto them as well as vnto Peter The Minor Proposition I also deny heere as I did in the English Concord That is I deny that any Bishoppe hath power to throwe the King out of the Church or to excommunicate him according to canonicall excommunication so properly called and defined And further I denied that the supposed excommunication of Theodosius by Ambrose was canonicall excommunication yeelding there some reasons thereof Whereunto though very materiall this silly Iesuit answereth not one word and yet with Iesuiticall that is with brasen face is bold to set before thee Christian Reader his loathsome Coleworts twise yea thrise sodden ⧠Becans Iarre XI Question Whether the King may be Iudge of all Controuersies in the Church 1. COntrouersies that arise in the Church are of two sorts some are about faith and Religion others are concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires The former of these questions then is Whether the King by vertue of his Primacy bee supreame Iudge of all Controuersies vvhich pertaine vnto faith and Religion Maister Salclebridge saith be is pag. 163. in these vvords Sic luce clarius est Christianos Principes cum laude Controuersias fidei dijudicasse diremisse etiam in vniuersalibus octo Concilijs c. So as it is more cleare then the Sunne that Christian Princes vvith praise haue iudged of and decided controuersies of faith and that in eight Generall Councells c. Which is as much to say in the first of Nice the first of Constantinople that of Ephesus Chalcedon the second third and fourth of Constantinople and the second of Nice vvherein diuerse controuersies concerning matters of faith vvere iudged of and decided especially cuncerning the diuinitis of Christ against the Hereticke Arius of the diuinitie of the holy Ghost against Macedonius of one person of Christ against Nestorius of two Natures in Christ against Eutiches and Dioscorus and so of others All these Controuersies saith Maister Saclebridge were iudged of and decided by Kings and Emperours 2. Maister Tooker now hee affirmeth the quite contrarie vvho by no meanes vvill haue Kings or Emperours to bee Iudges of Controuersies of faith For thus hee vvriteth pag. 3. of his books Olere autem malitiam ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud videtur cùm Regem caput Ecelesiae Primatemque confingas omniumque causarum controuersiarum quae ad sidem Religionem pertinent iudicem tribuas It may seeme to sauour of malice cry out vpon your sausinesse vvhen as you faine the King to be head of the Church Iudge of all causes and controuersies vvhich pertaine vnto faith and Religion c. And againe pag. 50. Rexin suo Regno omnibus superior sit nullisubditus Fidei iudex no appelletur quidem Although the King in his owne Kingdome be aboue all subiect to none yet hee may not be called in any case the Iadge of our Faith c. And pag. 313. Reges Christiani non sunt fidei ac Religionis Iudices Christian Kings are not Iudges of faith and Religion 3. So as if now in England there should chaunce to arise a dissension or debate concerning any point of Faith or Religion as for Example concerning the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist vvhat should your Academicks heere do To vvhom should your Cittizens and the rest of the subiects haue recourse Should they goe vnto the King as Iudge in this point and aske his sentence determination Maister Tooker you see vvould not goe to the King What should they goe to some other Iudge then But Maister Salclebridge hee vvill admit no other What then vvere best to bee done in this case Truly euen that vvhich hitherto hath been done in the debate of the Kings supremacy to vvit alwaies to braule and iarre thereabout and neuer end the controuersie And vvhat 's the cause In very deede no other but for that some thinke one thing some another and they cannot or rather vvill not finde out the certaine and true Iudge vvho can decide the matter And this is the propertie of hereticks 4. The other Question is Whether the King be Iudge of all Controuersies that concerne other Ecclesiasticall affaires Maister Salclebridge saith that hee is pag. 165. in these vvords Audin ' Controuersias Episcopales ab Imperatore diremptas Doe you not heare Sir that Episcopall Controuersies haue been decided by Emperours c. is hat Ma. Tooker thinketh of this point is not vvell knowne For sometimes hee affirmes it as for example pg. 24 thus Nemini dubiuÌ„ est quin in Primitiua Ecclesia de rebus personis Ecclesiasticis â—us dicerent Imperatores No man can doub but that in the Primitiue Church Emperours iudged of matters and persons Ecclesiasticall c. And yet pag. 23. hee seemeth to deny it Non est Princeps supra res sed supra personas The Prince saith he is not aboue the matters but abone the persons c. And then againe pag. 49. Rex in suo Regno supremus est non supra res sed supra homines The King in his owne Kingdome is the chiefe or principall but yet not chiefe ouer things but ouer men And thus you see euery vvhere nothing but iarring and disagreement English Concord BOth Doctor Tooker and Hainric deny the King to be supreme Iudge in
faith Touching the Reall presence there is no discord amongst vs but therein are discords endlesse amongst the Papists as in the other points heere mentioned though this Iesuit with brasen face deny the same If any man hauing an honest and good hart doubt in any matter of faith our King hath heere put that man in the King of heauen his high way to put him our of doubt viz. by sending him to the Law Esay 8. and to the Gospell Thirther flie wee and not to our King in controuersies of faith But miserable Papists who leaue the law Gospell as dead Inke whither should they flie in their controuersies of faith To the Pope belike as the Thomists and Scotists did The case was this There fell out betweene those two Sects this odious quarrell Whether the Virgine Mary were conceiued in sinne or no. The one side said yea The other faction cried nay Their factions encreased the Schooles were enflamed the world troubled No Doctor no Coucell was able to accord them The Scotists alleaged for themselues the Councell of Basil The Thomists said that Councell was disorderly summoned and therefore vnlawfull In the midds of these broyles Pope Sixtus tooke vpon him as supreme Iudge to determine that controuersie in faith between them When all the world expected his resolution desirous to bee satisfied in that question The Pope commaunded both the Thomists and the Scotists to depart home and to dispute no more of that matter and so left them as doubtfull as he found them Could not a Supreme Iudge made of clowts haue done the office of a supreme Iudge therein as vvell as Pope Sixtus that is to say haue done iust nothing Lastly whereas this trifling Sophister framing his childish argument Papist Writers iarre in many points Therefore English Writers iarre not in the poynt of their Kings Primacy vpon the anvile of his owne fantasie onely and so framed would father it vpon mee let his fatherhood learne by this reply that my onely scope therein was in vrging him to the quick by those obiected iarres as it were by so many incisions of his Basilica vaine to giue a vent vnto that falt fierie scoffing humour of his at our seeming iarrs which in his plethorick body was so redundant and put◠ifying in him As also to giue him to vnderstand how pat those words of our Sauiour Christ fall vpon his head Math. 7. v-5 viz. Hypocrite first cast out the beame out of thine owne eye and then shalt thou see cleerely to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye Their Popish Iarres are Beame-Iarres our English seeming Iarres are lesse then Mote-Iarres In truth they are no Iarres at all but true Concords And thus is his froath once againe scattered to nothing ⧠Becans Iarre XII Question Whence and by vvhat Title hath the King his Primacie in the Church 1. THe sense heereof is Whether the King precisely in that hee is a Christian King hath the Primacy of the Church The former part of this point Ma. Thomson seemeth to approoue pag 78. where he saith Omnes Principes etiam Pagani obiectiuè habent supreman potestatem in omnes omnino personas suorū subditorum generatim in res ipsas siue ciuiles sint siue sacrae vt in cultu diuino Religione procuranda saltem quoad modum exercitium All Princes yea euen those that bee Pagans haue for the obiect of their supreme power all manner of persons that be their subiects and generally all things vvhether ciuill or sacred as in advauncing Gods honour Religion at least-wise so farre forth as belongeth to the manner and exercise thereof c. And then againe pag. 94. Primatus est Regium bonum quod Censurâ tolli non potest Nec est absurdum Regem velut Ethnicum esse Primatem Ecolesiae Primacy is a certaine Kingly right that cannot bee taken away by censures Nor is it absurd that a King as he is an Ethnicke be Primate of the Church c. And yet further in the same place Rex Ethnicus cum Christo initiatur non acquirit Primatú de nouo An Ethnicke King saith hee vvhen as hee is instructed in Christ or the Christian faith doth not purchase any new primacie c. To whom consenteth Ma. Burhill pag. 251. thus Rex titulo Registemporalis potest sibi vindicare assumere Primatum Ecclesiae A King by the title of a temporall King may claime vnto himselfe and take vpon him the Primacie of the Church c. And pag. 267. Rex etsi iustissimè excommunicatus non amittit Primatum in rebus Ecclesiasticis A King although he be most iustly excommunicated yet doth he not loose his Primacy in Ecclesiasticall matters c. 2. My L. of Ely now he teacheth vs a quite contrary lesson in his Tortura Torti pa. 39. where he averreth that the Primacie of the Church doth belong to the King not because hee is a King but because hee is a Christian King and therfore Ethnick Kings haue no Primacy in the Church so long as they remaine Ethnicks but doe then receiue the said Primacy when they are made Christians and loose the same againe also when they be excommunicated His vvords are these An non Regi Ethnico praestare fidem fas Imo nefas non praestare In Ethnico enim est vera potestas temporalis idque sine ordine ad potestarem Ecclesiasticam Is it not lawfull then to yield Allegiance to an Ethnicke King Nay rather not to yield it is a vvickednes For in an Ethnicke there is true temporall power and that vvithout respect to Ecclesiasticall power c. And a little after Rex quiuiscùm de Ethnico Christianus fit non perdit terrenum ius sed acquitit ius nouum Itidem cùm de Christiano sit sicut Ethnicus vigoresententiae amitut nouum ius quod acquisierat sed retinet terrenum ius in temporalibus quod suerat illi proprium priusquam Christianus fieret c. Euery King when as of an Ethnicke he becommeth a Christian dooth not loose his earthly right but getteth a nevv right And so in like manner vvhen as of a Christian hee becommeth as an Ethnicke to wit by excommunication then by vigour of the sentence hee looseth that nevv right vvhich he had gotten but yet notwithstanding he still retaineth his earthly right intemporall things vvhich vvas proper vnto him before he became a Christian c. 3. So as according to the opinion of Ma. Thomson and Ma. Buthill it followeth that all Kings vvhether Christians or Ethnicks or of vvhatsoeuer other Sect or Religion they bee are Primates of the Church in their owne Kingdoms Therefore all Englishmen and Scots vvho liue at Constantinople are by their sentence subiect to the Turke in Ecclesiastical matters as also they that liue in Spaine are subiect to King Philip and they at Rome to the Pope so to others in other places What now shall these men doe
if the Turke should commaund them to follow the Alcoran The King of Spaine force them to heare Masse The Pope to pray for the dead and some heathen King perhaps compell them to Idolatry Shall they then obey these Princes commaund But then should they doe against their consciences Shall they refuse to obey Then farewell Primacie of the Church Perhaps they vvill aunswere that they vvill obey vvhen they thinke good Shall therefore subiects be Iudges of their King May then the Catholicks in England say after this manner If it please your Maiestie in this point we think good to obey your Maiesties commaund but in that not English Concord IN this place either the Iesuit is beside himselfe or else hee hath much forgot himselfe For euery where in his other Questions hee affir meth that no King either Pagan or Christian hath any Primacy in the Church and yet heere hee enquireth from whence and by what title hee hath his Primacie in the Church Therefore by his owne learning hee beateth his braines to find the originall of nothing If he take away this supposition that the King hath a Primacie in the Church either precisely as hee is a King or else because hee is a Christian King hee is a foolish Sophister For his dispute runnes not thus The King if he haue Primacy of the Church he hath it either as he is a King or as a Christian King but hee hath it in neither of the said two respects therefore hee hath it not at all If hee let that supposition stand then because it is manifest that our most gracious King Iames is by birth a King and by religion a Christian King he is a brainsick wrangler For sith by his supposall heere The King hath the Primacie of the Church vvhat matter is it whether he haue it as hee is a King or as hee is a Christian King if so bee he haue it at all Wherefore there is no cause that we should much stand vpon this idle and beggerly question wherein is onely a shadow of a question Furhermore I would haue the Iesuit vnderstand that this Primacie of the Church hee standeth vpon is not deriued from the title of a King but from God himselfe For Moses was adorned with this dignitie in the Church of Israel And yet we neuer read that hee was stiled with the title of a King But certainly that you may knowe heere is no iarre or odds among vs respecting the maine the worthy Bishop of Ely in his Tortura pag. 377. hath soundly and according to the very truth manifested That the Primacie of the Church belongeth not to Ethnicke Kings as Ethnick but vnto Kings as they are Christian Kings or Defenders of the Diuine truth His words are these Et sunt ista quidem ex Testamento veteri satis solida fundamenta non quod ad reges infideles Primatum pertinere probent c. And those things before related out of the old Testament are so solid and substantiall grounds as Tortus shall neuer bee able to shake Not that they proue this Primacie of the Church to belong to Pagan Kings no surely wee in the new Testament giue no more vnto such Princes then vvas giuen in the old vnto Ahasucrus and Nabuchodonosor Wherfore in this point Tortus is beside himselfe but yet if Caesar become a Christian as in Constantine then presently he hath the same right ouer the Church of the new Testament vvhich Iosias had in the old Reditus statim fit ad iura regum Israel there is a present possession of the ancient rights of the Kings of Israel as soone as euer they are made Kings of the Israel of God giuen vp their names to Christ. Wherefore this is not our purpose that the Persecuters of the Church such as vvere Cains and Tiberius should be the Gouernours of the Church vvho would not receiue that title although a man would giue it them because they employ their vvhole strength to ruine and roote vp the Church but let them then take superiority in the Church vvhen they are vnfainedlie converted to the faith thereof There are due to Caesar the things of Caesar and there belong to the Christian Caesar vvhatsoeuer duties vnder the old Law were either payd or payable by the people of God to their Kings vnto vvhom were then due and yielded all manner of subiection and obedience not onely in the affaires of the couill state but also of the Church These things so expressed are very true and fitting our purpose for in them we haue learned that Pagan Kings as they are Pagans haue no Primacie in the Church But what if almighty God so guide and gouern the hearts of Pagan Kings as that they would stand for the worship of God against error and make lawes for the same let the Iesuit tell mee in that case vvhether God doth not hinde our cōscience to obey pagan Princes And let him take heed how he deny it least Bellarmine fall on his Iack for it because he hath resolued the matter in the very same words De pont Rom. lib. 5. cap. 2. But yet if he doubt lot him resort to Saint Augustine in his 166. Epistle to the Donatists who writeth on this manner Quando Imperatores veritatem tenent c. When Emperours stand for the truth and giue out a commaundement for the same against errour vvhosoeuer shal despise the same encreaseth his owne damnation For euen among men hee suffereth punishment but before God hee shall not dare to appeare vvhich refuseth to doe that which truth it selfe commaundeth by the hart of the King And according to this opinion our reuerend B. in his Tortura Torti pag. 381. most truly writeth Quodcunque in rebus religionis c. Whatsoeuer the Kings of Israel did in matters of religion neither did they anything vvithout commendation vvherein they had power authority to enact Lawes as that GOD should not be blasphemed vvhich you will not deny the King of Babel also did Dan. 3.29 And the King of Nineuch Ionas 3.7 that vvith a publique proclaimed fast God almightie might bee satisfied Andaccording to this sentence wrote Saint Augustine many yeares before him in his 50. Epist to Bonifacius the Souldiour Sed illud propheticum iam impletur Psal 2. Et nunc reges seruite domino in timore c. But now is the propheticall Oracle fulfilled vvhich speaketh in the 2. Psalm Now ô yce Kings serue the Lord in feare And how shall Kings scrue the Lord in feare vnlesse they prohibite and punish those enormities with religious seueritie and iustice vvhich are daily committed against the Lords will and commaundement And because hee is a King he serueth as a seruant by making Lawes vvith force and vigour to commaund things that are righteous and to forbid the contrarie Euen as Ezekias serued by destroying the Temples of Idols and cutting downe the groues Euen as King losias serued by dooing the like Euen as the King of
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
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
not reâ—â—le when hee suffered hee threatned not but deliuered himselfe to him that iudged him vniustly c. 10. And Heb. 11. 36. Others had triall of reproaches and stripes moreouer also of bands and prisons they were stoned they were hewed they were tempted they died in the slaughter of the sword they went about in sheep-skins in goate-skinnes needy in distresse afflicted of whom the world was not worthy wandring to deserts in mountaines and dennes and in caues of the earth c. 11. And againe in the 12. Chapter and 1. verse And therefore by patience let vs runne to the Combat proposed vnto vs looking on the Author of Faith and the consummator Iesus who ioy beeing proposed vnto him sustained the Crosse contemning confusion and sitteth on the right hand of the seat of God For thinke diligently vpon him who sustained of sinners such contradiction against himselfe that you be not wearied fainting in your mindes For you haue not yâ—trelisted vnto bloud c. 12. And yet more a. Cor. 11.23 In very many labours in prisons more abouÌ„dantly in stripes abone measure in deathâ— often Of the Ievves fiue times did I receine forty stripes sauing one Thrice was I beaten with rodds once I was stoned thrice I suffered shipwrack night and day haue I beene in the depth of the Sea in ionrnying often in perils of waters perils of thieues perils of my Nation perils of Gentiles perils in the Citie perils in the Wildernesse perils in the sea perils among false brethren in labour and miserie in much watching in hunger and thirst in fastings often in cold and nakednes c. 13. And yet more in the 12. Chapter and 9. verse Gladlie will I glory in my owne infirmity that the power of Christ may dwell in mee For which cause I please my selfe in infirmities in contumelies in neceâ—sities in persecutions in distresses for Christ For when I am weake then am I mightie c. 14. With these and the like testimonies of holy Scriptures vvere armed Sir Thomas More and the Bishop of Rochester when they rather chose to die then to take an impions wicked Oath With these places vvere others also animated who followed them in their glorious fight And lastly with these are they encouraged who now in England are kept in prisons bound in fetters spoyled of their goods and linings and purpled in their owne bloud S. Cyprian Epist 9. Pretiosa mors haec est quae emit immortalitatem pretio sanguinis sui Pretions is that death which buyeth immortality with the price of it bloud And in the end of the same Epistle O beatam Ecclesiam nostram quam temporibus nostris gloriosus Martyrum sanguis illustrat Erat antea in operibus fratrum candida nunc facta est in MartyruÌ„ cruore purpurea O happy is our Church which the glorious bloud of Martyrs doth in these our dayes illustrate It was made white before in the works of our brethren but novv is it made purple in the bloud of Martyrs And yet more in Epist 24. Quid gloriosius aut felicius vlli hominum poterit ex diuina dignatione contingere quà m inter ipsos carnifices interritum confiteri Dominum Deum quà m inter saeuientia saecularis potestatis tormenta etiam extorto excruciato excarnificato corpore Christum Deâ— filium ersi recedente sed â—amen libero spiritu confiteri quà m relicto mundo caelum petisse quà m desertis hominibus inter Angelos stare quà m collegam passioniscum Christo in Christi nomine factum esse What can happen vnto any man through Gods diuâ—ne bountifulnesse more glorious or more prosperous then without all feare to confesse our Lord God then amidst the cruell torments of secular power to confesse Christ the Sonne of God with a free spirit though now departing from the body yea from the body tortured tormented and all to bemangled then by leaning the vvorld to goe to heanen then by for saking the company of men to be conuersant with Angells and bee made partaker of the Passion of Christ in Christ his Name English Concord IT is very true that both the oath of Supremacie and the oath of Allegiance are contained in the Kings Apologie but this is a very false plainlie a Iesuiticall lye that in both those oathes viz. the oath of Allegiance The subiects are required publiquely and openlie to professe and acknowledge that King Iames is the supreme Gouernour and Lord of all England not onely in politique and temporall matters but in spirituall Ecclesiasticall also and that neither the Pope nor any other forrainer hath any power or inrisdiction in or oner the Church of England Heere I begin with the Iâ—suit taking him napping in a grosse falsification of the oath of Allegiance for there is no such thing contained therein Which is also testified by his excellent Maiestie in his Preface Monitory pag. 11. Vt certioribus iudicijs per ditam horum coÌ„uitiatoruÌ„ malitiam deprehendere pos sit is c. That with more certaine and assured tokens you may espy the desperate malice of these raylers as the Pope Paul 5 Cardinall Bellarmine and Becane who impudently affirme that this Oath was deuised to entrap and beguile the consciences of improuident Papists in matters of faith I will declare the vvhole passage of the matter in few vvords As soone as this for me of the Oath of Allegiance vvas conceined the lower house of Parliament thought good to insert that clause vvhereby all power should bee taken from the Pope to excommunicate the King But I presently caused the same to be razed out to the end that it might appeare that this Oath had no other force or respect then that the Popes excommunication should be no iust or lawfull cause vnto my subiects by secret or open practises to attempt any thing against my person or my kingdome because I thought that this sentence of excommunication of a spirituall censure was by vniust vsurpation of Popes made a secular pretence and so exorbitant beyond all bounds With so great care and studie I did auoide that nothing should be contained in this Oath but that profession sion of ciuill allegiance and temp or all obedience vvhich nature it selfe prescribeth to all them vvhich are borne vnder any kingdom adding onely a firme promise wherby I demaund of my subiects ayde and assistance against the breach of due allegiance and fidelitie Wherefore I faw it appertained to the cause that I should make an Apologie for this Oath vvherein I haue taken vpon mee to proue that nothing is contained heerein but that vvhich concerneth meere ciuill and temporall obedience such as is due to all soueraigne Princes And againe in the 53. page of the Apology Iuramentum primatus excogitatum est ad discrimen faciendum c. The Oath of supremacy was deuised to discerne and put a difference betwixt the Papists and those of our religion but the Oath of Allegiance was inuented to distingutsh
betwixt the Papists vvho hold obedience fidelitie to the King in things ciuill from those that were indiutdually affected to the Gun-powder treason Concerning your glorious Martyrs as you stile Bishoppe Fisher and Sir Thomas More you might haue learned out of Tortura Torti pag. 360. how the worthy Bishop of Ely stoppeth Tortus his mouth saying Dixerat Apologiae author c. The Author of the Apologie said that it was not any spirituall Primacy but a carnall matrimony that brought the supposed Martyr dome to Sir Thomas More and the Bishop of Rochester and this he spake not amisse But then replyed Tortus Then it vvas a carnall matrimany that caused holy S. Iohn Baptist to suffer martyrdome when he freely reproued King Herods mariage With this example Tortus woundeth himselfe For tell mee O Tortus vvhat was that mariage vvas it not with his brothers wife vvas not this the vvord that cost the Baptist his life It is not lawful for thee to haue thy brothers wife But what was the cause of the death of More and Fisher was it not cleane contrary It is lawful for thee to haue thy brothers wife it is not lawful for thee to put her away So that if Saint Iohn Christs forerunner died vniustly they died most iustly and if hee vvere a Martyr as he was then vvere they some other thing vvhich I will not tell you For he dyed that the King should not keepe his brothers vvife but these dyed that the King should not put away his brothers vvife Hee told King Herod it vvas not lawfull they told King Henry it was lawfull and hee must not doe otherwise Could Tortus any vvaies marre their martyr dome more deepely So far the Bishop of Ely And giue mee leaue to adde something more O glorious Martyrs who had rather consent together to die then to confesse the royall supremacy of Kings established in the Scriptures vsed and practised by all the most commended Christian Kings and withall to establish the Papall Primacy which Christ himselfe expresly forbad which the Fathers of the Councell of Ephesus called the smoake of worldly power and they of Carthage with all care and diligence admonished the Church to beware of as Typhum saeculi the arrogancie of this present vvorld Concerning that notorious fact of Pope Paul the fift and Bellarmine which heere the Iesuit remembreth full of inhumanitie impietie and audaciousnesse that excellently learned man Ma. Causabon in his Epistle to Front Ducaeus hath taught him pag. 167. thus De fidelitatis iuramento cui occasionem praebuit pulueraria coniuratio c. Concerning that Oath of Allegiance first occasioned by the Gun-powder treason I maruell vvhy the English Papists so much complaine They haue much more cause to complaine of Cardinall Bellarmine some fevv others vvho hardened the hart of Pope Paul the fift to yeeld vnto them vvho at the first vvith stood them for I speake not rashly but haue good Authours for my assurance that all the Catholicks in England should heere perish rather then a matter so iust and equall should be permitted For vvhat can be more equall then that subiects should promise fidelity to their Soueraigne especially after a treason so barbarous and notable for crueltie The King in the Common-wealth is the same that a householder is in his priuate house and doe you thinke that such a man were well advised to keepe in his family any seruaunts of whose fidelity he was not perswaded or rather whose disposution hee greatly suspecteth I thinke no bodie that is not mad would grant such a thing Wherfore either King Iames hath lesse power in his Kingdome then a householder in his house or else these complaints about the subiects Oath of Allegiance are all vniust and friuolous For in good sooth I haue met with many Papists both in France and England and I haue also read the writings of many vvho deeme this Oath not onely most iust but also most holie Wherefore many of your side some of them Priests yea the Arch-priest Black well haue taken the same without all scruple of conscience not against their wills and by their publique writings learnedly and truly though sharply against the Pope and the Iesuits haue perswaded others to doe the like such are Maister Sheldon and Maister Warmington But yet there are some vvith whom the Popes Bulls and Bellarmines Letters preuaile more then the law of God the law of nature of all Nations or the examples of vvise men And if the Law run vpon these vvhat place is there left for complaint And you your selues which call this a persecution of Catholicks cannot tell for vvhat cause and by vvhat example of antiquitie you so tearme it It was neuer done nor heard of that Christian people said they suffered persecution if they vvere commaunded to sweare Allegiance to their Soueraigne But wee read the contrary in the Councells vvhere they are accursed that breake faith to their Kings vvhich they had voxed to them for the preseruation of the slate of their Countrey and of their King And you know the fourth Councell of Toledo declareth all such excōmunicat from the Church Heere is worke for the Iesuit let him satisfie these things and in the meane time let him vnderstand that that Catholique faith is accursed with all maledictions as inhumane impious sacrilegious Antichristian diabolicall whereof this is one Article That Christian people ought not to sweare allegiance to their lawfull Soueraigne to weet that which as hath been declared the law of God the law of nature and the Canons of Councells haue ordained as most equall and most holy Orelse thus to speake after Becans manner That for Christian people to sweare allegiance to their lavvfull Prince is to deny the Catholick faith And this reason being very sound all good Catholicks admit saith Becane but in truth this reason as very rotten is onely admitted by Antichristian Catholicks but we Protestants the onely true and proper orthodoxall or right belieuing Catholicks will neuer admit it And I saith the Iesuit will adioyne two other reasons on the behalfe of Catholicks against the Oath of Supremacie which by the Aduersary cannot bee reiected Hee should rather haue said thus And I for the destruction of my friends the Romish Catholicks will adioyne two other reasons vvhich may be most iustly refused exploded by all our Aduersaries the Protestants But hath Martin the Iesuit heere forgotten himselfe were not the reasons of Pope Paul and Bellarmine lately alledged expresly brought against the oath of Allegiance which onely was in controuersie and will he now dispute against the oath of Supremacie which is distinct and seuerall from the Oath in question Martin therefore should rather say thus I haue determined for the ruine of Catholicks in England to adioyne two reasons more nothing differing from the former Well then let vs heare these two prettie reasons his first reason is this 1. It is manifestly false or at least
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
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
Or whether Patriarchs be successors of some of the Apostles and Archbishops of other-some and Bishops successors of the lowest or third rank And whether one kind onely of these successors or all three kinds may call generall Councells Secondly whether all the Bishops in the Christian world as the Apostles successors must ioyntly as all the Apostles did call generall Councells or because that would now proue too-too troublesome how many of them may serue that turne ⧠Becans Iarre VII Question Whether the King can enact Ecclesiasticall lawes or no 1. It is cleere that K. Henry the 8. did as well by himselfe as by his Vicar Generall Cromwell enact Ecclesiasticall Lawes For so saith Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England His diebus vigilantissimus hic Ecclesiae Pastor Henricus quo in posterum sciretur quae cui rite nupta eâ—â—et legem ediderat perpetuam de Nupt. js Comitiorum etiam auctoritate confirmatam qua statuebatur vt si quae personae in Leuitico non prohibitae solo consensu perverba de praesenti matrimonium nulla carnis copula subsecuta contraxerint eae verò ambae postea vel earum altera nuptijs cum altera persona in Leuitico non prohibita contractis carnali copula easdom consummauerint hae posteriores quas firmasset copula non priores illae quas solus consensus statuisset ratae atque legitimae haberentur adco vt cùm olim iuris Gentium fuisset Regula Nuptias non concubitw sed consensus facit iam deinceps Henrici regula effe coeperit Nupttas non consensus sed concubitus facit Ettamen ipse Legis-lator contra suam ipsius regulam vxorem Annam Cliuensem cuius nuptias non solo consensu sed septem etiam mensium concubitu firmauerat eo solùm praetextu reiecit ipsaque viuente aliam superinduxit quòd alteri nescio cui consensum antea praebuisse fingeretur Huius ergo legis tantopere postea puduit ipsos Potestantes vt mortuo Henrico eam ipsi reuocaucrint atque irritam fecerint c. In these daies the most vigilant Pastor of the Church K. Henry that it might be knowne to posterity what woman vvere lawfully maried to another enacted aperpetuall law concerning Marriage authorizing the same by publick Decree of Parliament vvherin it vvas ordained that if any persons not prohibited in the Leuiticall law should contract martage by only consent and by vvords de praesenti no carnaell copulation following the same and that the said persons or either of them should after vvard contract vvith another person not prohibited in the Leuiticall law and consummate the same by carnall copulation that then these later contracts vvhich vvere consummated by carnall copulation not the former that were agreed vpon by onely consent should be accounted for good and lawfull In so much that vvhereas the rule of the law of Nations in old time vvas That consent not carnall copulation did make the marriage lawfull now heere after by the law of K. Henrie it began to be arule That carnall copulation not consent did make mariage lawfull And yet for all this the law-maker himsolfe K. Henry did against his owne proper rule and law reiect Anne of Cleeue his vvife vvhose mariage vvas not onely contracted by consent adone but consummated also by seauen moneths carnall copulation vpon this onely pretence that shee had giues her consent to another before I know not vvhom and vpon this fiction he maried another shee yet remaining aliue And of this law afterward the Protestants themselues vvere so much ashamed that after K. Henries death they recalled and disannulled the same 2. Concerning his Vicar generall Cromwell thus writcth also the said Doctor Sanders in the same booke Septembri meÌ„se authoritatesua Vicaria Canones quosdam Ecclesiasticos quos Iniunctiones vocabat sigillo Vicariatus sui munitos Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus reliquo Clero praescripsit in quibus praeter caetera iubebantur Parochi sub grauissimis poenis vt OrationeÌ„ DominicaÌ„ cum salutatione Angelica Symbolum item fidei decem Decalogi praecepta aliaque huiusmodi Anglicè in posterum in Ecclesijs docerent In the moneth of Septemb. K. Henries Vicar Generall by the authoritie of his Office prescribedcertain Ecclesiastical Canons which he called Iniunctions signed vvith the seale of his Office of Vicar Generall to the Archbishops Bishoppes Abbots and the rest of the Clergie vvher in among other things the Pastors of Churches vvere commaundâ—d vnder most setere punishment hereafter to readin their Churches the Lords prayer the Aue Mary the Creed ten Commandements in English c. 3. Now our English Aduersaries that vvite in these dates of the Kings Supremacy doc not agree in this poynt For that some of them say that the enacting or decreeing of Ecclesiasticall lawes doth by diuine Right belong vnto Bishops others say that it belongeth to Kings and Emperours The first apinion holdeth Marster Tooker pag. 42. of his booke where be saith that the Apostles in the first Councell at Ierusalem did enact this Ecclesiasticall law Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis nihil vltra imponere vobis oneris nisi haec necessaria vt abstineatis vos ab immolatis simulachroruÌ„ sanguine sussocato It hath seemed good vnto the holy Ghost and to vs to lay no further burthen vpon you then these necessary things that you abstaine from the things immolated to Idols and from bloud and that vvhich is strangled c. And this saith hee the Apopostles did by diuineright The other opinion holdeth Maâ—ster Thomson pag. 80. where he affirmeth that Bishops and Councells cannot enact or decree any Ecclesiasticall law which hath the force of lavv vnlesse Kings and Emperours consent therevnto His vvords are these Decreta Conciliorum Patrum Ecclesiasticis Censuris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantùm stetliIent nisi legum vim Caesarea auraipsis afflasser The Decrees of the Councells of the Fathers had been held but onely for ecclesiasticall censures and penalties vnlesse the Emperours fauour had imparted the force of lawes vnto the said Decrees c. 4. Heere now the Iarre is euident For without doubt that ecclesiasticall law vvhich the Apostles decreed had the force of a law for that so mush is gathered out of these vvords Visum est nihil vltra imponere vobis oneris nisi haec necessaria It hath seemed good to lay no further burtheÌ„ vpon you then these necessary things c. But this Ecclesiasticall law had not it force froÌ„ any fauor of the Emperor seeing that neither Tyberius nor Pilate nor Herod nor any other secular Prince which theÌ„ liued did by his fauour authorize the force of the law but that it came from the Apostles themselues For that they by their Apostolicall authoritie and power which they had reciued from Christ did decree and promulgate that lavv And the same power and authoritie haue Bishops now adaies not Kings nor Emperours English Concord
Pag. 48. DIstinguish but the times as St. Augustine teacheth you namely the times of the Churches peace wherein raigned Christian Princes and the times of persecution wherin Pagan Kings had the Soueraignty and you shall rightly vnderstand the Scriptures Of the peaceable times of the Church so writeth Dr. Tooker pag. 42. It belonged to King Dauid Salomon Iehoshophat and Iosias to giue lawes to the Leuites and to the whole congregation of Israel And in the same place he writeth again of the times of persecution Erat Apostolorum omnium c. It vvas not one but all the Apostles which both called the Councell and decreed vvith like solemnity of these words Visumest Spiritui sancto et nobis It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to vs. Ma. Thomson speaking of this matter doth not denie that the lame Apostolicall law had any force without the fauour of Caesar as though there had neuer beene law in the Church vvithout the aforsaid approbation of the Emperour but onely that without it they had no force vnder paine of corporall punishment as is most plaine by the tenor of his vvords So that heere is no Iarre or dissension among the English Writers as hee affirmeth but onely a dreaming dorage of the Iesuit who childishly sporteth himselfe with a fallacy of Equinocation especially when hee endeuoureth to match in equall ranke the lawes and Canons of Bishops with the lacred decrees and Constitutions of the Apostles Well wrote Saint Augustine Dâ—Nâ—ur et Grana c. 61. I am bound to consent to the holy Scriptures of the which sort are the decrees of the Apostles without all refusall And in another place Iread other Writers Epist 19. ad Hiero. Dist 9. Egoâ—oht how much soeuer they excell in holinesse or learning so as I doe not therefore thinke it truth because they thought so but because they perswade mee by other canonicall Authors or by probable reasons not differing from truth And against Faustus Lib. 11. ca. 5. We must read this kind of learning such as are the writings of the holy Fathers and Doctors non cum credendi necessitate sed cum libertate iudicandi not as bound to belieue them but as free to iudge them And vnto this purpose he writeth in another place Neither vvill I obiect the Councell of Nice vnto thee Cont Maxinn l. 5. c. 14. neither must thou obiect the Councell of Ariminum vnto mee let matter vvith matter and reason dispute vvith reason out of the authorities of holy Scriptures The Iesuit I hope will not deny that all the Apostolicall Sanctions vvere giuen by Diuine Inspitation and dareth hee affirme so much of all Ecclesiasticall Canons of Bishoppes yea though the Popes Holinesse haue breathed vpon them yea of the Councell of Trent Against which the Embassadours of the French King Anno 1562 who was there present protested in this manner Minus legitima minusque libera c. All those Councells vvere euer accounted lesse free and therefore not so lavvfull vvhen they vvho vvere assembled not ledde by the holy Ghost spake after the pleasure of some other to vveet the Pope And the Vniuersitie of Paris Anno 1517. in their appeale against Pope Leo the tenth and his Councell assembled at Rome wrote in this sort Leo Papa dicimus in quodam coetu c. Leo the tenth in a certaine Assembly in the Citie of Rome vvee knovve not hovv gathered together yet vve are sure not in the holy Ghost And is Becane the Iesuit ignorant in what pleasant manner Cardinall Cusan brake this iest vpon Eugenius the Pope saying De còcord lib. 2. ca. 20. Hovv can Pope Eugenius affirme this thing to be true because hee vvill haue it so and for no other cause Ac si inspiratio ipsius Sancti spiritus c. As if the mind of the holy Ghost vvere in the power of the Bishop of Rome and must then inspire vvhen the Pope vvill have him inspire To conclude this Question I desire the Iesuit Becane in the behalfe of Ma. Thomson to yeeld a sound reason wherefore the Bishops in the first Councell of Constantinople did in this humble manner entreat Theodosius the Emperour Rogamus clementiam c. Wee beseech your clemency that by the letters Patents of your Piety you vvould confirme and cause to be ratified the decree of this Councell BECAN Exam. Page 162 THe Apostles by diuine right might make lawes Which right cannot be proued to haue bin transtated froÌ„ them to Kings or Emperours but to Bishops successours of the Apostles with whom as with the Apostles the Spirit of truth remaineth for euer Therefore the Bishoppes and their Lawes or Canons euen in England are no lesse diuinely inspired then the Apostles or their Lawes or Canons Apostolicall Which if you deny the Arch-bishop of Cauterbury or certainely the Bishop of Ely will cause you to be punished therefore You are abasht to speake any thing of King Henry 8. his law touching the lawfull marriages in degrees not prohthited which carnall knowledge followed Dr. HARRIS Reply VVHat modest Hearer will not be abashed and what Christian heart will not tremble to heare these blasphemies vttered by the Iesuite The Apostles were Gods chosen pen-men to write the Scripture as they were immediately mooued by the Spirit of God 2. Pet. 2.19 21 without possibility of error They were Gods immediate instruments either joyntly in Councell or singularly alone to set downe Lawes and Canons Essentiall parts of that Scripture wherof we read thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Tim. 3.16 1. cor 15.15 The whole Scripture is gluen by inspiration of God The Apostles were such chosen witnesses to testifie Gods truth Gal. 3.8 that if an Angel from heauen should testifie otherwise than they did he must be accursed Are all Bishoppes or any one two three c. Gods immediate pen-man to write portions of holie Canonical Scripture Are all the Lawes and Canons made by Bishops in all Councells essentiall parts of Canonicall Scripture giuen by inspiration of God Are all Bishops God immediate chosen witnesses to testifie the truth so without all possibility of falshood that the Churches faith should depend thereon so sure that if an Angell of heauen testifie other wise then they haue preached or written he should be accursed Then must writings testimonies and lawes hereticall go for Scripture Canonical and so Diuine Scripture must be hereticall Is not this blasphemy And this necessarily followeth from the Iesuite his premisses here to weet That all Bishops and the lawes and Canons in Councells and other writings made by Bishops are and were inspired by the spirit of truth without errour as the Apostles and their Canons and writings were Ten seucrall prouinciall Synods gaue consent with the Arian Heretikes And whereas in the first and most famous generall Councell of Nice which maintained or thodoxally Christ his God-head there were but three hundred and eighteene Bishops In the hereticall