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
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
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
third argument is Tooker writes that Salomon deposed high Priests therefore the King of England may doe the same This also is no consequence for most graue Authors teach that These and such like consequences are not good c. The Kings in the old Testament had that power therefore Kings in the nevv Testament haue the same Dr. HARRIS Reply THis brew-bate Iesuit would faine haue made a Iarre betweene Hainric asserting the Kings power to depose Bishops and Doctor Tooker The English Concord sheweth that Doctor Tooker did not onely assert but also proue the same by the exemplarie act of Salomon deposing the high Priests Against this cleare concord the Icsuit opposeth nothing but this That most graue Authors deny the argument Which is nothing to the purpose For heere the question is not whether other Popish Writers dissent from Hainric or Tooker but whether Hainric Docter Tooker dissent heerein Neither in this case mattereth it whether this Argument from Salomons act be good or not It sufficeth that Doctor Tooker tooke it to be good BECAN Exam. Pag. 1â—2 THese your arguments help not your cause For either they are sound or not sound If sound they prone Tooker to dissent from himselfe and so there is a Iarre If not sound why doe they occupy any paper Dr. HARRIS Reply THis Iesuit is very vnlucky in his Dilemmaes For as the former haue been so this is thus retorted vpon him These arguments helpe my cause well for if they be vnsound by Becans dispute they prooue not Doctor Tooker to dissent from himselfe and so no Iarre if sound what cause hath the Iesuit to dislike either them or the printing of them Thus is his whole Examen in this ninth Chapter vtterly dissolued and brought to naught ⧠Becans Iarre X. Question Whether the King can excommunicate his obstinate subiects or no 1. HEere now doe our Adversaries ranke their King amongst ordinary men what they granted vnto him before heere now they seeme to revoke For they say that the King cannot excommunicate any of his subiects yet himselfe may be excoÌ„municated by them and expelled out of the Church of England whereof himselfe is supreame Head The former part heere of doth Maister Tooker affirme pag. 15. in these vvords Rex non habet potestatem distringendi gladium spiritualem vel quempiam excommunicandi The King hath no power to vnsheath the spirituall sword nor to excommunicate any man c. And the Chaplaine my Lord of Ely pag. 151. saith Nos Principi censurae potestatem non facimus Wee doe not giue authoritie to our Prince to vse Censures c. And againe Maister Thomson pag. 83. Excommunicare nullo modo ad Suprematú Ecclesiae pertinet To excommunicate doth no way belong to the Supremacie of the Church And againe pag. 84. Omnes fatemur Regem excommunicandi potestarem nullam habere Wee doe all confesse that the King hath no power to excommunicate c. 2. The later part of the former point affirmeth Ma. Burhill pag. 137. when he saith Quod Ambrosio licuit in Theodosium idem alijs in Regem simili de causa liceat c. As it was lawfull for Ambrose to proceed against Theodosius so is it lawfull also for others to proceed against the King in the like cause c. To wit hee vvould say as it was lawfull for S. Ambrose beeing a Bishop to excommunicate Theodosius the Emperour so in like manner it is lawfull for our Bishops of England to excommunicate King Iames if hee offend in like manner And then againe pag. 242. Supremus Ecclesiae Gubernator potest eijci ex Ecclesia The supreme Gouernor of the Church to wit the King may be cast forth of the Church c. And pag. 267. Rex etsi iustusimè excommunicatus non amittit Primatum The King although he should be most instly excommunicated yet hee doth not loose his Primacie c. 3. Now I doe not sec how these things can possibly hang together or agree vvith those vvhich hitherto before haue beene attributed to the King For vnto him is attributed That hee is primate and the supreme head of the Church of England That be is aboue all persons as well Ecclesiasticall as temporall in his Kingdome That hee bath supreme most ample and ful iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall no lesse then politicall and temporall And notwithstanding all this beeing so great a person yet can hee not excoÌ„municate any one of his subiects either Laicke or Church-man although neuer so rebellious and obstinate Nay although hee be so great as hee is hee may neuerthelesse be excommunicated by his subiects and cast out of the Church of England wherof he is supreame Head I cannot vnderstand this mysterie 4. Heerevnto will I adde three arguments more which will increase the difficultie The first is He that hath supreme most ample most full Iurisdection Ecclesiasticall in any Kingdom may exercise all the actions and offices that belong vnto Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of that Kingdom But now the King hath supreame most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the Kingdome of England as Maister Tooker and Maister Salclebridge doe confesse Ergo he may exercise all offices belonging to Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the Kingdom of England Ergo be may also excommunicate for that excommunication which is denounced by sentence is an act of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction Or else contrariwise if you will thus Hee that cannot exercise all acts of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in any Kingdome hath not supreame most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in that Kingdome But the King of England cannot exercise all acts of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdection in his Kingdome because hee cannot excommunicate any man Ergo hee hath not supreme most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in his Kingdome 5. The second argument is this Hee that giueth to another power to excommunicate without doubt hath power himselfe to excommunicate because no man can giue to another that which hee hath not himselfe But the King of England giueth power to his Bishoppes to excommunicate Ergo hee hath power to excommunicate The Minor is prooued out of Maister Tooker pag. 304. vvhere hee affirmeth That the Bishops of England doe receiue all their Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court from the King But now power to excommunicate belongeth to Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court as the Chaplaine pag. 41. and Maister Tooker pag. 305. expresly teach vs saying Rex habet omnem iurisdictionem spiritualem in foro exteriori exceptis quibusdam censuris The King hath all Iurisdiction spirituall in the exteriour Court excepting certaine Censures But now he excepteth ExcoÌ„munication wherin you see is to be noted againe a contradiction in Ma. Tooker for that he referreth Censures amongst which excommunication is one to the Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court True indeed But yet he adioyneth two other things that are contradictorie The first that the King can give vnto Bishops all Iurisdiction of the
HARRIS Reply WHata malicious scoffing Sycophant is this who being perswaded in his coÌ„science that I euen in this straine ascribe too much to our Primate the King saith I detract too much from the King heerein First this rude and ignorant Iesuit must be taught that according to the lawes and customs of this kingdome though the King be heere immediatly next vnder Christ the supreme Gouernor Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill yet it pertaineth not to his Maiestie alone without consent of the Orders of the kingdom in Parlament to make any law euen ciuill thereby absolutely to binde all the subiects of his Kingdom which all Statutes made by the vniform consent of the said Orders in the Parliament with the approbation of the Kings Maiestie doe manifest Touching the supposed Iarre betweene Hainric mee Hainric writing generally of the power of all Christian Kings and Emperours to make Ecclesiasticall lawes asserted that the said Kings and Emperours laudably by their owne power made such lawes which I also auerre And I heere writing of the power of his Maiestie therein as it is vsed and limited by the lawes and customes of this Land assert that his Maiestie by consent of the Orders or States of the Kingdome in Parliament may make Ecclesiasticall lawes by force whereof such and such should be excommunicated which Hainric will averre to be very true So this seeming Iarte in the view of the goggle eyed Iesuit is in very deed a sound concord Further I reply that Queene Elizabeth of blessed memory by her own authority set forth Iniunctions as Ecclesiasticall lawes And our gracious King Iames by his owne authority confirmed the last Ecclesiasticall law-Canons made in the Conuocation house Lastly I say That by the lawes of this kingdom his Maiestie by his owne authoritie and letters Patents may authorize any persons beeing naturall borne subiects to his Highnes whom he shall thinke meet to exercise vse occupy and execute vnder him all manner of Iurisdictions priuiledges preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdictions within his Reasmes to visit reforme redresse order correct and amend all such errors heresies schismes abuses offences contempts and enormities whatsoeuer which by any manner sprituall or Ecclesiasticall power authority or Iurisdiction can or may lawfully be reformed ordered redressed corrected restrained or amended to the pleasure of Almightie GOD for increase of vertue c. Will the vile Iesuite call this vilifying of our Ecclesiasticall Gouernour Questionlesse it grindeth his hart that our Church the true visible Church of Christ Iesus ascribeth so much vnto his Maiestie BECAN Exam. Pag. THat which you adde is a new Paradox viz. That Ecclesiastic all lawes made by the King haue force to excommunicate and yet that the King cannot excommunicate It is the most certaine rule of Lawyers that vvhoseuer hath power to make apenall law hath also power to punish This common rule holds in matters Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall vvhy exempt you your King from the common rule confine him into such straights Dr. HARRIS Reply TO an vnlearned Iesuit plaine vulgar things seeme Paradoxes Date the Iesuit deny that Clergie men haue power to make lawes for putting to death of Hereticks and against such such erroncous obstinate persons as hereticks and dare he affirme that Clergy men may giue the sentence of death or shed the bloud of any heretick sith by their triuiall and vulgarly known popish Canon they may not sit vpon the bench when the sentence of death is pronouÌ„ced by the ciuil Iudges That most certain rule of his Lawyers is most plainly false viz. That whosoeuer hath power to make a penall law hath power to punish vnlesse the meaning be of power to punish by commaunding such Officers to punish vnto whom the inflicting of such punishment appertaineth In which sense our King also may be said to excommunicate or absolue that is to coÌ„mand Bishops to excoÌ„municate or absolue men according to the lawes prouided in that behalfe Yea further the Kings writ of prohibition absolueth that subiect of his which is wrongfully excommunicated by Ecclesiasticall censure And this is not to straighten but to enlarge much more then the Iesuit would haue it his Maiesties supreme power heerein Who knowes not that Christian Kings and Empeperours haue made Ecclesiasticall lawes by vertue whereof such and such Priests should be suspended depriued degraded and others chosen and instituted into their Benefices and yet it pertained not to those Emperours to suspend depriue degrade choose or institute the same in their own persons And that this rule holdeth not in ciuil matters was shewed before BECAN Exam. Pag. 196 MY second Argument was this The King giues vnto another power to excommunicate therefore himselfe hath power to excommunicate or if he haue not that power he cannot giue it to another You deny the Argument alleaging Bernard to shew the invalidity thereof But Bernard rather hindereth then helpeth your cause for he reasâ—noth as I doe thus Peter had no temporall possessions therefore he could not giue them to another Hee had care of the vvhole Church therefore he gaue it to his successor Bernard saith nothing of this consequent but of a double power of the Pope the one temporall indirectly all offices of which power Bernard denieth that the Pope by himselfe way execute the other his power spirituall directly vvhich hee granteth may be executed by the Pope himselfe This Position viz. No man can giue to another that which hee hath not himselfe Bernard and I assert to which you answere nothing Dr. HARRIS Reply THe Iesuit is heere ensnarled by the testimony of Bernard as one fallen into a quagmire who the more hee struggleth to get out plungeth himselfe deeper into it Bernard asserteth the right and power of both swords equally to be in the Pope for that of Directly and Indirectly is not Bernards distinction but the Iesuits vaine and new found fiction and therefore be may giue power to others ad nutum ipsius to execute the Materiall sword yet by himselfe cannot vse or draw out the same What is this else but that one may giue power to another to doe that which hee cannot doe himselfe The Iesuit is intolerably ignorant if he know not that by their Canon law the Pope is made Lord of the whole vvorld in temporalibus by vvhom Kings raigne and of vvhom they hold their Scepters In popish books printed and allowed They who hold the materiall sword to be in the Pope not directlie but indirectlie are censured for Politilian Hereticks these times-seruers But what if I should vse the same distinction heere and say that supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall were it the King indirectly to weet in or dine ad custodiam vtriusque tabulae to pronide and procure that all Ecclesiasticks performe their duties according to the prescript of Gods law Were not this Iesuits Argument according to his owne dispute heere dasht in peeces For as the Pope
enough for a Christian King towards the obtaining of eternall life or as Bellarmine speaketh of Gods eternall kingdome to serue the Lord as a Christian King that is by executing his Primacy Ecclesiasticall as hee that is Custos vtriusque Tabulae The graund or Cause-keeper of both the Tables and so holding his nevv right to life eternall According to that of Saint Paul vnto the same sense though in another case 1. Tim. chap. 2. ver 15. Women through bearing of children shall be saued if they continue in faith and loue and holinesse vvith modestie so Christian Kings shall be saued by well vsing their Primacy Ecclesiasticall if they continue in faith loue and holines Thus are all these seuerall examinations Iesuiticall as Potters sheards shiuered to nothing thus haue we this Iesuit acknowledging the Ecclesiasticall Primacie of Christian Kings Why then vnlesse the Iesuit haue somwhat to say in arrest of iudgement shold not we as we haue obtained so openly proclaime the victory ⧠Becans Iarre XIII Question Whether the King may constraine his Subiects to take the Oath of Primacy or no 1. HItherto haue wee treated of the Iarring and disagreement of our Aduersaries about the nature offices origen of the Kings Primacy Now there remaineth a certaine practicall question vvhich toucheth the Conscience to the quick to vvit Whether the King may constraine or force his subiects to sweare that they acknowledge his kingly Primacy vvhereof wee haue spoken before Or vvhether they will acknowledge the King as Primate supreme Head of the Church of England vnto vvhom as vnto their Primate and supreme Head they vvill promise fidelity no lesse in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall matters then in Politick temporall This question hath two points The first whether the King of England doth defacto exact or hath at any time exacted such an Oath of his subiects The other is Whether his subiects are bound in conscience to take such an Oath if the King should exact the same Of both these points seuerally I mean to speake a vvord or two The first Point 2. The first point then is Whether the King of England doth exact or at any time hath exacted such an Oath of his subiects It is manifest that King Henry the 8. did For so writeth Doctor Sanders In his booke of the Schisme of England Laurentius Cocchus Prior Coenobij Dancastrensis vnà cum tribus Monachis duobuslaicis Aegidio Horno Clemente Philpotto quòd nollent Ecclesiasticum terrent Regis Primatum iuratò confiteri excluâ—i èterris ad caelestem aeterni Regis gloriam transmissi sunt Laurence Coch Prior of the Monasterie of Dancaster together vvith three Monks and two Laymen Giles Horne and Clement Philpot for that they would not sweare to the Ecclesiasticall Primacie of a tempor all King beeing excluded from â—arth vvere translated to a celestiall glory of the eternall King c. And then againe Proponebantur cisnona Comitiorum Decreta iubebantur inreinrando affirmare Regem Ecclesiae supremum esse Caput The new decrees of the Parliament were propounded vnto them and they were commaunded to sweare the King to beesupreme Head of the Church c. 3. Now that Queene Elizabeth the daughter followed heerein her Father K. Henry it is manifest by the former Oath that shee exacted of her subiects which is this Ego A. B. prorsus testificor declaro in conscientia mea Reginam esse solam supremam Gubernatricem et istius Regui Angliae aliorum omnium suae Maâ—estaus dominiorum regionum non ninùs in omnibus spiritualibus atque Ecclesiasticis rebusvel causis quam temporalibus Et quòd nemo externus Princeps Persona Praelatus Status vel Potentatus aut facto aut iure habet aliquam iurisdictionem potestatem superioritatem praeeminentiam vel authoritatem Ecclesiasticam aut spiritualem in hoc Regno Ideoque planè renuntio repudio omnes forinsecas iurisdictiones poâ—esâ—ates superioritates atque authoritates c. â— A. B. doc verilie testifie and declare in my conscience that the Queene is the onelie supreme Gonernesse as well of this kingdom of England as of all other her Maiesties dominions and Countries as well in all spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters causes as in temparall And that no forraine Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath either by fact or right any Iurisaiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall in this kingdome And therefore I doe vtterly renounce and abandone all forraine Iurisdictions powers superiorities and authorities c. 4. The very same also doth now King â—ames vvho bindeth his subiects not with one Oath alone but with two to wit of Supremacie and Allegiance The former Oath of Supremacy beginneth thus Ego A. B. palam â—estor ex conscientia mea declaro quòd Maiestas Regia vnicus est supremus Gubernator huâ—â—s Regni omniumque aliorum suae Maieslatis dominiorum territoriorum tam in omnibus spiritualibus sine Ecclesiasticis rebus causis quà m in temporalibus Et quòd nullus extraneus Princeps Persona Praelatus Status aut Potentatus habet aut habere debet vllam iunsdictioâ—eÌ„ poteslatem superioritatem praeeminentiam vel authoritatem Ecclesiasticam siue spiritualem intra hoc Regnum c. I A. B. doe publiquely testifie in my conscience declare that the Kings Maiesty is the onely suprewe Gouernour of this kingdome and of all other his Maiesties dominions and territories as well in all matters and causes spirituall or Ecclesiasticall as in temporall And that no forraine Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to haue any turisdiction power superiority preheminenci or authority Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within this Kingdome c. The later Oath called of Allegiance beginneth thus Ego A. B. verèâ—t sincerè agnosco profiteor testificor declaro in consctentia mea coram Deo Mundo quòd supremus Dominus noster Rex Iacobus c. I A. B. doe truly and sincerely acknowledge professe and testifie in my conscience before God and the vvorld that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames c. 5. Both these Oathes are set downe at large in his Maiesties Apology and in both of them his subiects are required publiquely and openly toprofesse and acknowledge that King Iames is the supreme Gonernour and Lord of all England not onely in politick and temporall matters but in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall also And that neither the Pope nor any other forrainer hath any power or Inrisdiction in or oner the Church of England Againe the former of these Oathes was brought in by K. Henry the 8. as his Maiestie confesseth in his Apologie in these words Sub Henrico octauo primùm introductum est Iuramentum Primatus sub eoque Thomas Morus Roffensis supplicio affecti idque partim ob eam causam quòd Iuramentum illud recusarent Ab eo deinceps omnes mei Praedecessores quot quot sunt hanc Religionem
amplexi idem sibi aut non multo secus asseruerunt c. The Oath of Primacy vvas first brought in vnder K. Henry the 8. vnder whom Sir Thomas More and the Bishop of Rochester vvere beheaded and that partly because they refused that Oath From him all my Predecessors dow neward as many as haue imbraced this Religion did retaine the same Oath or not much different vnto themselnes c. Novv the later Oath vvas inuented by King Iames himselfe The second poynt 6. The Question then is Whether all the Kings subiects in England are bound in conscience to tabe both these Oathes as often as the King shall exact the same Or vvhether they should suffâ—rimprisonments torments and death it selfe rather then sweare Concerning the former point the Catholiques doubt nothing for that they haue certainly and firmly determined rather to lese their lines together with the glorious Martyrs Sir Thomas More and the Bishop of Rochester then to admit the Kings Primacy and abiure the Popes Now coucerning the later Oath there hath been some doubt made these yeares past For that some Catholicks who perceiâ—ed not the force scope of that Oath did a little stagger at the beginning vvhether they might with a safe coÌ„science sâ—earâ— thereto or no. Which doubt of theirs notwithstanding did not last long but vvas soone taken away by Pope Paul the fist and Cardinall Bellarmine For the Pope forthwith directed two Apostolicall Breues to the Catholiques of England and the said Card vvrote a letter to Ma. Blackwell then Archpriest of this affaire Both Pope and Cardinall dec deny that the said Oath may be taken with a safe conscience and their reason is this Because no man with a safe conscience can deny the Catholicke faith But hee now who should take this Oath proposed by the King should deny the Catholicke faith though not generally yet in part so farre foorth as belongeth to some one article there of Ergo no man vvith a safe conscience can take this Oath 7. This reason beeing very sound all good Catholicks admit but our Adversaries doe not I in fauour and consolation of the Catholicks haue determined to adioyne heere vnto two other reasons especially against the Oath of Supremacy which by the Aduersaries cannot be reiected The first is this No man is bound in conscience to sweare that which is either apparantlie false or at leastwise doubt full But that the King is Primate supreme head of the Church and for such to be obeyed not onely in temporall but also in Ecclesiasticall matters is either apparantly false or at leastwise doubt full Ergo no man is bound in Conscience to sweare the same The Maior is cuident of it selfe for that it is not lawfull to affirme any thing which is either false er doubtfull and much lesse to sweare the same The Minor is prooned thus For that it is iudged apparantly false aswell amongst the Caluinists as amongst the Catholicks that the King is Primate supreme head of the Church But now amongst the Caluinists of England who adhere vnto the King the same is called into doubt For that some of theÌ„ affirme others deny these points following 1. That the King is Primate of the Church 2. That he is supreme head of the Church 3. That he hath Ecclesiasticall Primasy oner the Church 4. That hee hath power and Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall 5. That the King by his owne proper Autheritie may assemble Councelis or Synods and sit as chiefe Head or President therein 6. That hee can confer benefices or Ecclesiasticall liuings 7. That he can creats and depose Bishops 8. That hee is ludge in Controucrsies of faith c. So as truly if these and the like points be doubtfull and vncertaine amongst those who adhere vnto and fanour the King seeing that some deny them some assirme them it followeth necessarily that the Kings vvhole Primacy is an vncertaine thing What rashnes then impudencie is it to goe about to binde Catholicks in their Consciences to sweare that which they themselues doe affirme some of them to be false some others to be doubt full 8. I vvill explicate more distinctly that which I haue said The Oath of the Kings Primacy doth containe so many parts as there be or are thought to be Offices and functions of the Kings Primacy The Offices then either are or are thought to bee dinerse as we haue seen before towit to assemble Synods to exact and decree Ecclesiasticall lawes to confer benefices to create Bishops to determine controuer sies of faith and the like Therefore diuerse are the parts of the Oath of the Kings Supremacie Of these parts then let vs take one of them by it selfe to wit this I A. B. doe sweare in my conscience that I will be faithfull obedientvnto the King as often or whensoeuer he shall by his owne proper authority create Bishops whom he will againe depose from theis office or dignity whom hee will c. If this part onely of the Kings Offices shoulâ— be exacted of all his Maiesties subiects in England what do you thinke would be done Would all trow you yea they vvho most adhere now vnto the King sweare this Let them swear that would M. Tooker I am sure if hee be a constant man would not For that he denyeth the creation and deposition of Bishops to belong any way vnto the King And if so be that heâ— who otherwise acknowledgeth the Kings Primacie at least in words would not sweare there unto how then should Catholicks be compelled to doe the same who doe in no wise acknow ledge it And what I haue said concerning this point the same may be also said of therest 9. My other reason is this King Iames doth often protest that he claimeth no more right or Inrisdiction oner the Church then did the Kings in the olà Tistament in ancient times and therfore that this his Primacy must be coutained within the same lymits termes that theirs was in the old Testament But the Kings in the old Testament could not compell their subiects to sweare such an Oath as this I A. B. doe openly testifie and in my conscience declare that Ieroboam is the onely supreme Gonernour of this Kingdome of Israel as well in spirituall as temporall matters And that no forrayner hath any iurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority in this Kingdom c. Ergo neither King Iames can inforce his subiects to take such a like Oath The Maior is manifest out of his Maiesties owne words in his Apologie The Minor I thus explicate After the death of King Salomon his kingdome God so disposing was diuided into two parts vvhereof one contained ten Tribes the other two So as by this meanes they became two distinct kingdoms afterwards and therein raigned two distinct Kings one whereof had no depeÌ„dance of the other in temporall gonernment One was called King of Israel the other King of Iuda and both of them had
c. If he be so ignorant let him heare Cyprian in these his owne words Superest vt de hacipsa re singuli quid sentiamus proseramus neminem iudicantes aut à iure Communion is aliquem si diuersum senserit amouentes Neque enim quisquam nostrûm Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico timore ad obsequendi necessitatem colleg as suos adigit quando habet omnis Episcopus pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suae arbitriuÌ„ proprium tanquam iudicari ab alio non possit qui nec ipse potest alierum iudicare Let euery of vs vtter what vvee thinke of this matter iudging no man nor excommunicating any who shall think otherwise then we doe For there is none of vs that makes himselfe a Bishop of Bishops or by tyrannicall feare forceth his colleagues to obey sith euery Bishop may speak freely what he thinks iudged of none as he can iudge none Doth not the Iesuit knowe euen by the name Papa that the Pope ambitiously makes himselfe Bishoppe of Bishops in their popish Canons and tyrannicallie by oath enforceth all Bishops to the necessity of obeying him to say as he saith in their canonicall obedience If he know not let Aeneas Syluius afterward Pope Pius 2. schoole him in these words Bishops contradicting the Pope though they speake the truth yet they sin against their oath made to the Pope If this Iesuite were not ignorant that Cyprian spake those words in the Councell of Carthage what a friuolous Doctor is he misspending the precious time about trifling escapes of the Printer or Transcriber c. viz. of the word Constantinople for the word Carthage as though such escapes were not frequent in the Popes Canon law BECAN Exam. YOu cite these words Pag. 95. Plenitudo potestatis Papae c. with this citation Extra de Constitut Ecclesi Sanct. Mariae numero nono Againe falsely and ridiculously For neither are those words there neither haue you cited the place well Thus you should haue cited it Extra de CoÌ„stitutionibus cap. Ecclesia Sanctae Mariae Yet now at the last liarne somewhat that you be not alwaies a child and blockish in citing Dr. HARRIS Reply THe Iesuit here vndertaking to be my Schoolemaister proues himselfe to be a very blockish and a ludibrious Teacher To proue not as he imagineth The fulnesse of the Popes power to surpasse all Positiue lawes but that The temporall lawes with or against the Church extend not to the Church vvithout the Popes expresse allowance I cited the place rightly thus De Constitut cap. Eccles Sanctae Mariae nu 9. But the Iesuit after the depth of his shallow capacitie cites it thus De Constitut. Ecclesia Sanctae Mariae leauing out these words numero nono Wheâ— as those very words if he had but any smattering skill in the Commentaries vpon the Canon law might easily haue informed him that these words and syllables viz. Lex praeiudicialis Ecclesijs c. were the words of Panormitan vvriting vpon that chapter as indeed they are thus Paner de Constâ—r ca. E. cl Sáâ—â—e marae nu 9. Lex Principis praeiudicialis Ecclesiis non extenditur ad Ecclesias nisi expresse approbetur per Papam Si verò est Constitutio laicorum inferiorum fauorabilis Ecclesiis non extenditur aliquo modo ad clericos nisi sit approbata per Papam The lawes of Princes prerudiciall to the Church extend not to the Clergie except the Pope expresly allow them Though these words Lex praeiudicalis c. bee not in the Canon but in the Rubrick of the same and euen that is enough to make this Iesuit blush yet the matter is fully set downe in that Canon De constitut ca. Eccles S. Mariae And the case was between Iohn de Archea who appealed and the Church of St. Mary touching certaine possessions then in contiouersie before the iudge of appeale who by reason of a certaine statate of Rome spoyled the Monastery of the said possersions and transserred them to the Church of Saint Marie giuing corporall possession thereof This cause being brought to the Pope he sets down this decree We considering that layites hauing no power ouer the Church or Church-men if they make a law which may restect the good of the Church is of no validity vnlesse it be established by the Popes authoritie doe make void that vvhich is done in preiudice of the Monasterie and diffinitiuely doe sentence the possession to be restored vnto it These things beeing thus made plaine to the Iesuit it is meet now he should answere how those lawes indeed anciently made but lately reuiued and reen forced by the Venetians so exceeding preiudiciall to the Church and Church-men as the Pope in his late excommunicating Bull expresly and his two Cardinalls Bellarminus and Baronius particularly haue set downe stand still in force euen to the expulsion and extirpation thence of all Icsuits without any hope of their returne Whether because this said Canon hath lost his force or for that the roating Bull hath lost his hornes and is now become no more feared then a braying Asse BECAN Exam. Page 96. OVt of Gratian 9. q. 3. Neque ab Augusto you cite these vvords Sirotus Mundus sententiaret c. Richard you presit nothing Once againe I wili teach you thus you ought to haue cited cap. Nemo ludicabit 9. q. 3. For the beginning of the chapter doth not beginne vvith thesâ—â—ord Neque ab Augusto as you dreame but with these Nemo iudicabir And yet the words cited by you are not found there Dr. HARRIS Reply IT is not I who to prooue that if all the world would sentence against the Pope yet the Popes sentence should stand cite 9. q. 3. Neque ab Augusto but the incomparably learned Bishop Iewell as I expresly wrote in my Concorde page 8. Therefore the Iesuit fondly saith that hee will teach mee to cite better heerin thus cap. Nemo iudicabit 9. q. 3. because the chap. beginneth with these words Nemo iudicabit and not with these Neque ab Augusto Wherein the Iesuit bewrayeth his incredible rudenels ignorance who neuer read citations made in the Canon law by words after the beginning the midst or later end of the Canon but onely in the beginning thereof Therefore heere I must take him to schooling and read three lectures out of the Canon law viz. out of the Decrees the Decretalls and the Extrauagants vnto him thus In the Decrees Dist. 12. ca. No decet verb. Discretione and Dist 11. ca. Non nos verb. quis entm the Glosle citeth 17. q. 4. § Qui autem But those words are not the beginning of any chapter in 17. q. 4. In the Decretalls De Electione Electi potestate cap. Venerabilem verb. Transtulit The Glosse cireth 24. q. 1. § Sedillud and immediatly after 11. q. 1. § Sedsi quis but neither of those chapters begin with those words Sedillud or
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
our vniforme agreement in truth touching the kings Supremacy to be a seeming discord So that a short Reply to all the rest will be sufficient with reference vnto this yea euen to this one distinction of Regall and Sacerdotall rightly vnderstood ⧠Becans Iarre II. Question Whether that this Primacy which the King hath in the Church be Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall 1. THis is now another Iarre Vnder King Henry the 8. and King Edward this Primacy was alwaies called Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall as it appeareth out of Doctour Sanders whose words are these Caluinus Henrici Primatum Ecclesiasticum oppugnauit Caluin did oppugne King Henries Ecclesiasticall Primacy Againe Episcopus Roffensis quòd Heurici Primatum Ecclesiasticum nollet confiteri ad mortem producitut The Bishop of Rochester because he denied King Henries Ecclesiasticall Primacy was brought forth to die c. Andagaine Multi in custodijs propter negatum Ecclesiasticum Regis Primatum detenti Many were kept in prison for denying the Kings Ecclesiasticall Primacy In like manner Henricus mandauit vt filius in fide Catholica educaretur excepto Primatus Ecclesiastici titulo quem ei reliquit King Henry commanded that his Sonne Edward should be brought vp in the Catholike faith excepting the title of Ecclesiasticall Primacy which he left vnto him And yet more Stephanus Wintoniensis Edmundus Londinensis Cuthbertus Dunelmensis Nicolaus Wigorniensis Datus Cicestrensis Episcopi timide restirerunt pueri Regis Primatui spirituali imò simpliciter subscripserunt The Bishops of Winchester London Dutham Worcester Chichester did fearefully with stand the Spirituall Primacy of the Childe King nay they absolutely subscribed thereunto 2. Vnder Queene Mary that succeeded to her Brother King Edward in the Crowne this Title of Primacy was taken away in a Parliament held at London as witnesseth Iacobus Thuanus in the 9. book of the History of his time in these words Antiquatus ijsdem Comiths Primatus Ecclesiastici titulus The title of Ecclesiasticall Primacy was abolished in that Parliament The same was againe restored vnder Queen Elizabeth as testifieth the same Author in his 15. booke c. 3. But now in these our dayes vnder King Iames this matter is called into question Some not daring to call it Primacy Ecclesiasticall and spirituall but only Primacy belonging to Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall matters amongst whom is M. Doctor Andrewes or the Kings Chaplaine in his Torture of Tortus pag. 90. where he writeth thus Neque verò quoad spiritalia alium nos Regi Primatum tribuimus neque quoad temporalia alium Pontifici detrahimns quà m debemus Prior ille Regibus omni iure postertor hic Pontifici nullo iure debetur Neither doe we attribute one Primacy concerning spirituall matters vnto the King nor doe wee take from the Pope any other Primacy concerning temporall matters then vvee ought to doe The first is due vnto Kings by all right the later no way pertaineth to the Pope c. I vvhen I first read these vvords in the Chaplaines booke did thinke that hee had taken these two towit Primacy spirituall and belonging to spirituall as also these other Primacy temporall and belonging to temporall for one and the same thing But now it seemes that the Defenders and Interpreters of the Chaplaine to wit M. Tompson and M. Burhill do take it otherwise For so writeth M. Burhill pag. 55. of his Booke concerning this point Non dicit Primatum spirituatem sed Primatum quoad spiritualia deberi Regibus omni ture He the Chaplame doth not say that Spirituall Primacy but Primacu belonging to Spirituall is due vnto Kings by all right c. And theeag une pag. 133. in fine Etsi enim Regi tribuimus Primuth in Ecclesia non tamen Primatum spiritualent aut Eâ—â—â—siassicum ei tribuimus sed potius Primatum quoad les personas spirituales Ecclesiasticas For although we giue vnto the King Priâ—acy ouer the Church yet doe wee not gine vnto him Primacy spirituall or Ecclesiasticall but rathor Primacy belonging to things and persons spiritual and Ecclesiasticall c. And M. Tompson pag. 31. of his Booke also saith Non dixit Primatum Ecclesiasticum aut Spiritualem quasi formaliterintelligat sed quoad Spiritualia idest obiectiuè materialiter The Chaplaine said not the Primacy Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall as though hee vnder stood it form ally but for so much as it belong eth to Spiritual that is to say obiectiuely and materially c. In which sense the same Author pag. 95. saith Dicimus Regem gubernare quidem Ecclesiastica sed non Ecclesiasticè We say indeede that the King gouerneth Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically 4. So as if you aske in England whether the King hath Primacy Ecclesiasticall or no It will be answered thus King Henry K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth had Ecclesiasticall Primacy K. Iames hath not Primacy Ecclesiasticall but onely so far forth as it belongeth to Ecclesiasticall things Hath then his Maiestie that now is lesse then they had So it seemes Is then the Kings Primacy in England so nipped and pared in so short a space So they say Is it then almost decayed and at anend I doubt not but it is What is the cause Hearben to the common saying What 's quickly got is quickly lost as also to that of the holy Scritture Si est ex hominibus consilium hoc aut opus dissoluetur Act. 5. 38. If this deuise or worke be of men it will be dissolued English Concord THE Primacy or Supremacy Regall Page 14 vnder K. Henry 8. K. Edward 6. Q. Elizabeth and K. Iames hath been is and will be one and the same That is to say Supreme Power Regalin the church Iewel Defons par 6 ca. 9. Duasi 1. et 2. wherby Kings may not Burne incense as Ozias did nor rush vpon Episcopall function nor preach the Gospell nor administer the Sacraments to the people nor bind nor loose The which with som of our Writers spoke of by Becane in this Question is to gouerne Ecclesiasticall things Ecclesiastically but execute those things only which belong vnto them as kings to performe that kinglie function therein which Dauid Salomon Ezechias Tortura Tort. pa. 381 Iosias and other of the most noble and most religious kings haue done and which was euer lawfull fora king to doe or particularly if you had rather thus The right and power by Regall authoritie to make Church lawes as that GOD should not be blasphemed a Dan. 3. 29 That God should be pacified in a fast b Iona. 3.7 and honoured in a festiuall day c Ester 9.26 and all such as we read to haue been made in the Code Authentiks and Capitulars by Constantine Theodosius Iustinian and Carolus Magnus Moreouer to delegate such as should iudge of the lawes so made d 2. Chr. 19.8 Further to binde his subiects by oath to keep those lawes e 2. Chro. 15 14. et 34. 32 yeain
Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction The Bishop of Ely saith Hee hath some Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but not all So the King hath Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall with Tooker Supreme vvith the law all manner vvith the Bishop some but not all vvith Burhill and Thomson none none at all Is this your English Concord Dr. HARRIS Reply THe foole will alwaies be playing with his bable some fooles with varietie but this clay-witted Iesuit playes with his downe right repetitions of the same things in the same words wheras heeretofore he hath receiued in my English Concord a full cleare and solid answere to all and euerie one of these particular seeming Iarres but in truth no iarres at all Wherein is manifested our good Concord euen in all those seeming Iarres In short thus Master Thomson denieth the Kings Supreme Church gouernment to be called Primacy or the King Primat as Papists vnderstand it to weet Episcopall but he himselfe calleth the Kings supreme Church gouernment Primacy and the King in respect thereof Primat as the Protestants meane to weet Regall So Dr. Tooker denied the King to be called Head of this Church that is Episcopall or Papall but Doctor Tooker acknowledged expresly that the King is not onely the Head but also the toppe of the Head of this Church to weet Regall And in that sense saith Ma. Burhill they say well who call the King Caput Appendix pag. 284. Pastorē et Primatem the Head Pastour and Primat of this Church Doctor Harris saith Ma. Burhill denieth the King to haue Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in the outward Court viz. Sacerdotall that is in Dr. Harris meaning not Presbyteriall but Episcopall according to that of Lactantius who called Sacerdotium summum Episcopatum Sacerdotall that is Episcopall Archiepiscopall or Patriarchall And Dr. Tooker saith that all Iurisdiction of Priests that is of Presbyters or lowest Priests or all Iurisdiction Presbyteriall is in the inner Court. Is heere any Iarre The Bishop of Ely saith The King hath power of Censure to weet Regall and Ecclesiasticall as plainly appeared when Salomon deposed Abiathar the high Priest And againe he saith The King hath not power of Censure that is Episcopall as Excommunication Or in short thus The King hath some Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction viz. Regall And the King hath not all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction viz. Episcopall Dr. Tooker Hainric say the King hath all supreme Ecclesiastical Iurisdictiō i Regall And our English law saith The King hath not as this Iesuit writeth all manner of Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall for that would include both Episcopall and Presbyteriall or in Becane his sense Sacerdotall but all manner of supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction that is Regall Ma. Thomson saith The King hath no Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction or Primacy for Primacy and Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction are all one with Ma. Thomson Episcopall but Ma. Thomson saith The King hath Primacy or Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction Regall So the King hath all and all maner Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction Regall and The King hath not all The King hath none none at all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction Sacerdotall or Episcopall The King doth not gouern Ecclesiasticall things ecclesiastice that is Episcopally or Sacerdotally The King doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things Regally Is not heere a plaine Concord and vniforme agreement The Christian harmony whereof this Iesuit cannot dissolue though all his iarring hart-strings would burst in-sunder But whereas this Iesuit saith that M. Burhill affirmeth the King to haue no Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction none at all in Court either inward or outward hee sheweth himselfe to bee past shame in his grosse vntruths for M. Burhills express words in his a Pag. 285. Appendix are these Quomodo nullam nullam penitus huiusmodi Iurisdictionem Regiesse aio his verbis vbi propositionem qua hoc asseratur falsam esse pronuntio How do I say that the King hath none Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction none at all in Court inward or outward vvhen I pronounce that proposition to bee false vvherein this is asserted So the Iesuit brings in Ma. Burhill affirming that which hee expresly denith The particular manner and materiall points of this Supreme Gouerment Regall and Ecclesiasticall are set downe by our gracious King Iames by Queene Elizabeth by three of our most learned Bishops viz. of Salisbury Winchester and Ely as is transcribed in this Reply English Concord but especially in Hainric Salo-Brigian his Becano-Baculus with vniforme consent BECAN Exam. Pag. 141. IF supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall that is Primacy of the Church was exercised vnder Queene Mary and might lawfully be executed by the Pope then it followeth that it vvas lawfully separated from the Regall Crowne For if it vvere by Diuine right vnited vnto it it could not bee separated from it and lawfully exercised Dr. HARRIS Reply IF the heauens fall wee shall haue stoare of Larksheads Wee will as soone grant that the heauens may fall as that the Pope might lawfully exercise supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction within this kingdome If Queene Mary would wilfully superstitiously renounce that Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction which was due vnto her as Queene of England by the law of God and the law of this kingdom yet it followes not that the said supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction was not by diuine and humane right vnited to the Crowne The publique worship scruice of GOD was vnder the law vnited to the persons Leuiticall to the place where the Temple was yet Ieroboam who made all Israel to sinne as Quecne Mary more bloodie then he made all England to sinne changed both persons and place by whom and wherein Gods diuine publique worshippe was then to be performed Heere then is nought else but Becanicall folly or foppery Iesuiticall BECAN Exam. Pag. 145 THat which you cite from the Bishop of Ely and assert heere your selfe viz. That we giue more to an Abbess namely power to excōmunicat then you to the Queen is not true You ascribe all to the Queen which you doe to the King as to haue Primacy to be head of the English Church c. Abbesses with vs haue not power to excommunicate as Elizabeth with you had Hear what our Canons think of this matter It is plaine 33. q 5. ca. Mulierem that the woman is subiect to the dominion of the man or her husband hath no authority For she cannot teach nor be a witnes nor iudge how much lesse may she commaund or raigne De sentent Excommunicationis cap. De monialibus And againe If Nunnes or Monialls lay violent hands vpon themselues their Conuerts or Clerks they ought to be absolned by the Bishoppe of that Diocesse vvherein their Monasteries are Hence the canonists gather that Abbesses cannot absolue and therefore cannot excommunicate their Monialls And this is obserued in our practise See Suarez Tom. 5. d. 2. Sect. 2. et 3. Dr. HARRIS Reply THE reuerend Bishop of Ely asserted the Abbesses with Papists to haue or dinary Iurisdiction spirituall and therein to be equall with Abbats and that
Imperatoribus Regibus simul consentientibus hodie indici debet Prouinciale à Metropolitano cum suis Suffraganein Dioecesanum ab Episcopo cum Curatis Rectoribus Clericia Dioeceseos c. By whō is it more fit that Councells should be assembled then by those in whose power hath alwaies authority beene to call them together For wheras commonly there be three sorts of Councells Generall Prouinciall and of a particular Diocesse the Generall Councell you vvill haue to be celebrated onely by commandement of the Pope but yet not so neither now adayes vnlesse Emperours and Kings doe agree therevnto also A Prouinciall Councell is to bee assembled by the Metropolitan and his Suffragans that of the Diocesse by the Bishoppe thereof together vvith the Curats Rectors and Clerks of the same Bishopricke c. Out of vvhich testimonie vves may gather that the King of England cannot assemble a Councell of kis ovvne authoritie Not a Generall because that belongeth to the common consent of Kings and Emperours Not a Prouinciall because that pertaineth to the Metropolitan Not of the Diccesse because that belongeth to the Bishopot thereof What then I pray you is left vnto the King 4. Another testimonie heereof is out of the same Ma. Tooker pag. 41. in these vvords Abundè liquetex Concilijs ipsis historia Ecclesiastica Prouincialia Concilia Nationalia ab Imperatoribus ac Regibus fuisse congregata It is aboundantly manifest out of the Councells themselues and the Ecclesiasticall Histories that Prouinciall and Nationall Councells haue beene assembled by Emperours and Kings c. This now is plainely repugnant to his former testimony For there hee affirmeth that Prouinciall Councells are tobe assembled by the Metropolitans thereof heere bee saith that they must be assembled by Kings and Emperours There is distinguished onelie a threefold Councell to weet Generall Prouinciall and that of the Diocesse heere now is added a fourth to weet Nationall 5. His third testimony is set downs pag. 42. vvhere he proposeth this question Quoigitur iure tantam sibi porestatem arrogat Pontifex solus Num diuino By what nighe then I pray you doth the Popechallenge vnto himselfe alone so great power Doth hee doe it by diuine right c. And a little after hee addeth Erat Apostolorum omnium non vnius tantummodo indicere Concilium statuere cum verborum solennitate Visumest Spiritui sancto Nobis c. It belonged to all the Apostles not to one alone to assemble a Councell and vvith solemnitie of vvords to ordaine It seemes good vnto the Holy Ghost and vs c. As if hee vvould say That as by diuine right not S. Peter alone but all the Apostles together with equall power did assemble the first Councell at Ierusalem and therein decreed that law about eating of bloud and strangled meates so in like manner by diuine right not the Pope alone but all Bishops with equall power must assemble Councells and decree Ecclesiasticall lawes Surely if it be so then without doubt it follovves that the power to call or assemble Councells doth not belong by the law of God to secular Kings and Princes but to the Apostles and their successors c. 6. His fourth testimony is pag. 63. vvhere hee saith Mixtum autem ius resultans ex vtroque iure Regio Episcopali est Legum sanctio Synodorum indictio praesidendi in ijs praerogatiua controuersiatum decisio aliorumque actuum qui his finitimi sunt exercitium quae ferè ab origine Primatus Regij descendunt communicantur Sacerdotibus c. The decreeing or enacting of lawes the assembling of Synodes and Prerogatiue of sitting therein as chiefe or head as also the exercise of all other offices in this kind is a certaine mixt Right proceeding from both Kingly and Episcopall power vvhich things doe in a manner come downe or descend from the origen of the Kings Primacy and are communicated or imparted vnto Priests c. This now againe as you see is contrary to that vvhich hee said next before For there bee vvill needes haue the assembly of Synodes or Coūcells to belong by diuine right to the Apostles beer for sooth hee vvill haue the same chiefely to belong to Kings and from them to be deriued vnto Bishops These things doe not agree one with another English Concord HItherto the contention hath been Grammaticall about words and names 1. Whether that supreme gouernment of the King in the Church of England which all our Writers doe professe ought to bee called Primatus or Suprematus Primacy or Supremacy 2. Whether he that holdeth that supreme gouernment in the Church of that his Primacy may be called Primate of the Church or Head of the Church or the onely Supreme Gouernour of the Church 3. Whether that Supreme gouernment or Iurisdiction which is in all Ecclesiasticall matters and aboue all Ecclesiasticall persons ought to be called the Supreme gouernment of the Church or the Supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall These foolish and vnlearned questions 2. Tim. 2.23 Saint Paul forbiddeth vnworthy of Diuines but as it should seeme not of a Iesuit Let Becane tell me ingenuously whether these six offices only appertaine to the Papall Primacy Or whether there be not sixtie times six which may be called into question Let him tell me whether these offices doe properly pertaine to the Primacy of Peter and so to the Bishop of Rome Let him shew mee where it is written or that Peter had any Primacy at all or that this his Primacy is contained or defined within the bounds and limits of these duties or that euer Peter did exercise such offices as Primats of the Church That is to say let him manifest out of the Scriptures what Councell Peter summoned as Primate of the Church what Ecclesiasticall lawes he made what benefices hee collated what Bishops he created or deposed of what controuersies hee was supreme iudge These things if the Iesuite cannot shew he is a pratler and no disputer for all yea the meanest of Bishops in the kingdome doe excommunicate are therefore all those Bishops Primates and Supreme gouernours in the vniuersall Church throughout the whole kingdome our question is of one only Supreme gouernour of the whole Church in the kingdom Make exception but of Excommunication alone and Hainricus by many expresse authentike writings hath demonstrated that Christian Princes haue with singuler commendation 1. Called Councells 2. Made Ecclesiasticall lawes 3. Conferred benefices although this seemeth too grosse and greasie whereof to make a part of Primacy 4. Created and deposed Bishops 5. Taken vp and ended controuersies But so granted that no mortall man can be iudge of all controuersies especially of faith That Christian Princes of their owne authoritie and with commendation haue summoned Councells both Hainric and Dr. Tooker do expresly write in plain words Neither is Dr. Tooker in this point either against him self or against Hainric When that first councell was assembled
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
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
our Kings much lesse of the King himself many yeares before King Henry the eight was borne were of no force by the common lawes of England as is manifested by Hainric in Becano Baculus Where also he hath taught you out of the same lawes that the King of England is the supreme Ordinary of his Kingdome On as it is in the oath of Supremacy The onelie supreme Gouernour of the Church of England And yet wee doubt not but he may besuspended from the Eucharist by a Bishop to whom hee himselfe hath committed Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction as Theodosius was by Ambrose that is by resnsall to giue him the holy CoÌ„munion but not in any iudiciall or coÌ„sistorian form of citation appearance and sentence to be cast out of the Church The Iesuit is deeply deceiued if he imagine that the action of Ambrose was solemne and canonicall or that it was excommunication in a strict and proper sense which thing I will when need requireth convince by many solid arguments And in the meane season let him shew mee whether Theodosius was canonically cited vnto the consistory of Ambrose or whether the Emperour did answere for himselfe either in person or by his Proctor Or whether the sentence of excommunication was pronounced vpon the Tribunall of the Bishop Or whether it were canonically denounced in the open Church before hee was forbidden to enter into the Temple And againe by whose commaundement and by what example did Saint Ambrose alone without his fellow Elders or the counsell of other Bishops excommunicate the Emperour of so many kingdoms espceially seeing Ambrose was neither Pope nor Patriatch And let the Iesuit giue some good cause why Ambrose should â—am â—â—e vpon so humble and godly an emperour by his excommunicating him who erred onely in one fact and not once blame or touch Constantius a most proud godlesse and hereticall Arian Lastly whether it were the custome at Millan to excommunicate all murtherers or else Theodosius had wrong for Iassure you murtherers are not excommunicated in England and I thinke very few are so censured at Mentz where Becane liueth BECAN Exam. Pag. 191 YOu aunswere that heere is no Iarre because all your Writers vniformly agree in this That the King cannot excommunicate But heere is the greatest Iarre Because all English Writers who confesse it doe manifestly differ from themseluss as these three Arguments proue First Whosoeuer hath all mannet supreme most ample full Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical in any Kingdome he may exercise all acts vvhich pertaine to IurisdioÌ„tion Ecclesiasticall in that kingdome And so be may excommunicate to wit by a power vndependant of any man such as the Pope hath the rest hauing it from him who may giue it to them and take it away Enen as the King who hauing supreme most ample Iurisdiction ciuill in his kingdome may exercise allciuill acts of that Iurisdiction in his kingdome But the Writer's assert the Kings all manner supreme most ample and full iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall Therefore they assert the Kings power to excommunicate Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere is but an idlerepetition of the selfe same Argument which the English Concord had answered before by denying his maior Proposition Which deniall was grounded vpon the testimony of Saint Augustine whereunto this Iesuit answereth not one word The substance whereof vvas this That attacts of Ecclesiasticall gouernment and onely all those acts which the King alone may doe as King belong vnto him but Excommunication belongs to euery Archdeacon therefore that belongs not to the King The Iesuit beeing put vnto his shifts hath fansied this new starting hole viz. That power vndependant of any other to excommunicate is proper onely and to euery supreme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall Therfore if the King be supreme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall hee hath that vndependant power to excommunicate Whereunto Ireply first that no Scripture no nor ancient Father for the space of 600. years after Christ doth assert this vndependant power of excommunicating to belong to the supreme gouernment Ecclesiasticall Secondly that the ancient Fathers deny this vndependant excommunicating power to belong to Peter much lesse to the Pope but with one vniforme consent dogmatize according to the Scriptures that all the Apostles receiued from Christ immediatly not from Peter power to excommunicate equall vvith Peter Thirdly that the very principall Schoolemen as Peter Lombard the Maister of the Sentences Thomas Aquine the Doctor Angelicall Alexander Ales the Doctorirrefragable and Iohn Scot the subrle Doctor deny the same First they all foure define the keyes by the power to open and shut to binde and loose See Lombard Sent. l. 4. dist 18. et 19. Alexander SuÌ„ma Theolog. part 4. q. 20. memb 2. et 5. Aquin as in Sent. l. 4. dist 13 q. 1. art 1. Scot. in Sent. l. 4. dist 19. art 5. Secondly Alexander in Summa p. 4. q. 20. memb 5. et 6. Tho in 4. Sent. dist 24. q. 3. art 2. Scot. in Sent. l. 4. dist 19. art 1. affirme that the keyes promised to Peter in the 16. chap. of Mathew were giuen to the Apostles in the 20. chap. of Iohn Fourthly Bellarmine himselfe denieth this vndependant power of excommunicating to be proper to Peter and proueth by foure sound arguments the said power to be common to all the Apostles thus de Ro. Pontif. l. 4. cap. 23. That the Apostles receiued immediatly froÌ„ Christ their Iurisdiction First by these words of our Lord Iohn 20. As my Father sent mee so send I you Which place the Fathers Chrysostome Theophylact so expound that they say plainly The Apostles by those words were made the Vicars of Christ yea and receiued the very office and authority of Christ Cyrill vpon this place addeth that The Apostles by these words were properly created Apostles and Teachers of the whole vvorld And that wee should vnderstand stand that all power Ecclesiasticall is contayned in authoritie Apostolicall therefore Christ addeth As my Father sent mee seeing that the Father sent his Sonne endued with chiefest or highest power Cyprian in his booke of the vnity of the Church saith The Lord speaketh to Peter I vvill giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen and after his resurrection said to him Feed my Sheepe And although after his resurrection he gaue to all the Apostles equall power and said As my Father sent mee so I send you yet to manifest vnitie hee constituted one chayre Where you see the same to be giuen to the Apostles by those words I send you which was promised to Peter by that I will giue thee the keyes and after exhibited by that Feed my sheepe Now it is manifest that by those words I will giue thee the keyes and by that Feed my sheepe is vnderstood the most full euen exteriour Iurisdiction Secondly the election of Matthias vnto the Apostleship sheweth the same For we read Acts. I. that Matthias was not chosen by the Apostles nor any authoritie giuen vnto him but that his election being craued and
obtained from aboue he was presently numbred among the Apostles Surely if all the Apostles had Iurisdiction from Peter that ought to haue been shewed most of all in Matthias Thirdly it is proued out of Saint Paul who purposely teacheth that hee had his authority and Iurisdiction from Christ and thereupon proueth himselfe to be a true Apostle For Gal. I. he saith Paul an Apostle not of men neither by man but by Iesus Christ and G O D the Father And there to shew that he receiued not authoritie from Peter or other the Apostles hee saith But when it pleased him which had separated mee from my mothers wombe and called mee by his grace to reueale his Scnne in me that I should preach him among the Gentiles immediatly I communicated not with flesh and bloud neither came I againe to Ierusalem to the which were Apostles before mee but I went into Arabia and turned againe into Damascus Then after 3. yeares I came againe to Ierusalem to see Peter c. and chap. 2. For they that seemed to be somewhat added nothing to me aboue that I had Fourthly it is proued by cuident reason for the Apostles were made onely by Christ as it appeareth Luke 6. He called his Disciples chose twelue of them vvhom he also called Apostles And Iohn 6. Haue not I chosen you twelue Now that the Apostles had Iutisdiction it is manifest partly by the acts of Saint Paul who 1. Cor. 5. did excommunicate and 1. Cor. 6.7 11.14 c. made Canons Partly also because the Apostolicall dignity is the first and supreme dignitie in the Church as it appeareth 1. Cor. 12. Ephe. 4. See B. Thomas in 1. Cor. 12. Hitherto Bellarmine Vnto these I will adde the testimony of two other Fathers to weet Origen and Beda Origen Tract 1. in Matth. saith Hoc dictum Tibi dabo claues regni coelorum caeteris quoque coÌ„mune est Et quae sequuntur velut ad Petrum dicta sunt omnium communia This saying I vvill giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen is common to the rest of the Apostles and the vvords that follow as spoken to Peter are common vnto all Beda Homil. in Euangel Quem me dicunt saith Potestas ligandi et soluendi quamuis soli Petro a Domino data videatur tamen absque vlla dubietate noscenduÌ„ est quodeâ— caeteris Apostolis data est The power of binding loosing though it seeme to be giuen by the Lord onely to Peter yet without all doubt it was giuen also to the rest of the Apostles By which it is soundly prooued that all the Apostles had the full power of the keyes and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall and in one word vndependant of any other to binde to loose to open to shut to excommunicate absolue giuen by Christ equally immediatly vnto them and their successors as well as to Peter and his successors But all Bishops are successors to the Apostles therefore all Bishops haue most full vndependant Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall to excoÌ„municate And therefore by this Iesuits argument heere all Bishops are supreme Gouernors of the whole Church What then shall become of his Lord God the Pope and the Popes Primacie Whose fulnesse of power must by this orthodoxall position be distributed equally amongst all Bishops not as from Peter or Pope but as successors of the Apostles For so Cyrill in Iohn lib. 3. ca. 20. Apostolis et eorum in Ecclesijs successoribus plenam concessit potestateÌ„ Christ not Peter much lesse the Pope gaue to the Apostles and their successors fulnesse of power Where-to accordeth Saint Cyprian de simpl Praelat saying Christus candem dedit Apostolis omnibus potestatem Christ gaue vnto all his Apostles the selfe same power Bellarmine to proue the Ecclesiasticall authoritie of Matthias to be vndependant and not dependant of Petex brings in Matthias chosen an Apostle not by the Apostles but by God And so of S. Paul chosen an Apostle not by men nor of men but of God How then can the Pope challenge vndependant Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction when he is chosen and made Pope also vnpoped by men much inferiour to the Apostles If the Pope alone haue vndependant Church gouernment to giue and take Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction to and from whom he please how was the Patriarch of Alexandria made equall vnto him in the first Nicen Councell Can. 6 And why was the Archbishop of Constantinople equalled with him in authority and in all things except in Seniority in the first Councell of Constantinople cap. 3. and in the Councell of Chalcedon Can. 28 Certainly this vndependant supreme gouernment was not acknowledged to be in Anicetus Bishoppe of Rome by Polycarpus who gain-saied Anicetus in the celebration of Easter See Euseb l. 5. ca. 26. Nor in Victor who vsurping authoritie ouer the Bishops of Asia was countermaunded withstood and sharply rebuked by Irenaeus Polycrates and others Bishops in France Asia c. See Euseb l. 5. cap. 25. Touching the Iesuits argument drawen from the Kings supreme gouermment ciuill to conclude thereby his power to exercise all acts pertaining to ciuill Iurisdiction I reply and say that true it is the fountaine of all ciuill Iustice vnder God in this Kingdome is in his Maiestic That hee alone hath power to constitute ciuill Iudges and accordingly doth so But our most learned Lawyers and reuerent Iudges will teach the Iesuit that when the Iudges be so constituted by the lawes and customes of this kingdome it pertaineth to those Iudges and not to his Maiestie to iudge sentence in matters personall reall or of blood as Felonies and Treasons equally between the subiects and also betweene the King his lubiects which cuts in sunder the very hart-strings of this his main argumeÌ„t For if it pertaine not to the King to exercise all acts of inferiour ciuill gouernment though hee be the supreme ciuill Gouernour in his Kingdome a fortiori it followeth that it pertaineth not to his Maiestie to exercise all inferiour acts of Ecclesia sticall gouernment though hee be supreme Ecclesiasticall Gouernor The Lord of a Manour to which belongeth a Court Baron may constitute a Steward to haue Iurisdiction ouer his Tenants in that Court in setting fynes in amercing c. yet the Lord of the Manour cannot execute that Iurisdiction for if hee set fynes or amerce it is voide though that Court be and is also called that Lords Court BECAN Exam. Pag. 194 YOu say that although the King cannot excommunicate yet with consent of the Orders or State of the Kingdome in Parliament hee may wake Ecclesiasticall lawes by force whereof such and such ought to be excommunicated What now Richard Hainric said the King by his owne anâ— hority might make Ecclesiasticall lawes and you â—ilifying that authority restraine it to the consent of the Orders in Parliament Ton detract too much from the Primate Head of the Church of England And here you make also a new Iarre Dr.
may haue the materiall sword indirectly and yet haue no power by himselfe to vse the same so may a King haue supreame Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall indirectlie and yet not haue power by himselfe to execute the functions of Iurisdiction Ecelesiasticall and so not to excommunicate True it is No man can giue that vnto another which himselfe hath not to giue yet the King may giue authoritie to another to doe that which pertaines not to himselfe to doe as formerly was shewed This is a decided case amongst the Canonists Decis 2. Tit. de Praebend Quia licet Abbatissae aut Monialibus cur a committi non possit quoad exercitium actuale tamenius potest ipsis competere vtexercitium faciant per virum illius potestatis capacem Vide notatum per Innocent de Praeb c Lateran et per gloss in ca. Cum et plantare Though vvomen be vncapable of the cure of soules as touching the actuall exercising thereof themselues yet Abbasses and Monials may haue right and power to exercise the same by a man capable of that power But it is not amiss to obserue some conclusions from the Iesuits Positions heere First that the Popes supreme power Ecclesiasticall is dependant vpon another that is vpon Peter For he asserteth out of Bernard That not Christ but Peter gaue vnto the Pope the cure of the vvhole Church Secondly that the Pope as Peters successor neither hath nor can giue any temporall possessions For so he makes Bernard concluding thus Peter had no temporall possessions himselfe therefore he could give no temporall possessions to his successor the Pope Thirdly That a man may giue that to another which hee hath not himselfe For the Pope as Peters successor giues temporall Kingdoms Empires and yet the Pope as Peters successor hath no temporall posselsions much lesse Kingdoms and least of all Empires Out of these conclusions growe these two Quaeres following 1. Whether the Pope in giuing Kingdoms distributing the vastest parts of the earth the Indians East West viz. among the Kings of Spaine and Portugall and in translating Empires from one Nation to another because heerein hee succeedeth not Peter succeed not the God of this world who said vnto our Sauiour Christ Math. 4. All these Kingdoms vvith the glory thereof I vvill giue vnto thee 2 How the Popes Kingdom in Italy is Peters Patrimony if no temporall possessions belong to Peter BECAN Exam. Pag. 198. MY third Argument was this Hee that is subiect to another in Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of exteriour Court hath not supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of exteriour Court But the King is subiect to another that is the Bishop vvho by Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of exteriour Court may excommunicate him and throwe him out of the Church Therfore he hath not supreme power Ecclesiasticall of exteriour Court Your answere vvas That so the Pope is not Primat of the Church for hee is subiect to the Priest to whom bee confesseth and vvho may binde and loose his sinnes The Primacy doth not consist in Iurisdiction of the interiour but exteriour Court The power of absoluing from sinnes or the inward Iurisdiction is giuen by Christ immediatly to all Priests equally by force of Order vvhich Iurisdiction is not greater in the Pope then in any other Priest The Pope may be subiect to the Priest in Iurisdiction interiour Richard you erre greatly not distinguishing between these Iurisdictions of the internall and externall Court Dr. HARRIS Reply IT seemeth the wits of this Iesuit are much wasted for he knowes not the way wherein or the place whereto hee intendeth to goe Amongst vs Writers who all deny the King hath power to excommunicate hee said there was a great Iarre because vvee also held the King to be supreame Ecclesiasticall Gouernour in his dominions By which Medium viz. The Kings supremacie supposed to be true the Iesuit endeuoured to inferre necessarily that therefore the King might excommunicate But in this his third Syllogisme the Iesuit goeth about to ouerthrowe the supposed truth of the said Medium namely to proue that the King is not supreme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall And what is this to the matter in hand viz. to proue a Iarre VVhich answere is more sufficient then his fondnesse deserueth Yet because hee imagineth this Syllogisme to be invincible I will answere directly vnto it shiuer it all to naught I deny both the Maior and Minor Proposition thereof I say The Maior is false shew it thus The Pope is subiect to other Bishops who in exteriour Court that is in Councells haue not onely excommunicated whereof see Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. Nicephor lib. 17. cap. 26. Concil Constantinopol 6. Act. 13. but also anathematized him Yet saith this Iesuit The Pope in Court exteriour is supreame Gouernour ouer all Bishoppes to vvhom hee giueth and from vvhom hee taketh away at his pleasure power to excommunicate Againe The Pope is subiect to a Priest his Confessor vvho hath power to exercise the keyes against the Pope viz. to open vnto him heauen gates and to shut them against him To binde his sinnes and to loose them To throwe him out of that communion of Saints whereof wee read in the Creede To deliuer him to Sathan and therfore to excommunicate him The Iesuits starting hole heere is That the Priest may binde the Popes sinnes in the internall Court but not in the externall As though the Court of Conscience were not the highest Court vnder Heauen As though that Communion which stands onelie of Saints indeede and all those Gods Elect vvere not aboue that Communion which consisteth of holy ones and vnholie of the Elected and Reprobated For as by popish Canons The Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction is aboue the Temporall so the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction internall is aboue the externall If therefore the Priest Confessour bee aboue the Pope vvhose sinnes hee bindeth vvhom hee deliuereth to Sathan vvhom hee excommunicateth from that inward Communion of Saints Elect by vertue of his invvard Iurisdiction vvhy may hee not much more excommunicate him from the Communion of the righteous and vnrighteous the Elect and Reprobate by externall Iurisdiction vvhich is farre inferiour to the other But because the Iesuit heere taxeth mee for not distinguishing betweene Iurisdiction internall and externall between the binding of sinnes in Court exteriour and interiour I answere him as Tertullian did to another Heretick Ostendat Hermogenes scriptum aut vae illi Let Becan shevv vvhere this distinction is vvritten or vvoebe vnto him If he cannot then let him heare what the Church of England in her Apologie the second part chap. 7. Diuis 5. hath orthodoxally and iudiciously determined heerein viz. Seeing one manner of vvord is giuen to all and one onely key belongeth vnto all we say there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerning opening and shutting So that if the Priest by this one key shutte out the Pope that is binde his sinnes then he excommunicateth the Pope or if with that selfe-same
if the Turke should commaund them to follow the Alcoran The King of Spaine force them to heare Masse The Pope to pray for the dead and some heathen King perhaps compell them to Idolatry Shall they then obey these Princes commaund But then should they doe against their consciences Shall they refuse to obey Then farewell Primacie of the Church Perhaps they vvill aunswere that they vvill obey vvhen they thinke good Shall therefore subiects be Iudges of their King May then the Catholicks in England say after this manner If it please your Maiestie in this point we think good to obey your Maiesties commaund but in that not English Concord IN this place either the Iesuit is beside himselfe or else hee hath much forgot himselfe For euery where in his other Questions hee affir meth that no King either Pagan or Christian hath any Primacy in the Church and yet heere hee enquireth from whence and by what title hee hath his Primacie in the Church Therefore by his owne learning hee beateth his braines to find the originall of nothing If he take away this supposition that the King hath a Primacie in the Church either precisely as hee is a King or else because hee is a Christian King hee is a foolish Sophister For his dispute runnes not thus The King if he haue Primacy of the Church he hath it either as he is a King or as a Christian King but hee hath it in neither of the said two respects therefore hee hath it not at all If hee let that supposition stand then because it is manifest that our most gracious King Iames is by birth a King and by religion a Christian King he is a brainsick wrangler For sith by his supposall heere The King hath the Primacie of the Church vvhat matter is it whether he haue it as hee is a King or as hee is a Christian King if so bee he haue it at all Wherefore there is no cause that we should much stand vpon this idle and beggerly question wherein is onely a shadow of a question Furhermore I would haue the Iesuit vnderstand that this Primacie of the Church hee standeth vpon is not deriued from the title of a King but from God himselfe For Moses was adorned with this dignitie in the Church of Israel And yet we neuer read that hee was stiled with the title of a King But certainly that you may knowe heere is no iarre or odds among vs respecting the maine the worthy Bishop of Ely in his Tortura pag. 377. hath soundly and according to the very truth manifested That the Primacie of the Church belongeth not to Ethnicke Kings as Ethnick but vnto Kings as they are Christian Kings or Defenders of the Diuine truth His words are these Et sunt ista quidem ex Testamento veteri satis solida fundamenta non quod ad reges infideles Primatum pertinere probent c. And those things before related out of the old Testament are so solid and substantiall grounds as Tortus shall neuer bee able to shake Not that they proue this Primacie of the Church to belong to Pagan Kings no surely wee in the new Testament giue no more vnto such Princes then vvas giuen in the old vnto Ahasucrus and Nabuchodonosor Wherfore in this point Tortus is beside himselfe but yet if Caesar become a Christian as in Constantine then presently he hath the same right ouer the Church of the new Testament vvhich Iosias had in the old Reditus statim fit ad iura regum Israel there is a present possession of the ancient rights of the Kings of Israel as soone as euer they are made Kings of the Israel of God giuen vp their names to Christ. Wherefore this is not our purpose that the Persecuters of the Church such as vvere Cains and Tiberius should be the Gouernours of the Church vvho would not receiue that title although a man would giue it them because they employ their vvhole strength to ruine and roote vp the Church but let them then take superiority in the Church vvhen they are vnfainedlie converted to the faith thereof There are due to Caesar the things of Caesar and there belong to the Christian Caesar vvhatsoeuer duties vnder the old Law were either payd or payable by the people of God to their Kings vnto vvhom were then due and yielded all manner of subiection and obedience not onely in the affaires of the couill state but also of the Church These things so expressed are very true and fitting our purpose for in them we haue learned that Pagan Kings as they are Pagans haue no Primacie in the Church But what if almighty God so guide and gouern the hearts of Pagan Kings as that they would stand for the worship of God against error and make lawes for the same let the Iesuit tell mee in that case vvhether God doth not hinde our cōscience to obey pagan Princes And let him take heed how he deny it least Bellarmine fall on his Iack for it because he hath resolued the matter in the very same words De pont Rom. lib. 5. cap. 2. But yet if he doubt lot him resort to Saint Augustine in his 166. Epistle to the Donatists who writeth on this manner Quando Imperatores veritatem tenent c. When Emperours stand for the truth and giue out a commaundement for the same against errour vvhosoeuer shal despise the same encreaseth his owne damnation For euen among men hee suffereth punishment but before God hee shall not dare to appeare vvhich refuseth to doe that which truth it selfe commaundeth by the hart of the King And according to this opinion our reuerend B. in his Tortura Torti pag. 381. most truly writeth Quodcunque in rebus religionis c. Whatsoeuer the Kings of Israel did in matters of religion neither did they anything vvithout commendation vvherein they had power authority to enact Lawes as that GOD should not be blasphemed vvhich you will not deny the King of Babel also did Dan. 3.29 And the King of Nineuch Ionas 3.7 that vvith a publique proclaimed fast God almightie might bee satisfied Andaccording to this sentence wrote Saint Augustine many yeares before him in his 50. Epist to Bonifacius the Souldiour Sed illud propheticum iam impletur Psal 2. Et nunc reges seruite domino in timore c. But now is the propheticall Oracle fulfilled vvhich speaketh in the 2. Psalm Now ô yce Kings serue the Lord in feare And how shall Kings scrue the Lord in feare vnlesse they prohibite and punish those enormities with religious seueritie and iustice vvhich are daily committed against the Lords will and commaundement And because hee is a King he serueth as a seruant by making Lawes vvith force and vigour to commaund things that are righteous and to forbid the contrarie Euen as Ezekias serued by destroying the Temples of Idols and cutting downe the groues Euen as King losias serued by dooing the like Euen as the King of
either Ecclesiasticall or Temporall soeuer they be so as no forraine power shal or ought to haue any superiority ouer the. And if any person that hath conceiued any other sense of the form of the said Oath shal accept the same Oath with this interpretation sense or meaning her Maiestie is well pleased to accept euery such in that behalfe as her good obedient subiects and shall acquite them of all manner penalties contained in the said Act against such as shal peremptorily or obstinatly refuse to take the same Oath What could be written more plainly and fully against this Iesuit not onely to stop his mouth heerin but also to take vp at once his whole Iarre following euen by the very rootes BECAN Exam. Pag. 107 THose vvords of mine Thomson deuised a new name of this thing Supremacy Suprematus therefore the thing is now I did not call a consequent but a coniecture Againe you are contrarie to your selfe reasoning thus The name of Iesuit is new therfore the thing is new If the consequent hold in this why not in the other c. And further it is ridiculous to compare one Thomson with so many Fathers of the Nicen Councell and to affirme that lawful for him which was lawfull for them Dr. HARRIS Reply HEre haue we the Iesuit lying in his byrdlime Wherin the more he struggleth the worse he is enwrapped and whence he seeks to go out by going out of his wits saying it was his coniecture from no consequent of reason As though euery coniecture reasonable doth not leane vpon some reason probable If therefore his coniecture was grounded vpon no reason it followeth that he with his coniecture was vnreasonable But with what face vnlesse hee be extreamely ignorant in the very petite rules of Logick can hee deny it to bee a consequent standing vpon two Propositions reduced by himselfe into forme Enthymematicall The later the Conclusion inferred vpon the former containing the Medium in it viz. a new name imposed with the particle-note of inference or consequence viz. Igitur therefore hauing his forerunner-watch-word colligimus wee gather giuing warning of a consequent to follow Now then draw out this reason into his full syllogisticall forme it will runne and can runne no otherwise than thus What thing soeuer hath a new name imposed vpon it that thing is new Hence the Iesuit assumed thus But the Kings Supreme power in the Church hath a new name Suprematus imposed vpon it Ergo the Kings Supremacy is new And I thence assumed thus But Christ in respect of his Deity had in the Nicen Councell a new name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imposed vpon him Ergo Christ in respect of his Deity or Christs Deity was then new The Iesuit beeing invery great streights and not able to beare the stroake of this argument for the former or Maior proposition is his own The later proposition called the Minor or Assumption hee durst not deny The forme is rightly syllogisticall To deny the Counclusion is against all rules dialecticall To grant it is hereticall creepeth into a bench-hole and then laugheth saith It is ridiculous to compare one Thomson a priuat man vvith so many Fathers in the Nicen Councell representing the Church that it should be as lawfull for Thomson as for them to impose a new name Could any man imagin that Martin Becan a father Iesuit and a publique Reader of Diuinitie should be so vnlearned a slugge as hee palpably heere shewes himselfe to be Truly if a Cambridge Sophister had aunswered so he should haue beene either corrected in the Schooles or hissed out of the Schooles For let the like arguments be framed thus Euery man is a liuing creature The king is a man Therefore the King is a liuing creature And thus Euery man is a liuing creature The Kings scullian is a man Ergo the Kings scullian is a liuing creature If any silly fellow vsing Becanes words should with Becan answer thus It is ridiculous to compare the Kings scullian vvith the King should he not as a ridiculous asse be ludibriously exploded These as the other syllogismes respect not Quis who is a man or who gaue the new name but Quid whether hee be a man whether it be a new name imposed Nay rather thence the argument runneth vpon the Iesuit with greater force thus If the imposition of a new name vpon a thing by a priuat man shall inferre the thing to be new much more shall the imposition of a new name vpon a thing by publique authority conclude that thing to be new Now it is time that I answere his Question heere proposed viz. Why I vse that consequent against the Iesuits thus The name of the Iesuiticall Sect is new Therefore that Sect is new which my selfe misliked I answer If he had well obserued those my words before going viz. â—llud fortasse rectius hee should easilie haue perceiued that I misliked that consequence as it is indeed most childish and ridiculous yet by the way of Sarcasmus ironically I vsed it to thump Iesuits there-withall because their Sect the name of their Sect is new indeed BECAN Exam. Pag. 108. THe name of Iesuits is as ancient as the name of Christians By both those names one and the same thing is signified But the name of Caluinists Hugonots c. is new Heerein peraduenture the comparison is fit That as those Fathers denised a new word or name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abolish the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Arians vsed so Thomson deuised a new name Suprematus to abolish the name Primatus which the King Burhill and other Academiks vse And again as the Nicen Fathers reputed all for hereiticks vvho vsed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Thomson should account those to be hereticks that vse the word Primatus But what Concord is this Rather a huge Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply THe vniforme concord in the thing it selfe name of the thing hath bin heertofore in this booke demonstrated sufficiently The Iesuits eyes therfore seeming to see heer an huge discord are as Samsons foxes tyed together by the tayles within his head but separatly set in his face looking asquint which appeareth the rather to be true because hee seemes heere to behold things and like which are eucry way vnlike As first those Fathers did not deuise a new word for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was long before onely they ascribed it as a new attribute to Christ in respect of his Godhead but Mr. Thomsons word Suprematus is spanne new Secondly the Fathers did not giue both those name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto Christ but Master Thomson calleth the Kings Supreme Gouernment of this Church both Suprematum and Primatum Thirdly the Fathers held them for hereticks who did vse the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Becane heere saith but Mr. Thomson holdeth our King the Bishop of Ely and others