Councell of Ariminum which stood for Arius against the God-head of Christ there were eight hundred Bishops Which made Augustine contra Maximinum lib. 3. cap. 14. write thus Noc ego Nicenam Synodum tibi nec tu mihi Ariminensem c. Neither may I by way of preiudice obiect the Councell of Nice to thee nor you to me the Councell of Ariminum out of the authorities of Scripture let matter with matter cause with cause and reason encounter vvith reason The spirit of truth had so forsaken and the lying spirit of heresic had so possessed in a manner all the Bishoppes in the Christian world that as Hierom against the Luciferans saith Ingemuit totus orbis et Arianum se esse miratus est The whole Christian vvorld groaned and maruailed that it vvas become Arian or holding with that Arch-heretike Arian If any Councells surely the former and generall with their Canons were of Diuine inspiration But saith Augustine against the Donatists lib. 2. ca. 3. Ipsa plenaria Concilia saepe priora a posterioribus emendantur The former and generall Councells are often times corrected by later and prouinciall If the Acts and lawes of Popes be of Diuine inspiration why doe later Popes dissannul the former Popes Decrees For so writeth Platina de Stephano et Romano Acta priorum Pontificum sequentes Pontifices aut infringunt aut omnino tollunt The later Popes vtterlierepeale their predecessours Decrees For further answere to the Iesuite here first I say that the aforesaid immediate Diuine inspiration was personall and proper to the Apostles and not transitiue or deriuatiue from the Apostles to Bishops as in my English Concord by foure seuerall testimonies out of Augustine the most learned Bishop that euer wrote I proued directly and expressely whereunto this empty prattling Iesuite answereth not one word To stop his mouth euer hereafter touching this point I will adde this fift out of his hundred eleuenth Epistle ad Fortunatianum Nequequorumnuis disputationes quantumu is Catholicorum et landatorum hominum velut Scriptur as Canonicas habere debemus c. We ought not to receiue the disputations of any be they neuer so Catholike or praise-worthy as we doe the Canonicall scriptures so that it should not be lawfull for vs sauing the reuerence to them due to reproue or reiect somwhat in their writings if vve sinde it dissonant from truth Secondly I say that those words of our Saniour Ioh. 14. v. 16. The Spirit of truth shall remaine with you for euer are meant as well of Pastors and Teachers as of Bishops for Christ when he ascended gaue not onely Apostles Prophets Euangelists and Bishops but also Pastors and Doctours for the worke of the ministerie Ephes 4. v. 11. c1 14 and the edifisation of his body that his Church should not be carried about with enery winde of doctrine and deceits of men So that Presbyter preaching Pastours and Doctors as well as preaching Bishops stand in need of the Spirit to guide them into the heauenly truth That in Math. 28.20 I am with you to the end of the world is meant of the Church and euery member of the Church For so else-where saith our Sauiour Where two or three are gathered in my name there am I in the midst among them And so saith the Lord by Esaie Chap. 59 v. 21 My spirit that is vpon thee and my words which I haue put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of the seed of thy seed from henceforth euen for euer 2. Epist 2. v. 27. And so saith Iohn That anointing teacheth you of all things and it is true and is not lying and as it taught you ye shall abide in him Which made Panormitan De Elect et Elect. potest ca. Significasti write boldly thus Plus credendum vni priuato fideli quam toti Concilio et Papae si meliorem habeat authoritatem vel rationem There is more credit to be giuen to one Priuate lay man then to the whole Councell and to the Pope if he bring better authority and more reason Concerning that law of King Henry 8. about validitie of mariages not forbidden in the Leuiticall law the Iesuit may be abashed to misspend the time with such fooleries considering that Becane partly hath it but by relation of Sanders a lying Writer malitious aduersary to this State but especially because he confesseth the said law to be abrogated Belike Iesuitical dispute is transcendent Entium et non entium Of things which are and are not But hath not the Pope greater cause to be ashamed by whose Decree as by a law of Medes and Persians which chaungeth not it was lawfull for King Henry the 8. to marrie his owne Brother Arthurs wife Queene Maries mother that after Arthur was solemnly married vnto her and had knowne her carnally contrary to the a Leuit. 18 v. 16. et 20 v. 21 Law and the Gospell b Matth. 14 v. 4 and contrary to the iudgement of all the famous Vniuersities in Christendome who condemned the same as an incestuous marriage Did King Henry the 8. euer decree that marriages incestuous should holde as lawful Further before this Iesuite be hence dismissed hee should answere directlie breuiter et rotunde whether he and his Pope be not ashamed of that Canon 2. q. 7. Nos si incompet where the Pope with his breeches let downe to his heeles stands readie to receiue that correction which according to his demerites the Emperour should be pleased to impose vpon him Lastly I am in great feare least the Pope vnderstanding that Becane matcheth enery Bishop with his holines as being alike inspired with the spirit of Truth so that they can erre no more then the Pope can and consequently should make Canonicall lawes be Supreme Iudges of all controuersies as the Pope is will vtterly renounce Becane and abandon him as being one of a bastard and degenerate brood BECAN Exam. Pag. 167 You say it is fond to thinke that the lawes of Bishops haue as great force authoritie as the Apostles lawes bad Because the Apostles lawes are set downe in holy writte So was the Ordinance of Assuerus Heare me speake as the thing is Humane lawes such as the Apostles were receiue not greater force to binde because they are written in this or that book but because the law maker vseth greater power will haue it binde more According to these two rules one of Vipian Eth. lib. 10 cap. 9 Quod Principi placuit legis habet vigorem That which pleaseth the Prince hath vigour of law The other of Aristotle It mattereth not whether lawes be written or not written Dr. HARRIS Reply MY reason to prooue the Apostles lawes and Canons to be of greater force and authority to binde the conscience was not simply because they are found written in the Scripture as the Ordinance of Assuerus is
the Sea Especially to Rome for this Canon was made purposely against Appeales to the Bishop of Rome Concerning the Popes power ouer lawes Secular I produced a currant generall Axiome of theirs viz. The fulnesse of the Popes power surpasseth all positiue lavves And it sufficeth that in the Pope his will stand for reason And therein I did instance by this sentence of Panormitane De Constitut. ca. Ecclesia Sanctae Mariae nu 9. which also agreeth wholly with the Rubrike of that chapter Thus The law of the Prince preiudiciall to the Church or the law of any Inferiors behoueful to the Church doth not extend vnto the Church vnlesse it be expresly approued by the Pope Then I added thus The reasons heereof collected out of the Canon law by Iewell in his Defence of the Apologie are these Part. 4. c. 21. Di. 7. Though the whole vvorld should sentence against the Pope yet the Popâ—s sentence should preuaile because he seemes to haue all lawes 9. q. 3. Neque ab Augusto or rights in the closet of his breast And againe Therefore that which the Pope allowes or disallowes Dist 19. cap. Sâ— Roman in Glossa wee ought to allow or disallow Whosoeuer then doth not obey the statutes of the Romane Church is to bee accounted an heretick Further Dist 40. Si Papa in Gloss That it is a kind of Sacriledge to dispute of that vvhich the Pope doth Morcouer That the Pope hath a coelestiall arbitriment vvhence it followeth Extrâ— de trâ—psâ— Epi. ca. Quinto in Glossa that in those things which bee willeth His will to him for Reason is Neither is there any vvho should say to him Sir or Lord vvhy doe you so Lastly That as the Pope by his owne will onely can create a law Felin de Relcâ—pt so by his owne will onely hee can disperâ—â— vvith the lavv The Iesuit in his Examen answereth nothing vnto the lawes Ecclesiasticall either of the vniuersall Bishop or of the Equality bet weene the Bishop of Canstantinople and the Bishoppe of Rome and yet those said two lawes expell the Pope with his Primacy out of the Church and shut vp the Church doores against him as they of Eden were against Adam to preuent his future re-entrie But because the Iesuite doth make particular answers vnto most of the remainder I will set them downe seuerally and my Reply vnto them as followeth BECAN Exam. YOu cite out of the Councell of African Page 94. cap. 92. these words Ad Transmatina indicia c. Where vpon you gather that it is not lawfull to appeale to the Bishop of Rome But I vnto this day neuer saw any Councell of Aftick cap. 92. vvhich hath any such words And it is manifest by the best Authors that Appcales to the Sea Apesrolicait were alwates laâ— full and vsuall See the Councell of Sardica cap. 3. 4. 7. and Henorius Emperour in his Epistle to Arcadius which is set downe in the first Tome of the Councell among the Episties of Innocent the first Dr. HARRIS Reply WHereas he saith he cannot find that 92. chap. or the words heere specified wee haue the Iesuit confessing himselfe guiltic of his most palpable ignorance in the Canon law Councells Their owne Binnius whose Edition as they will haue it is the last largest and best Edition of the Councells in his first Tome pag. 643. citeth the 92. ca. Concil African sub Coelestino et Bonifac. in these very words Ite placuit vt Presbyteri Diaconi c. in causis quas habuerint si de iudicijs Episcoporum suorum questi fuerint vicini Episcopi cos audiant et inter eos quicquid est finiant adhibiti ab eis ex consensu Episcoporum suoruÌ„ Quod siab eis prouocandum putaucrint non prouocent nisi ad Africana Concilia vel ad Primates prouinciarum suarum Ad transmarina autem quiputauerit appellandum à nullo infra Africam in Communionem suscipiatur If Priests Deacons c. complaine of the iudgement of their Bishops let the next Bishops heare their causes c. If they shall thinke meete to appeale from them let them not appeale but onely to the Councells of Africk or to the Primats of their owne Prouinces But let not him bee receiued of any within Africk to the Communion who thinks hee should appeale to iudgement beyond the Sea These words the Iesuit might haue found in the Epitome of Councells written by their Carranza Yea in their owne Canon law 2. q. 6. cap. Placuit vt Presbyteri 11. q. 3. ca. Presbyteri Therefore the Iesuit heere makes himselfe together with his ignorance very ludibrious Touching the Decretall Epistles and others mustred among them they haue beene long since vpon iust demerit branded as bastards As for the Councell of Sardica Cardinall Cusanus De Concord lib. 2. ca. 25. saith That S. Augustine held not the Councell of Sardica for a Catholick Councell but rather for a Councell of Arrian hereticks And further That the Fathers in the Councell of Africa in which Councell Saint Augustine was present in their letters to Pope Coelestin wrote that they neuer found this Constitution decreed in the Councells of any Bishops Wherefore it may well be doubted whether this be a Constitution of the Councell of Sardica or not This answere may suffice the emptie citing of an Epistle and Canons of a Councell Wherout when the Iesuit expresseth other matter he shal receiue a further answere BECAN Exam. YOu cite these words of Cyprian Nemo nostrum c. out of the Councell of Constantinople Page 95. 2. cap. 36. But neither are those words found there neither was Cyprian present at any Councell of Constantinople Enery where you are rude and a stranger You haue no knowledge of times or places and yet suddainly you would be a Maister Dr. HARRIS Reply INdeed if I were so rude and such a stranger in the Fathers and Councells as hee sheweth himselfe heere to be I might rightly be termed rude and ignorant The very misplacing and the twice setting downe of the same Canon and of the same Councell for words so diuerse might easily haue informed the Iesuit that it was the Compositors or Transcribers and not the Authors ouersight There is none that knoweth Becane and my self but presume that I know as well as hee the times and places of all the Councells put forth in print and that I could not be ignorant of this viz. that S. Cyprian was dead a glorious Martyr more then 50 yeeres before any of the foure generall Councells much more before this sixt of Constantinople was celebrated or called But silly Iesuit can not hee find these words of Cyprian vttered by him in any Councell where hee was present Can hee cite any Councell but that of Carthage where Cyprian was present Or is hee ignorant that Cyprian was present at the Councell of Carthage and there vttered these words Nemo nostrum Episcopum
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
but because they are set downe there not only as Canons or Doctrines allowed but also as Essentiall parts of holy writte and Canonical Scripture so neither Assuerus Ordinance was not any Law or Canon of Bishop was is or euer shall be According to that of Saint Hierom vpon the 89. Psalme Quamuis sanctus sit aliquis post Apostolos quamuis disertus sit non habet authoritatem No man be hee neuer so holy or eloquent after the Apostles hath any authoritie The Canons and Doctrines of the Apostles are the foundations whereupon the Church of Christ is built Ephes 2.20 and containe that absolute certainety of Diuine truth that If an Angell from heauen should teach otherwise he should be accursed Agreeable to that of Saint Augustine Contra liter Petilian lib. 3. ca. 6. De quacunque re quae pertinet ad sidem vitamque nostram non dicam si nos sed si Angelus de coelo nobis annunciauerit praeterquaÌ„ quod in Scripturis legalibus et euangelicis accepist is Anathema sit Bee it of any thing that pertaines to faith or maners I do not say if vve but if an Angel from heauen preach otherwise then is set down in the scriptures Legal Euangelicall let him be accursed But of all other Lawes Canons and Writings Origen in his first Homilie vpon Hieremy writeth thus Sensus nostri et enarrationes sine his testibus non habent fidem Our iudgements or decrees and our Explanations vvithout these witnesses haue no credit And these witnesses saith Augustine De Pec. mer. et Remiss lib. I. cap. 22. nec falli possunt nec fallere Can neither deceiue nor be deceiued Therefore when Constantine the great had gathered those 318. Bishops to the famous Councell of Nice by way of instruction he gaue vnto them the Apostles Canons and Doctrines set downe in the Scripture as their Directorie rule whereby to make and square their Ecclesiasticall Canons Theodoret lib. 1. cap. 7. reports the wordes thus Euangelicae et Apostolicae literae c. The writings of the Euangelists Apostles and Prophets do plainely instruct vs in the vvill and minde of God Therefore laying aside contention let vs seeke out of those oracles diuinely inspired the vnsolding of things propounded Therefore what horrible blasphemy is this in the Iesuit to assert first that the Bishops their lawes and writings are of like inspiration and authority to binde the Conscience as the Canons and Doctrines of the Apostles contained in the Scriptures Secondly that it mattered not whether those Canons and Doctrines were written in Gods booke or no. Because Aristotle faid of all lawes Scriptaene sint leges an non scriptae interessenibil videtur Wheras Tertullian saith against that Heretike Hermogenes Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina Sinonest scriptum timeat vae illud adijcientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum Let Hermogenes shew it written or else let him feare that curse which is appointed for those vvho adde to or take from the Scripture And touching Philosophers the same Tertullian in the said book writes thus in capital letters Haereticorum Patriarchae Philosophi Philosophers are Arch-fathers of Heretikes Secondly That the Apostles Canons Doctrines set downe in Scripture are but humane Canons and Doctrines Which then saith Augustine de vnitat Eccl. contr Petilian cap. 3. were to be taken away His words be these Auferantur de medio quae aduersus nos inuicem non ex diuinis Canonicis libris sed aliunde recitamus Quaeret fortasse aliquis cur vis ista auferri de medio Quia nolo humanis documentis sed diuinis oraculis Ecclesiam sanctam demonstrari Away vvith all those authorities that either of vs alleage against the other but those that are taken out of Canonicall Scripture If any aske why I would haue all other authorities put away I answere because I vvould haue the Church demonstrated by Diuine Oracles not humane documents Plus aliquid dicam saith Chrysostome in his second Homily vpon Pauls second Epistle to Timothy Ne Paulo quidem obedire oportet si quid dixerit proprium si quid Humanum I will say more Paul him selfe is not to be beleeued If hee speake any thing of his owne if he speake only as a man Therefore Saint Paul of his Canons and Writings saith thus If any man thinke himselfe to be a Prophet or Spirituall 1. Cor. 14.37 let him acknowledge that the things vvhich I write to you are the Commandements of the Lord. How great is this Iesuiticall impietie and how abhominable too call Diume Oracles and Gods commandements Humane documents But this is not all The Iesuit addeth out of Vlpian for a generall rule That thesole will of the Prince is sussicient to make a law to be of force to binde Christians to obey for conscience sake for of such lawes only we here dispute Whence this impiety should necessarily follow that because Nabuchodonosor the Law-maker vsed all his Monarchicall power and authoritie to make a decree That euery subiect of his should fall downe and worship the golden Image which he had set vp Sidrach Mishak and Abednego were bound in conscience to fall down and worshippe it Heretofore we haue found the Iesuit to be very vnlearned but in this passage he declares himselfe to be impious also and blasphemous BECAN Exam. Page 169 WHere read you that the fift Councell of Constantinople vvas celebrated vnder Theodosius You alwayes erre Indecde the words you cite are in the first Councell of Constanunople viz We pray your Clemency to confirme the Councells decree The reason of which words you saide was this That alt though those Fathers made a decree which had force of an Ecclesiasticall law and force to compell by Ecclesiasticall censure yet they prased the Emperour to confirme the decree by adding a constraining force through temporall punishments If this your reason whereby you defended Thomson be good why doe you aske me another If if be not good why did you not answere for him better If Thomson meane that Prelates may by their owne authority make lawes Ecclesiasticall to bind their subiects to the keeping thereof by â—â—â—sures Ecclesiasticall but cannot vrge them by punishments Corporall and that Kings should onely subseruire serue vnder the Prelates as their outward executors hangmen or the like he consenteth with vs. Otherwise there is no Concord Chuse which you will Dr. HARRIS Reply COncord What concord hath Christ with Belial The beleeuing Protestant with the Idolatrous Papist The seruants of Christ with the sworne slaues of Antichrist Wicked Nahash the Ammonite would not couenant with the Gileadites for peace vnlesse he might thrust out all their right eyes and bring shame vpon all Israell The Iesuit here more wicked than Nahash protesteth that he will haue no concord with vs vnlesse he may not only bring shame vpon Israel but quench the light and glory of Israel to weet that our Kings casting their Crownes at the Popes nay at
inferiour Bishops feete should stand ready to be hangmen or the like executioners of all their impious and vnrighteous decrees commands viz to hang and burne whom when and where they will Chuse vvhich vve vvill We will chuse millions of Combats with garments tumbled in bloud rather than to yeeld to the least iotte of this shame and disgrace of our royall Monarches the Soueraigne Lords of all Prelates within their Kingdomes Patriarkes or Popes themselues Although no lines of concord can be drawen between vs and the Papists yet here among our sâ—lues is full consent Dr. Tooker saith in times of Churches persecution the Apostles did and wel might make lawes Ecclesiasticall Mr. Thomson granteth as much and addeth that because the authority of Emperours then heathen did not breath vpon them or with them they wanted the enforcements by corporall punishments as imprisonments losse of goods members life c. Dr. Tooker saith in times of Church peace the authority of calling Councels and of ratifying the Canons and Decrees made in Councels belongeth to Christian Kings and Emperours Mr. Thomson with full agreement saith in those times of peace the Bishops and Councels could not make any Ecclesiasticall law which had force of law without the authority of the King or Emperour To backe this assertion of Mr. Thomson I mooued the Iesuite to yeeld a sound reason why especially if that be true which Pope Boniface 8. in that last Canon Extrauâ—g Commun de Mâ—â—or et Obedien Vnam Sanctam viz. Vterque gladius spiritualis et materialis est in potestate Ecclesiae sed ille Sacerdotis is manu Regum et militum sed ad Nutum sacerdotis exercendus Both spirituall and materiall sword are in the Churches power but th' one is to be vsed by the hand of the Priest th' other by the hand of the King or Soldier but at the Priests beck or command so many to weeâ— 150. Bishops assembled in the first Councell of Constantinople should be such suppliants as it were vpon their knees vnto the Emperour beseeching so earnestly intreating him to confirme the Councells decree if that decree had had force of Ecclesiasticall decree without confirmation of the Emperour But this empty Iesuit not being able to giue another solide reason and not daring to yeeld that runs away from the matter and leaueth nought else behind him but the crackling sound of a windie tubbe answering vnto me nothing but this If your reason brought to defend Thomson were good vvhy did you aske me another If not why did you not giue me a better which his answer made in forme of the two horned Dilemma is thus returned vpon him with both hornes directly bent against him If my reason were good to accord them why doth the Iesuit here hold on his prattle of discord if it were not good why did not the Iesuit produce a better and a more solide reason of those Fathers intreaty for Imperiall confirmation to ratifie their decree considering that the Question as it was moued and darted by me strooke the Iesuites Cause through the very heart As som cannot fish but in troubled waters so it seemeth this Iesuit can holde no argument but in mists of confusion For here he confounds the Councell and lawes of the Apostles with Councels and Canons of after-Bishops Sic canibus catulos sic paruis componere magna It is belike the fashion Iesuitical to compare molehils with mountaines The Apostles in extraordinary manner Diuinely inspired might and did make Ecclesiastical lawes to binde the conscience of all Christians though not to punish their bodies But the after-Bishops in times of Christian Emperors neither did nor could meet specially in generall Councells to make lawes Ecclesiasticall for the space of 600. yeers at least after Christ without Imperiall commaund And when they were mette in Councell not only the Emperour but also his officers the lay Senate and Iudges sate as Presidents there giuing-rule and order for making of those Canons not suffering any to passe for law without their consent and confirmation of the Emperour as Hainric the Salo-Brigian in his Becano-Baculus hath with great varietie of solide proofs fully demonstrated and further hath there produced very many Ecclesiasticall lawes touching in a manner all Ecclesiasticall matters and Ecclesiasticall persons commendably made by orthodoxall Kings and Emperours without Councells of Bishops Lastly whereas the Iesuite here slyeth vpon mee indeede not vpon me but vpon the Compositer for mistaking the Arithmeticall figure of 5. for 1. and as though I had written fiue at large the Iesuit sets down quintuÌ„ he sheweth himself to be in the one a truthlesse wrangler and in the other a seely fly-catcher My Compositer or Transcriber must be whipt in print mistaking one letter for another but he must go scot-free mistaking one name for another one man for another to weet Tooker for Richard Exam. page 120. For which I would not taxe him in due place and here constrained I do it because I would not misspend the Readers precious time with such empty and childish trifles ⧠Becans Iarre VIII Question Whether the King by his owne proper authority may conferre collate or bestow Ecclesiasticall benefices 1. THat the King may conferre Ecclesiasticell liuings M. Henry Salclebridge affirmeth pag. 121. in these words Christiani Principes in suis Regnis cum laude propria authoritate beneficia conâ—ulerunt Christian Princes in their owne Kingdomes by their owne proper authority haue giuen or bestowed benefices and that to their praise c. And then againe pag. 150. Audin Iesuita non modo collationes beneficiorum ad Angliae Reges spectare fed ad eosdem illos spectare vti Ecclesiae Anglicanae Primates vel supremos Ordinarios c. Do you heare Iesuite the collation of benefices doth not onely belong to the Kings of England but also it doth belong vnto them as they are Primates or supreme Ordinaries of the Church of England c. And yet more Rex ratione supremae suae Ecclesiasticae iurisdictionis praesentabit ad liberas Capellas The King by vertue of his supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction shall be able to present vnto free Chappell 's c. 2. Now M. Tooker to the contrary denieth it pag. 36. where talking of the Kings of England he saith thus Beneficia autem curata vel non curata non conferunt omnino in queÌ„piam maiora minoraue multo minus dignitates Ecclesiasticas sine Episcopatus siue Archiepiscopatus per vniuersum ambitum Regnisui Eorum certè collatio vel institutio est quorum est destitutio id est Episcoporum Comprouincialium qui potestatem habent personas ipsassacrandi Hoc habetiuris Regia Maiestas quod minor â—ubordinata poteslas habet ius inquam nominandi pâ—aesentandi apud nos c. Kings doe not at all collate or bestowe vpon any man benefices that haue care of soules or not care greater or lesser and much lesse Ecclesiasticall dignities
vvhether Bishopâ—ickes or Archbishoprickes throughout the whole circuits of their Kingdomes For this truely belongeth vnto those whose office it is to dispose there of to wit to the Compreninciall Bishops who haue power to consecrate the saide persons on vvhome they bestowe them Indeede the Kings Maiesty notwithstanding hath this right with vs in England which an inferiour and subordinate power also hath to wit right so nominate and present vnto benefices c. 3. Behotde here a triple Iarre or discord betweene these two Authors and this in a daily and vulges watter The first is that M. Henry Salclebridge saith that the collasion of benefices belongeth to the Kings of England in that they he the Primates of the Church of England M. Tooker saith to the contrary that it belongeth not to Kings at all but to Bishops The second Iarre is that M. Salclebridge saith that Kings by their owne authority haue conferred benefices M. Tooker saith that they neuer do nor haue done The third is that M. Salclebridge saith that Kings by vertuâ— of their supreme Ecclesiasticall Iâ—risdiction may present 〈◊〉 benefices M. Tooker â—â—â—rrâ—th that in this point Kings hauene more right then their subiects and other inferiour persons for so he saith Hoc habet iuris Regia Maiestas quod minor subordinata potestas habet The Kings Maiesty hath in this point of conferring beneficer the same right that an inferiour and subordinate power bath c. Whether of these two then should King Iames belieue if he had a fat benefice or an Archbishopricke now to bestow English Concord HEere is also a Iesuiticall trifling altercation about words Hainric by collation of Benefices vnderstandeth Presentation Nominations to Benefices the very Donation of Benefices Doctor Tooker thereby concclueth the Institution of Presbyters and the consecration of Bishops Dr Tooker acknowledgeth the Kings Presentation Nomination Donation Hainric by no meanes attributeth to the king either Institution or Consecration as both of them being proper go the Bishops The Kings presenthig of his Clearks to the Bishoppe for institution of them into such Benefices with Cure as respect the Kings hereditary right of Patronage is nor much different from the presentations made by his subiects who haue the like right of Patronage vnlesse it be herein viz that the King by his writ may and doth compell the Bishoppe especially after recoucry by Quare Impedie opposing himselfe therein to institute fitte Clarks presented by his Maiesty or by other Patrons to the said Bishoppe But the presentation of certaine Benefices with Cure after they haue continued void of any Incumbent for the space of 18 Monethes appertaines vnto the King by way of lapse as vnto the Supreme Ordinarie in his Dominions or the only Supreme Gouernour of the Church therein and that by the common lawes of England as is expresly shewed in Becano-Baculus Page 142. 150. Moreouer there are certaine Benefices with Cure called Donatiues which admit no Institution at all of these the King by his owne Donation onely without any either Episcopall Institution or Archidiaconall Induction makes the Clearks rightfull possessours Doctor Tooker knoweth well these triuial and vulgar matters as Becane here calleth them and beares in minde our most learned Soueraigne his words in his Monitory Preface touching the Collation of Benefices Page 33. How often haue the Kings of France withstood the Pope in such sort that they would not yeeld vnto him the very Collation of Benefices And those other words concerning Bishoprickes receiued from Kings and Emperours Page 29. Euen the Pope also with all obedience and submission did acknowledge himself to hold his Popedom of the Emperour And Page 31. He that peaceably is desirous to know in what sort the Bishops of Spaine Scotland England Hungary by ancient Institution euen vntill moderne innouation came in and were inuested by Kings with quiet possession of their temporals purely and intirely he shall finde the same by searching the liues of the Fathers and by reading Histories Walthram Naumburg lib. de Inuestit Episc Behold then how a threefold Concord ariseth out of that threefold Iarre which the Iesuit faineth The first Concord Hainric saith that the conferring of certain Benefices belongs to the Kings of England by way of lapse as they are the chief Gouernours of the Church of England Doctor Tooker affirmeth that the Collation of Benefices lying void of any Incumbents aboue 18. Monethes appertaineth to the King onely by way of lapse and not to the Bishops or Archbishops or to any other subiect The second Hainric saith that Kings by their own authority haue oftentimes giuen Benefices to weet Donatiues Tooker auerreth that the King may giue 40. 50. or moe within the compasse of one yeare if so many fall void The third Hainric saith that by the lawes of England Kings because of their Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction present to free Chappels and that none of their subiects to weet Bishoppes or Archbishops haue authority to visit the said Chappels Dr. Tooker instructed by the same lawes auoucheth that Kings onely haue that authority and no subiects but by the Kings grant Finally if the hungry Iesuite who mindeth onely his meat that is far Benefices or Archbishoprickes can produce but one little either word of Scripture or sentence in Ancient Father whereby it may appeare that the Collation of Benefices belonged to the Primate of the Christian Church as Primate let him haue the victory But if he cannot vnlesse hee be more then impudent let him seale vp his lips and recognize those words of the Parisian Aduocate Arg. 11. Page 25. That of Luk. 9. The Sonne of man hath not vvhere to rest his head is Equiualent with this The Church by Diuine right hath no Territory BECAN Exam. Page 173 SMall Benefices without Cure may be conferred vpon Clearks which are neither Priests nor Bishops Therefore Tooker by Collation doth not meane Institution or Sacration Againe hee saith that the King of England hath no other right then to name or present but to giue or conferre is more then to name and present you faine Tooker by Collation to vnder stand Instuntion or Consecration Therefore you dissent from Tooker Hainric saith the Collation of Benefices belongeth to the King of England as Primate of the Church of England but this you deny for you bid mee shew out of Scripture or Ancient Father that the Collation of Benefices belongeth to the Primate of the Church Not I but Hainric who affirmed it must shew that It is my part only to shew that English Writers dissent in this point This I haue done let me therefore haue the victory Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere the Iesuit is as a chased timorous Hart which hauing his deadly wound giuen him flyeth out a while straggling from his fellowes but feeling decay of his vitall spirits and lifes bloud runs into the brakes to hide his head and there to perish Becane in his verball but in no sort reall confutation of his
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.
much as God can doe And I will yet deale more articulately and plainly kk Ioh. de Paris de Pot. Reg. Pap. Auentinus l. 6. Hee shall be Lord in temporal things thorough the vvhole world directly indirectly ll De Maior Solitae Anto. de Rosâ—l The King of Kings and Lord of Lords mm Dist 98. Si Imper. in gloss Extra de foâ—o coÌ„petent ca. Licet Beeing aboue all Emperours as his vassalls nn De Maior vnam sanctam Hauing of his owne both swords oo Auent in Adriano 4. Anno 1154. Beeing set ouer Nations and Kingdoms to destroy to pluck vp build and plant pp Hard. Iew. p. 5. c. 6. D. 8. From whom alone all Emperours hold their Empires qq Auent in Adrian 4. In vvhose power it is to giue them or take them from vvhom hee vvill rr Carion de Alexand. 3. Who treadeth the necks of Kings vnder his feet Å¿Å¿ Caelestinus Papa Vide RogetuÌ„ Cestrâ—nsem et Houenden And to conclude vvho crowneth Kings with his feet and vvith his feet againe spurneth the Crowne to the ground tt De Maior Solitae gl Beeing seuentie times seuen greater then the greatest Kings I will yet expresle the matter more articulately uu Lyra in Dâ—ut c. 17. Hee shall be so absolute a Iudge of all Controuersies that if hee shall say the right hand is the left or the left hand the right his saying is to bee belieued And this is the opinion of Bellarmine xx De Pont. Po. li. 4. c. 5. If the Pope should commaund vice and forbid vertue the Church were bound to belieue that vertue were euill and vice were good And they giue this reason thereof yy Panor de Constit c. 1. The fulnesse of the Popes power excelleth all Positiue lawes zz De transl Epis Quanto glossa Hostiensis ibidem and it sufficeth that the Popes will goe for a law whereby he can make righteousnes of vnrighteousnesse And heereupon Philelphus Decad. 6. Hecast 9. beautifully describeth the Pope as Antichrist saying Non Scytha non Turcus non quiterrore Damascum Aegyptumue tenet sed maximus ille Sacerdos E medio templi nostrum emersurus in axem Antichristus erit quise canit ore colendum Pro christo cuius refer at nomenque vicemque Which I English thus No Tartar grim or Turk or feared Saladine Shall be that Antichrist but that high Priest That midst the Temple sits adored with dread dinine Who beares the name Vicar is of Christ. I might be infinite in numbring the seuerall offices which are thought to be the offices of the Romane Primacie out of which I wil frame this after Becans maner I A. B. doe publiquely testifie and sweare in my conscience that I will be faithfull and obedient to the Bishop of Rome as often or whensoeuer hee shall by his owne proper authority directly in temporall causes create Emperours vvhom hee will or by the same power depose vvhom hee vvill If this part onely of the Popes Supremacy should be exacted of all the Iesuits what doe you thinke would bee done Would all thinke you yea they which adhere vnto the Pope sweare this Let them sweare that would as Baronius Triumphus Carerius and almost all the Canonists and many other famous Popish Writers Yet I amsure that Bellarmine and Becane if they be constant men will neuer sweare For thus writeth Bellarmine Papa not habet vllam merè temporalem iurisdictionem directè iure diuino lib. de Pont. Rom. 5. cap. 4. The Pope hath no meere temporall iurisdiction directly by the law of God And Becane in his Refuration pag. 18. Acprimum non disceptamus de primatu in temporalibus illum quisque Rex insuo regno legitimè habeat Wee dispute not of the Primacy in temporall causes let euery King in his kingdome lawfully possesse the same What then Is this so sure a ground with Bellarmine and Becane that they firmely determine to lose their liues like many glorious Martyrs in this kingdome rather then to admit the Popes supremacie abiure the Kings For this is thought to be one of the prime offices of the Popes supremacy That the Pope is Lord of the whole world directly in all temporall causes But this is vtterly false in the conscience of Becane and Bellarmine Or whether partly for preseruation of externall peace and gouernment which these menesteeme more then their faith and religion or partly that one of them may be made Pope the other a Cardinall which good fortune may befall them heereafter will they sweare against their owne conscience vnto the Popes supremacie with all functions which are thought to be parts thereof and thereof shall be branded as Carerius hath marked them to be impious Polititians of our time deseruing rather the name of Hareticks then of Catholicks Of whom may Pope Paul the fist truly affirme That he hath found more truth in sauage wilderobbers then in these kinde of men viz. the Iesuits which teach practice the Art of Equiuocation euen in their solemne swearing And thus much for the first reason which I am sure is enough if not too much for Bellarmine and Becane also His second reason is this King Iames dooth often protest that he claimeth no more right or iurisdiction ouer the Church then did the Kings in the old Testament long agoe But the Kings in the old Testament could not compell their subiects to sweare such an oath as this is I A. B. doe openly testifie and in my conscience declare that Ieroboam is the onely supreme Gouernor of this kingdome of Israel as well in spirituall as temporall matters And that no forrainer hath or ought to haue any iurisdiction power superiority or authority in this kingdom Ergo King Iames c. And a little after hee explicateth his Minor proposition thus After King Salomon there vvere two distinct kingdoms Iuda and Israel and there vvere two Kings vvhereof both had their successors There vvere Priests and Leuites in both who vvere chiefely ruled by the high Priest who liued in Ierusalem And yet Ieroboam could not lawfully say to his Priests and Leuites you shall not obey that High Priest resident in Iuda you are exempt from his iurisdiction c. So Becane I answer Can any man endure either in a Diuine so great ignorance or such malice in a Iesuit As though the Kings Maiestie did euer belieue write or so much as dreame either that all those things which the wicked Kings of Israel of whom Ieroboam was ring-leader did practice impiously in Ecclesiasticall matters or that all that iurisdiction which those vngodly kings did challenge ouer the Church doth belong to the King supremacy Of Ieroboam thus speaketh holy writ 1. Kings 12.28 The King made two golden Calues and said vnto the Israelites It is too much for you to goe vp to Ierusalem Behold the Gods that brought you vp out of the Land of
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
Whether the Pope may be Iudge of Controuersies For example these Popes following Pope Zepherinus or as some write Eleutherius Iudge of Montanisme of whome Beatus Rhenanus out of Tertullian against Praxeas noteth thus Episcopus Romanus Montanizat The Bishop of Rome is a Montanist or holdes vvith the Heretike Montanus Pope Liberius and Pope Leo both Arian heretikes iudges of Arianisme as appeareth by Alphonsus de Castro in his book of Heresies and by the Legend of Hillary Pope Anastasius iudge of Nestorianisme who as the saide Alphonsus there writeth fauouredthe Nestorian Heretikes Pope Honorius iudge of the doctrines of Sergius the Heretike of whom the Bishops in the sixt Councell of Constantinople action 13. write thus Wee haue anathematized or cursed or excommunicated Honorius vvho vvas Bishop of olde Rome because bee followed the opinion of Sergius in all things and confirmed his impious doctrines BECAN Exam. Page 97 OVt of Beatus Rhenanus who wrote Annotations vpon the book of Tertullian against Praxeas you cite these words Episcopus Romanus Montanizat that is the Bishop of Rome followeth the heresie of Montanus I haue often warned you of your deceitful Citations but all in vaine Beatus Rhenanus in his Annotations hath not those words but these Rectissimè egit c. The Bishop of Rome did very well who condemned that fained Prophecie of Montanus Which words are cleane contrary to those former vnlesse in your Grammar to receiue and to reiect Montanus signifie the same thing But I knowe the cause of your errour The Printer or some other besides the Annotations of Rhenanus had set downe in the margine of Tertullians booke certaine short notes which shew the matters there handled Therfore in a cortaine place he put these two words Episcopus Romanus The Bishop of Rome because the Bishop of Rome was there mentioned and a little after he put apart this word Montanizat is a Montanist because Tertullian defended the heresie of Montanus which the Pope had condemned You haning no regard of truth or faith conioyne those words thus Episcopus Romanus Montartizat I am asbamed of this Imposture or deceit Dr. HARRIS Reply IF there were but one dram of truth faith or modesty in this Iesuite he would not haue written so falsely deceitfully and impudently as here hee doth which I wil make most apparant in this Straine before I leaue him Tertullian following Montanus wrote his booke against Praxeas and in the beginning thereof he writeth thus Nam idem Praxeas tunc Episcopum Romanum agnoscentemiam prophetias Montani Priscae Maximillae et ea agnitione pacem Ecclesiis Asiae et Phrygiae inferentem falsa de ipsis prophetijs adseuerando et praecessorū eius auctoritates defendendo Coegit et literas pacis reuocare iam emissas et à proposito recipiendorum charismatum concessare Praxeas compelled the Bishop of Rome vvho at that time acknowledged or approued the prophesies of Montanus and in so doing brought peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia partly by affirming false things of those Churches and partly by defending the auctority of the Bishops predecessors to reuoke his letters of peace which he had sent and to cease from his further communicating vvith Montanus By which words of Tertullian it is cuident that the Bishop of Rome did then approue and by his letters maintaine the Hereticall Prophesies of Montanus Beatus Rhenanus in his edition of Tertullian besides his Annotations vpon him set footh his Marginall notes ouer against the text briefely expressing all-along the matters contained in the text ouer against these words of the text The Bishop of Rome acknowledging the Prophesies of Montanus and so bringing peace to the Churches he put these two Marginall notes viz. the former Episcopus Romanus Montanizat Because Tertullian saide The Bishop of Rome approoued Montanus The second Autoritas Romanorum Pontificum The authority of the Komane Bishops Because Tertullian said that the Bishop of Rome when he did Montanize by his letters sent brought peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia And heereto agreeth Rhenanus his Annotation vpon these wordes of Tertullian Episcopum Romanum Attende summam Romani Pontificis autoritatem etiam illis temporibus dum aliquid recipit aut damnat Obserue here the great authoritie of the Bishoppe of Rome euen in those times vvhen hec did eyther receiue or reiect anie thing To witte because once hee receiued Montanus but afterward reiected him So that it is most cleare that those vvordes The Bishoppe of Rome dooth Montanize is the verie Marginall note of Beatus Rhenanus conioyning all those three wordes Episcopus Romanus Montanizat without any separation of them by comma full point or any the like at the word Romanus as is to be seene in the Margine in all the editions of Tertullian euen by Papists as namely in the Edition of Renatus Laurentius de labar printed at Paris cum priuilegio An. 1580. where those marginall notes are set downe Their ownc Pamelius in his late Edition of Tertullian An 1608. leaues out those three marginal words Episcopus Romanus Montanizat And in his 7. annotation vpon those words Episcopum romanum sheweth himselfe griened at and much disliketh that those said three marginall words are extant in all former printed editions for thus hee writeth Quare eo magis improbanda aduocatio marginalis quae hactenus extat in excusis exemplaribus omnibus Episcopus Romanus Montanizat But if those margimall words Episcopus Romanus stood alone in the margin so full pointed because the Bb. of Rome is there mentioned then the word Montanizat set down in the margin separate frō the other two foresaid words because Tertullian doth there Montanize as this Iesuit would haue it Pamelius in common sense had no reason either to leaue our or dislike those three marginall words Iudge now gentle Reader how either pittifully ignorant if hee neuer read those said three marginall words in beatus Rhenanus his edition of Tertullian or if he did how shamefully impudent this Becane heere sheweth himselfe to be casting this aspersion vpon mee that I deceitfully alleaged those said marginall words conioyning them which in printed bookes stand separated and so applying that to the Bishop of Rome which the marginall note assigneth to Tertullian A more palpable vntruth could not be vuered Whereas he endeuoureth to iustific the same by citing these words out of Rhenanus his annotations Rectissime ergo egit Romanus Pontifex qui illam confictam Montani prophetiam damnauit The Bishop of Rome did well in condemning that fained prophecy of Montanus asking me whether it be all one to condemne approue Montanus hee doth manifest to the world how exceeding shallow he is not knowing whether he writ with or against himselfe Tertullian writing very distinctly of two seuerall times saith that the Bishop of Rome at the first approued Montanus and accordingly sent letters to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia signifying his communion with Montanus
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
their deserts he may depose as Salomon did Abiathar In the meane time 1. Reg. 2. ver 27. the King alloweth not that any Bishop especially the Bishop of Rome should rule ouer all the Christian vvorld This Iesuit bringing in our King heer denying that hee will meddle with the matters of other men not his subiects as on the one side hee deseruedly commendeth our gracious King therein so on the other side he iustly condemneth that busie-body the Pope intermeddling in matters of the King his subiects endeucâ—ring impiously and impudently to auert his subiects froÌ„ swearing allegiance vnto their Soueraigne against the law of Nature Nations against the law of God and man therein shewing himselfe indeed to be that wicked man that sonne of perdition that very Antichrist described by St. Paule 2. Thes 2 especially considering that neither our King nor the meanest vassall or villaine of our King is the Popes subiect For by the right and ancient diuision of Prouinces this Realme of England was not vnder the Bishop of Rome Pope Innocent 400. yeeresafter Christ confesseth that he had not sufficient authority to call one poore Britan out of this Realme The case was this The Bishops of Africa prayed Innocentius cither to send for Pelagius the Britan or to deale with him by letters to shew the meaning of his lewd speeches tending to the derogation of Gods grace To whom the Bishoppe of Rome answered thus Quando c. When will hee commit himselfe to our iudgement write I what letters I vvill See B. Bil. Pag. 320. vvhereas he knoweth hee shall be condemned And if hee were to be sent for they may better doe it that are neerer to him and not so farre distant as I am BECAN Exam. Pag. 115 IF these propositions be equiualent viz. The King hath not Primacy Ecclesiasticall The King cannot execure offices Sacerdotall or Episcopall then it followeth that they who deny the King canexeciâ—te officas Sacerdot all deny the King to haue Primacy Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall And they vvho hold that the King hath Primacy Spirituall affirme that he may execute offices Episcopall This is rather to increase then to take away the Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere the Iesuit playeth the wrangling Sophifter his Elench is as the Schoole tearmeth it A dictosecundum quid addictuÌ„ simpliciter For these words Primaeus Ecclesiasticus doe not simply but secundum interpretationem vel sensum according as some Writers meane thereby signisie Primacy Episcopall and not Regall In which sense all Protestant Writers deny the King to haue Primacy Ecclesiasticall Others by those words Primatus Ecclesiasticus mean Primacy Regall or not Episcopall In which sense all English Protestant Writers ascribe vnto the King Primacy Ecclesiasticall and as Master Burhill vvriteth may vvell call it Primatum Spiritualem Spirituall Primacy So heere the Iarre is taken cleane away and the Iesuit is sully answered in all objected by him in due place The rest which against his owne and all good method hee iumbleth heere together hotch-potchwise as The King to be no Head nor to call Councells c. shall heereafter in their due place receiue also their full answere ⧠Becans Iarre III. Question Whether the King by vertue of this Primacy may bee called Primate of the Church MAister Henry Salclebridge doth absolutely affirme it For thus be writeth pag. 140. Dico Regem Angliae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Primatem esse I say that the King of England is Primat of the Church of England Nay he vvill haue this point to be so certaine and out of al doubt that he thinketh whosoeur should deny it to offend against the publike profession of England For so he saith pag. 177. Angliae RegeÌ„ Anglicanae Ecclesiae PrimateÌ„ esse in professione publica Anglicana Veritasis sacris liter is nixae ponitur That the King of England is Primate of the Church of England is founded in the publique English Profession of Truth grounded vpon the sacred Letter 2. M. Tooker and M. Burhill doe absolutely deny it For thus writeth M. Tooker pag. 3. Olere autem malitiam ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud videtur cùm RegeÌ„ Caput Ecclesiae Primatemque consingas It may seeme to sauour of malice and cry out vpon your saucinesse when as you feigne the King Head and Primate of the Church c. And Ma. Burhill pag. 133 Nec primatem quidem omnino Regem nostrum dicimus multò vetò minus Primatem Ecclesiasticism Neither doe wee at all call our King Primate and much lesse Ecctesiasticall Frimate c. 3. Heer-hence doe I frame a twofold Argument One out of M. Tookera words in this manner Hee that affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church is a sausy and malicious fellow But M. Salclebridge affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church Ergo he is a sausy and malicious fellow The other argument I frame out of M. Salclebridges words thus He that denieth the King to bee Primate of the Church doth offend against the publique Profession of the Truth receiued in England But M. Tooker denieth the King to be Primate of the Church of England Ergo he offendeth against the publique profession of the Truth receiued in England So I wis one Mule claweth another 4. But now it may bee demaunded whether of them doth iudge more rightly in this case M. Salclebridge who affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church or M. Tooker that denieth it This controuersie dependeth vpon another question to weet whether these two Names Primate and Primacy are necessarily connexed or as they say Coniugata M. Salclebridge thinketh that they are Therfore because he hath once affirmed the King to haue the Primacy of the Church hee consequently anerreik that the King is Primat of the Church For that with him this Argument hath force à Coniugatis The King hath Primacy Ergo the King is Primate As also this The Chaplaine hath a Bishoprick Ergo he is a Bishop 5. Now M. Tooker hee thinketh the contrarie For pag. 6. of his booke hee expresty saith That the King hath the Primacy of the Church but yet hee is not the Primate of the Church And contrariwise The Archbishop of Canterbury hath not the Primacy of the Church yet is he Primate of the Church So as hee denieth these two consequences à Coniugatis to weet I. The King hath the Primacy Ergo hee is Primate 2. The Archbishoppe is Primate Ergo hee hath the Primacy And perhaps hee vvill deny these in like manner I. The Chaplaine hath a Bishopricke Ergo hee is a Bishop 2. M. Tooker is a Deane Ergo hee hath a Deanery English Concord Pag. 29 WHy should I schoole an Asse with whom gently to claw and curstlie to kick Mule-like is all one Or why should I rubbe your memorie to recognize these your owne words Iames the most renowned potent King of England Refut Apol. Praef. monit Regis pag. 17.
qui EcclesiasticaÌ„ temporaleÌ„ iurisdictioneÌ„ habet quideÌ„ Supremá The king is a person mixt to wit that hath both Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall and Temporall that in the highest degree c. And yet more p. 144. Perleges Ecclesiasticas in hoc Regno approbatas vnus Sacerdos duo beneficia habere non potest nec Bastardus Sactis initiari Verùm Rex Ecclesiastica potestate iurisdictione quam habet in vtroque dispensate potest By the Ecclesiasticall Lawes approned in this Kingdom of England one Priest may not have two Benefices nor a Bastard be made a Priest But the King by the Iurisdiction And Power Ecclesiasticall which hee hath can dispense in both c. 3. M. Tompson and M. Burhill doe absolutely deny it M. Thomson pag. 80. of his booke writing thus Primatus Ecclesiae non est definiendus per iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam sed per gubernationem supremam The Primacie of the Church is not to be defined by Iurisdiction Ecclesisstical but by supreme GouernmeÌ„t c. And againe pag 95. Diximus Regem gubernare quidem Ecclesiastica sed non Ecclesiasticè Wee haue said before that the King indeed doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically And why I pray you Because for sooth be hath not Iurisdiction Ecclesiatically but onoly Temporall And heerounto agreath Must Buchill pag. 234. granting this negatine proposition Rex saith he nullam habet Iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam nec in foro interiori nec inexteriori The King hath no Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall neither in the interiour nor exteriour Court c. 4. Now my Lord of Ely hee distinguisheth in this case as may be seene in M. Tookers Booke pag. 305. in these vvords Habet Rex omnem iurisdictionem spiritualem in foro exterioti exceptis quibusdam Censuris The King hath all inrisaction spirituall in the extoriour Court except is certain Consures c. So as now to this question to weet vvhether the King as hee is Primate and Head of the Church haue any Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall or spirituall in the exteriour Court we must anâ—were thus First with M. Tooker and M. Salclebridge That he hath most ample most full and supreme Iurisdiction Secondly with my Lord of Ely That he hath indeed some but notall And lastly with M. Burhill and M. Thomson That hee hath none no not any one iote at all English Concord Pag. 38 THese are the very expresse words of the law of England which is now in force Star 1. Elzab That Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction vvhich was exercised heeretofore or lawfully might be exercised by any spiritual or Ecclesiasticall power to visit the Ecclesiasticall state order also to reforme to bring into order and to correct Ecclesiasticall persons all errours heresies schismes c. is for euer vnited and annexed to the imperiall Crowne of this kingdome vvhereby the King of England through his full power by his Letters Patents may assigne authorise such persons being naturall borne subiects as he shall think meet to exercise execute vnder his Highnes all manner of Iurisdictions priuiledges and preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction within his Highnesse Dominions Now all Protestant English Writers in the Oath of Supremacy which they haue takeÌ„ Lorament Primat in Apol. Reg. pag. 56. haue openly testified in their conscience declared that they will with all their power ayde defend all Iurisdictions Priuiledges and prehemiâ—eâ—ces vnited and annexed to the Crowne of this kingdom Wherefore all plainly agree in the thing it self But that which the Iawes of Engl. call Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction define to be the supreme Gouernmet in all Ecclesiasticall things ouer all Ecclesiasticall persons M. Thomson would rather call Supreme Gouernment The R Tortur Tort. p. 151 Bishop touching this matter writeth thus This I vrge that the IurisdictioÌ„ which Abbesses haue with you is ordinary spirituall IurisdictioÌ„ For the Abbat hath ordinary in her administration the Abbess is equalled with the Abbat And what should let it Because they cannot exercise censures excoÌ„municate But excoÌ„munication doth not directly belong to the key of order In 4. SenteÌ„ Dist 18. q. 2. art 2. Aquinas asserteth this Excommunication is no act of the key directly but rather of the externall court And it is a common opinion with you that he that hath not the key of order may excommunicate Those things which are of order and the inner court are denied to women but things belonging to the outward court are coÌ„municated to Layiks of those things there is no reason but that women may be capable As Stepha d'Aluin doth stiffly argue for his Abbesses and therein takes our part the Sorbon approuing his opinion therein Although we ascribe not to our King power of Censure and therein you giue much more to your Abbesses then we to our Prince Ma. Burhill demes the King to haue any Iurisdiction in the outward court to weet Sacerdotall So the King of England hath all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction that is Supreme and Regall wherof onely our controuersie is but no Sacerdotall no none at all and yet without any Iarre whatsoeuer But oh Becane can you without blushing if there be but a graine of pudency in you obstinatly detract froÌ„ most religious Kings all supreme Iurisdiction properly Regall when women of whom St. Paul 1. Tim. 2. v. 12. I permit not a woman to vse authority ouer the man with you are capable Fran. Steph. D' Aluin de Potestat Episc Abbatú Abbatiss ca. 2.3 4.11 c. and partakers of Spirituall Iurisdiction Sacerdotall or Episcopall viz. Of power to excoÌ„municate Clerks to absolue to visit to institute to present to Benefices Prelatures dignities Ecclesiasticall yea of hauing all administration as wel spirituall as temporall but only of those things of order wherof a woman is incapable Lastly al those things which Salobrigiensis doth heer recite touching Kings anointed with sacred oyle c. Mixt persons c. which may dispense against lawes Ecclesiasticall are transcribed out of the expresse words of the common lawes of England which in this kind of argument might haue satisfied to the full BECAN Exam. Pag. 139 THomson saith expresly that The Primacy of the Church is not to be defined by Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but the law of England doth so define it Thomson saith that The King doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically therefore his Iurisdiction is not Ecclesiasticall Burhill detracteth from the King all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in the outward Court that is as you say Sacerdotall but Tooker faith that All iurisdiction of Priests is in the inward Court The Bishop of Ely saith The King hath no Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the outward Court but onely power of Censure And saith againe The King hath not power of censure But Hainric and Tooker say The King hath all supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction The English law saith The King hath all manner
large That an Abbesse may haue a Praelature and dignity with administration and a right to visit euen without the Monastery which right she may also commit to others And the Bishop Bitontine very lately holdeth and proueth the same in his works dedicated to Pope Clement 8. See the very Text. Sext. de Elect ca. Indemnitatibus prouing the same Barthol in l. 1. cod de dign lib. 12. n. 4. saith that Abbesses haue dignity with administration not onely ouer their Nunnes but also without for that they haue Castles c. as Abbats haue dignity with administration Sext. de Priuilegijs ca. Apostolicae And therefore by a ruled case among the Doctors grounded vpon ca. Attendentes in Clemētin de stat Monachor they ought to visit or to commit the visitation to others Extra con ca Vas electionis Out of these the like Steph. d' Aluin ca. 2. sect 12. of the power of Abbesses concludeth that Abbesses Prioresses claustrall by a certaine right constitutions and rule of S. Benedict from whence all the rest in a manner are drawne as also by custome haue authority and power ordinary spirituall and Ecclesiasticall ouer those that are vnder them And cap. 3. sect 8. That Abbesses Prioresses ex cardin concil 17. cal 4. bj cap. Dilecta and the Gloss adioyned haue all administration as well spirituall as temperall of those monasteriall Nuns saue only of those things whereof a woman is vneapable to weet of Order Now touching the power which Abbesses haue to excommunicate Because Tho. Aqui. in 4. sent dist 18. q. 2. art 2. in corpore writeth thus Excōmunicatio non est actus clanis directe sed magis exterior is iudicij Excommunication is not an act of the key directly but rather of external court Nauarre lib. quinto consil 1. de sentent Excom concludeth that a vvoman by priuiledge may also excommunicate Tabiena and Arnilla verbo Abbatissae nu 3. besides Panormitan Astensis and others That an Abbess may cōmand the Priests her subiects to excōmunicate their rebellious obstinat Nunnes or to absolue them Whereupon Steph. d'Aluin cap. 3. sect 12. concludeth thos Proinde omnis habens Iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam et si non habeat clauem ordinis potest excommunicare ex D. Thoma Therefore all hauing Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction may excommunicate according to Tho. Aquin. Now that they haue Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction witnes Panormitun in ca. De stat Monachor Iason consil l 40. lib. 2. Flaminius deresig lib. 3. q. 12. n. 12. saying Dispositum iur is in Abbate habere locum in Abbatissis What right Abbats haue Abbesses haue the same And againe Panormitan Arnilla Flaminius write That Abbesses exempt haue right or iurisdiction to visit the places and persons subiect to them and that they haue Clerks subiect vnto them Pleno iure that is vnder their gouernment as well Ecclesiasticall as Temporall Now say Card. Parisius and Flaminius Out of the right to visit or from visiting by her selfe or her deputie followeth her Iurisdiction to depriue depose correct punish and chastise And to haue them subiect to her Pleno iure by full right doth plainely import Iurisdiction Depriuation Visitation and Correction To conclude this point If priuat men and vvomen be capable of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction If Abbesses haue and execute the same in collating Benefices instituting suspending depriuing visiting iudging crimes and imposing and receiuing purgations of Bishops lastly excommunicating and absoluing according to Popish Canons Canonists Custome and practise among them with what face doth this Iesuit or any other Papist scandalize our Kings or Queenes for taking or vs for ascribing vnto them Supreme Ecclesi Iurisdiction yet not that wherby our Kings or Queens may institute Clerks excōmunicate or absolue them oras King Iames and late Queen Elizabeth haue in their writings published to the whole world Therefore most impudently false is the Iesuit heere asserting that Queen Elizabeth had power to excommunicate Touching Suarez let this Iesuit know that Steph. D' Aluin hath refuted in this point a farre greater better learned man then Suarez is to weet Franciscus a Victoria in his Relect. 2. de potest Ecclesiae and shewed the practise of the Church to be as heere hath beene declared Christian Reader I haue beene much heere in this point because it is of that moment and so remarkable for recompence in replying to the remainder of Becanes Examivation I promise to bee short the rather because in truth it is but froth not deseruing any other answere at all but that which is already set down in my English Concord ⧠Becans Iarre VI. Question Whether the King of his owne Authority can assemble or call together Councells 1. NOvv follow the Iarres and debates of our Aduersaries concerning the Offices and Functions of the Kings Primacy and they are sixe in number which may be disputed of The first is of assembling or calling together of Synods The second of enacting of Ecclesiasticall lawes The third of conferring or bestowing of Benefices The fourth of creating and deposing of Bishops The fift is about Excommunication The sixt and last is about the decision and determining of Controuersies The question then is vvhether these offices belong to the Kings Primacy I will speake a vvord of each in order 2. First it may bee demaunded vvhether the King by vertue of his Primacy may of his owne authority call or assemble together Synods therein sit as chiefe head This was certainly perswaded that it might be done in the time of King Henry K. Edward and Queene Elizabeth but now vnder King Iames the matter is called into question M. Salclebridge pag. 121. affirmeth that be can dot it in these vvords Christiani Principes in Regnis suis cum laude propria auctoritate Synodos conuocarunt Constitutiones condiderunt causas audierunt cognouerunt Christian Princes haue with great praise assembled Synods by their owne authority in their Kingdoms haue made Constitutions heard and examined causes c. And again pag. 146. Rex Angliae potest Synodos indicere omnium Ordinum Oecumenicas et in ijsdem praesidere The King of England saith he may assemble Generall Councells of all Orders or degrees and therein sit as President or Chiefe c. And pag. 155. hee saith in like manner Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate deiure Synodos conuocarunt The Kings of England haue by their owne supreme authority and by right assembled Synods c. 3. Now Ma Tooker in this point is very variable one vvhile contradicting himselfe another while others And this is manifest out of the diuerse testimonies he produceth The first is pag. 37. where hee hath these words A quibus magis aequum est indici Concilia quà mabillis penes quos semper fuit authoritas ea congregandi Cùm autem communiter triplex ponisoleat Concilium Generale Prouinclale Dioecesanū Concilium Generale solius Papae iussu celebrari vultis sed nequeillud nisi ab
Imperatoribus Regibus simul consentientibus hodie indici debet Prouinciale à Metropolitano cum suis Suffraganein Dioecesanum ab Episcopo cum Curatis Rectoribus Clericia Dioeceseos c. By whō is it more fit that Councells should be assembled then by those in whose power hath alwaies authority beene to call them together For wheras commonly there be three sorts of Councells Generall Prouinciall and of a particular Diocesse the Generall Councell you vvill haue to be celebrated onely by commandement of the Pope but yet not so neither now adayes vnlesse Emperours and Kings doe agree therevnto also A Prouinciall Councell is to bee assembled by the Metropolitan and his Suffragans that of the Diocesse by the Bishoppe thereof together vvith the Curats Rectors and Clerks of the same Bishopricke c. Out of vvhich testimonie vves may gather that the King of England cannot assemble a Councell of kis ovvne authoritie Not a Generall because that belongeth to the common consent of Kings and Emperours Not a Prouinciall because that pertaineth to the Metropolitan Not of the Diccesse because that belongeth to the Bishopot thereof What then I pray you is left vnto the King 4. Another testimonie heereof is out of the same Ma. Tooker pag. 41. in these vvords Abundè liquetex Concilijs ipsis historia Ecclesiastica Prouincialia Concilia Nationalia ab Imperatoribus ac Regibus fuisse congregata It is aboundantly manifest out of the Councells themselues and the Ecclesiasticall Histories that Prouinciall and Nationall Councells haue beene assembled by Emperours and Kings c. This now is plainely repugnant to his former testimony For there hee affirmeth that Prouinciall Councells are tobe assembled by the Metropolitans thereof heere bee saith that they must be assembled by Kings and Emperours There is distinguished onelie a threefold Councell to weet Generall Prouinciall and that of the Diocesse heere now is added a fourth to weet Nationall 5. His third testimony is set downs pag. 42. vvhere he proposeth this question Quoigitur iure tantam sibi porestatem arrogat Pontifex solus Num diuino By what nighe then I pray you doth the Popechallenge vnto himselfe alone so great power Doth hee doe it by diuine right c. And a little after hee addeth Erat Apostolorum omnium non vnius tantummodo indicere Concilium statuere cum verborum solennitate Visumest Spiritui sancto Nobis c. It belonged to all the Apostles not to one alone to assemble a Councell and vvith solemnitie of vvords to ordaine It seemes good vnto the Holy Ghost and vs c. As if hee vvould say That as by diuine right not S. Peter alone but all the Apostles together with equall power did assemble the first Councell at Ierusalem and therein decreed that law about eating of bloud and strangled meates so in like manner by diuine right not the Pope alone but all Bishops with equall power must assemble Councells and decree Ecclesiasticall lawes Surely if it be so then without doubt it follovves that the power to call or assemble Councells doth not belong by the law of God to secular Kings and Princes but to the Apostles and their successors c. 6. His fourth testimony is pag. 63. vvhere hee saith Mixtum autem ius resultans ex vtroque iure Regio Episcopali est Legum sanctio Synodorum indictio praesidendi in ijs praerogatiua controuersiatum decisio aliorumque actuum qui his finitimi sunt exercitium quae ferè ab origine Primatus Regij descendunt communicantur Sacerdotibus c. The decreeing or enacting of lawes the assembling of Synodes and Prerogatiue of sitting therein as chiefe or head as also the exercise of all other offices in this kind is a certaine mixt Right proceeding from both Kingly and Episcopall power vvhich things doe in a manner come downe or descend from the origen of the Kings Primacy and are communicated or imparted vnto Priests c. This now againe as you see is contrary to that vvhich hee said next before For there bee vvill needes haue the assembly of Synodes or Coūcells to belong by diuine right to the Apostles beer for sooth hee vvill haue the same chiefely to belong to Kings and from them to be deriued vnto Bishops These things doe not agree one with another English Concord HItherto the contention hath been Grammaticall about words and names 1. Whether that supreme gouernment of the King in the Church of England which all our Writers doe professe ought to bee called Primatus or Suprematus Primacy or Supremacy 2. Whether he that holdeth that supreme gouernment in the Church of that his Primacy may be called Primate of the Church or Head of the Church or the onely Supreme Gouernour of the Church 3. Whether that Supreme gouernment or Iurisdiction which is in all Ecclesiasticall matters and aboue all Ecclesiasticall persons ought to be called the Supreme gouernment of the Church or the Supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall These foolish and vnlearned questions 2. Tim. 2.23 Saint Paul forbiddeth vnworthy of Diuines but as it should seeme not of a Iesuit Let Becane tell me ingenuously whether these six offices only appertaine to the Papall Primacy Or whether there be not sixtie times six which may be called into question Let him tell me whether these offices doe properly pertaine to the Primacy of Peter and so to the Bishop of Rome Let him shew mee where it is written or that Peter had any Primacy at all or that this his Primacy is contained or defined within the bounds and limits of these duties or that euer Peter did exercise such offices as Primats of the Church That is to say let him manifest out of the Scriptures what Councell Peter summoned as Primate of the Church what Ecclesiasticall lawes he made what benefices hee collated what Bishops he created or deposed of what controuersies hee was supreme iudge These things if the Iesuite cannot shew he is a pratler and no disputer for all yea the meanest of Bishops in the kingdome doe excommunicate are therefore all those Bishops Primates and Supreme gouernours in the vniuersall Church throughout the whole kingdome our question is of one only Supreme gouernour of the whole Church in the kingdom Make exception but of Excommunication alone and Hainricus by many expresse authentike writings hath demonstrated that Christian Princes haue with singuler commendation 1. Called Councells 2. Made Ecclesiasticall lawes 3. Conferred benefices although this seemeth too grosse and greasie whereof to make a part of Primacy 4. Created and deposed Bishops 5. Taken vp and ended controuersies But so granted that no mortall man can be iudge of all controuersies especially of faith That Christian Princes of their owne authoritie and with commendation haue summoned Councells both Hainric and Dr. Tooker do expresly write in plain words Neither is Dr. Tooker in this point either against him self or against Hainric When that first councell was assembled
Or whether Patriarchs be successors of some of the Apostles and Archbishops of other-some and Bishops successors of the lowest or third rank And whether one kind onely of these successors or all three kinds may call generall Councells Secondly whether all the Bishops in the Christian world as the Apostles successors must ioyntly as all the Apostles did call generall Councells or because that would now proue too-too troublesome how many of them may serue that turne ⧠Becans Iarre VII Question Whether the King can enact Ecclesiasticall lawes or no 1. It is cleere that K. Henry the 8. did as well by himselfe as by his Vicar Generall Cromwell enact Ecclesiasticall Lawes For so saith Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England His diebus vigilantissimus hic Ecclesiae Pastor Henricus quo in posterum sciretur quae cui rite nupta eâ—â—et legem ediderat perpetuam de Nupt. js Comitiorum etiam auctoritate confirmatam qua statuebatur vt si quae personae in Leuitico non prohibitae solo consensu perverba de praesenti matrimonium nulla carnis copula subsecuta contraxerint eae verò ambae postea vel earum altera nuptijs cum altera persona in Leuitico non prohibita contractis carnali copula easdom consummauerint hae posteriores quas firmasset copula non priores illae quas solus consensus statuisset ratae atque legitimae haberentur adco vt cùm olim iuris Gentium fuisset Regula Nuptias non concubitw sed consensus facit iam deinceps Henrici regula effe coeperit Nupttas non consensus sed concubitus facit Ettamen ipse Legis-lator contra suam ipsius regulam vxorem Annam Cliuensem cuius nuptias non solo consensu sed septem etiam mensium concubitu firmauerat eo solùm praetextu reiecit ipsaque viuente aliam superinduxit quòd alteri nescio cui consensum antea praebuisse fingeretur Huius ergo legis tantopere postea puduit ipsos Potestantes vt mortuo Henrico eam ipsi reuocaucrint atque irritam fecerint c. In these daies the most vigilant Pastor of the Church K. Henry that it might be knowne to posterity what woman vvere lawfully maried to another enacted aperpetuall law concerning Marriage authorizing the same by publick Decree of Parliament vvherin it vvas ordained that if any persons not prohibited in the Leuiticall law should contract martage by only consent and by vvords de praesenti no carnaell copulation following the same and that the said persons or either of them should after vvard contract vvith another person not prohibited in the Leuiticall law and consummate the same by carnall copulation that then these later contracts vvhich vvere consummated by carnall copulation not the former that were agreed vpon by onely consent should be accounted for good and lawfull In so much that vvhereas the rule of the law of Nations in old time vvas That consent not carnall copulation did make the marriage lawfull now heere after by the law of K. Henrie it began to be arule That carnall copulation not consent did make mariage lawfull And yet for all this the law-maker himsolfe K. Henry did against his owne proper rule and law reiect Anne of Cleeue his vvife vvhose mariage vvas not onely contracted by consent adone but consummated also by seauen moneths carnall copulation vpon this onely pretence that shee had giues her consent to another before I know not vvhom and vpon this fiction he maried another shee yet remaining aliue And of this law afterward the Protestants themselues vvere so much ashamed that after K. Henries death they recalled and disannulled the same 2. Concerning his Vicar generall Cromwell thus writcth also the said Doctor Sanders in the same booke Septembri meÌ„se authoritatesua Vicaria Canones quosdam Ecclesiasticos quos Iniunctiones vocabat sigillo Vicariatus sui munitos Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus reliquo Clero praescripsit in quibus praeter caetera iubebantur Parochi sub grauissimis poenis vt OrationeÌ„ DominicaÌ„ cum salutatione Angelica Symbolum item fidei decem Decalogi praecepta aliaque huiusmodi Anglicè in posterum in Ecclesijs docerent In the moneth of Septemb. K. Henries Vicar Generall by the authoritie of his Office prescribedcertain Ecclesiastical Canons which he called Iniunctions signed vvith the seale of his Office of Vicar Generall to the Archbishops Bishoppes Abbots and the rest of the Clergie vvher in among other things the Pastors of Churches vvere commaundâ—d vnder most setere punishment hereafter to readin their Churches the Lords prayer the Aue Mary the Creed ten Commandements in English c. 3. Now our English Aduersaries that vvite in these dates of the Kings Supremacy doc not agree in this poynt For that some of them say that the enacting or decreeing of Ecclesiasticall lawes doth by diuine Right belong vnto Bishops others say that it belongeth to Kings and Emperours The first apinion holdeth Marster Tooker pag. 42. of his booke where be saith that the Apostles in the first Councell at Ierusalem did enact this Ecclesiasticall law Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis nihil vltra imponere vobis oneris nisi haec necessaria vt abstineatis vos ab immolatis simulachroruÌ„ sanguine sussocato It hath seemed good vnto the holy Ghost and to vs to lay no further burthen vpon you then these necessary things that you abstaine from the things immolated to Idols and from bloud and that vvhich is strangled c. And this saith hee the Apopostles did by diuineright The other opinion holdeth Maâ—ster Thomson pag. 80. where he affirmeth that Bishops and Councells cannot enact or decree any Ecclesiasticall law which hath the force of lavv vnlesse Kings and Emperours consent therevnto His vvords are these Decreta Conciliorum Patrum Ecclesiasticis Censuris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantùm stetliIent nisi legum vim Caesarea auraipsis afflasser The Decrees of the Councells of the Fathers had been held but onely for ecclesiasticall censures and penalties vnlesse the Emperours fauour had imparted the force of lawes vnto the said Decrees c. 4. Heere now the Iarre is euident For without doubt that ecclesiasticall law vvhich the Apostles decreed had the force of a law for that so mush is gathered out of these vvords Visum est nihil vltra imponere vobis oneris nisi haec necessaria It hath seemed good to lay no further burtheÌ„ vpon you then these necessary things c. But this Ecclesiasticall law had not it force froÌ„ any fauor of the Emperor seeing that neither Tyberius nor Pilate nor Herod nor any other secular Prince which theÌ„ liued did by his fauour authorize the force of the law but that it came from the Apostles themselues For that they by their Apostolicall authoritie and power which they had reciued from Christ did decree and promulgate that lavv And the same power and authoritie haue Bishops now adaies not Kings nor Emperours English Concord
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
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
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
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