qui EcclesiasticaÌ„ temporaleÌ„ iurisdictioneÌ„ habet quideÌ„ Supremá The king is a person mixt to wit that hath both Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall and Temporall that in the highest degree c. And yet more p. 144. Perleges Ecclesiasticas in hoc Regno approbatas vnus Sacerdos duo beneficia habere non potest nec Bastardus Sactis initiari Verùm Rex Ecclesiastica potestate iurisdictione quam habet in vtroque dispensate potest By the Ecclesiasticall Lawes approned in this Kingdom of England one Priest may not have two Benefices nor a Bastard be made a Priest But the King by the Iurisdiction And Power Ecclesiasticall which hee hath can dispense in both c. 3. M. Tompson and M. Burhill doe absolutely deny it M. Thomson pag. 80. of his booke writing thus Primatus Ecclesiae non est definiendus per iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam sed per gubernationem supremam The Primacie of the Church is not to be defined by Iurisdiction Ecclesisstical but by supreme GouernmeÌ„t c. And againe pag 95. Diximus Regem gubernare quidem Ecclesiastica sed non Ecclesiasticè Wee haue said before that the King indeed doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically And why I pray you Because for sooth be hath not Iurisdiction Ecclesiatically but onoly Temporall And heerounto agreath Must Buchill pag. 234. granting this negatine proposition Rex saith he nullam habet Iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam nec in foro interiori nec inexteriori The King hath no Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall neither in the interiour nor exteriour Court c. 4. Now my Lord of Ely hee distinguisheth in this case as may be seene in M. Tookers Booke pag. 305. in these vvords Habet Rex omnem iurisdictionem spiritualem in foro exterioti exceptis quibusdam Censuris The King hath all inrisaction spirituall in the extoriour Court except is certain Consures c. So as now to this question to weet vvhether the King as hee is Primate and Head of the Church haue any Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall or spirituall in the exteriour Court we must anâ—were thus First with M. Tooker and M. Salclebridge That he hath most ample most full and supreme Iurisdiction Secondly with my Lord of Ely That he hath indeed some but notall And lastly with M. Burhill and M. Thomson That hee hath none no not any one iote at all English Concord Pag. 38 THese are the very expresse words of the law of England which is now in force Star 1. Elzab That Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction vvhich was exercised heeretofore or lawfully might be exercised by any spiritual or Ecclesiasticall power to visit the Ecclesiasticall state order also to reforme to bring into order and to correct Ecclesiasticall persons all errours heresies schismes c. is for euer vnited and annexed to the imperiall Crowne of this kingdome vvhereby the King of England through his full power by his Letters Patents may assigne authorise such persons being naturall borne subiects as he shall think meet to exercise execute vnder his Highnes all manner of Iurisdictions priuiledges and preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction within his Highnesse Dominions Now all Protestant English Writers in the Oath of Supremacy which they haue takeÌ„ Lorament Primat in Apol. Reg. pag. 56. haue openly testified in their conscience declared that they will with all their power ayde defend all Iurisdictions Priuiledges and prehemiâ—eâ—ces vnited and annexed to the Crowne of this kingdom Wherefore all plainly agree in the thing it self But that which the Iawes of Engl. call Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction define to be the supreme Gouernmet in all Ecclesiasticall things ouer all Ecclesiasticall persons M. Thomson would rather call Supreme Gouernment The R Tortur Tort. p. 151 Bishop touching this matter writeth thus This I vrge that the IurisdictioÌ„ which Abbesses haue with you is ordinary spirituall IurisdictioÌ„ For the Abbat hath ordinary in her administration the Abbess is equalled with the Abbat And what should let it Because they cannot exercise censures excoÌ„municate But excoÌ„munication doth not directly belong to the key of order In 4. SenteÌ„ Dist 18. q. 2. art 2. Aquinas asserteth this Excommunication is no act of the key directly but rather of the externall court And it is a common opinion with you that he that hath not the key of order may excommunicate Those things which are of order and the inner court are denied to women but things belonging to the outward court are coÌ„municated to Layiks of those things there is no reason but that women may be capable As Stepha d'Aluin doth stiffly argue for his Abbesses and therein takes our part the Sorbon approuing his opinion therein Although we ascribe not to our King power of Censure and therein you giue much more to your Abbesses then we to our Prince Ma. Burhill demes the King to haue any Iurisdiction in the outward court to weet Sacerdotall So the King of England hath all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction that is Supreme and Regall wherof onely our controuersie is but no Sacerdotall no none at all and yet without any Iarre whatsoeuer But oh Becane can you without blushing if there be but a graine of pudency in you obstinatly detract froÌ„ most religious Kings all supreme Iurisdiction properly Regall when women of whom St. Paul 1. Tim. 2. v. 12. I permit not a woman to vse authority ouer the man with you are capable Fran. Steph. D' Aluin de Potestat Episc Abbatú Abbatiss ca. 2.3 4.11 c. and partakers of Spirituall Iurisdiction Sacerdotall or Episcopall viz. Of power to excoÌ„municate Clerks to absolue to visit to institute to present to Benefices Prelatures dignities Ecclesiasticall yea of hauing all administration as wel spirituall as temporall but only of those things of order wherof a woman is incapable Lastly al those things which Salobrigiensis doth heer recite touching Kings anointed with sacred oyle c. Mixt persons c. which may dispense against lawes Ecclesiasticall are transcribed out of the expresse words of the common lawes of England which in this kind of argument might haue satisfied to the full BECAN Exam. Pag. 139 THomson saith expresly that The Primacy of the Church is not to be defined by Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but the law of England doth so define it Thomson saith that The King doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically therefore his Iurisdiction is not Ecclesiasticall Burhill detracteth from the King all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in the outward Court that is as you say Sacerdotall but Tooker faith that All iurisdiction of Priests is in the inward Court The Bishop of Ely saith The King hath no Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the outward Court but onely power of Censure And saith againe The King hath not power of censure But Hainric and Tooker say The King hath all supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction The English law saith The King hath all manner
vvhether Bishopâ—ickes or Archbishoprickes throughout the whole circuits of their Kingdomes For this truely belongeth vnto those whose office it is to dispose there of to wit to the Compreninciall Bishops who haue power to consecrate the saide persons on vvhome they bestowe them Indeede the Kings Maiesty notwithstanding hath this right with vs in England which an inferiour and subordinate power also hath to wit right so nominate and present vnto benefices c. 3. Behotde here a triple Iarre or discord betweene these two Authors and this in a daily and vulges watter The first is that M. Henry Salclebridge saith that the collasion of benefices belongeth to the Kings of England in that they he the Primates of the Church of England M. Tooker saith to the contrary that it belongeth not to Kings at all but to Bishops The second Iarre is that M. Salclebridge saith that Kings by their owne authority haue conferred benefices M. Tooker saith that they neuer do nor haue done The third is that M. Salclebridge saith that Kings by vertuâ— of their supreme Ecclesiasticall Iâ—risdiction may present 〈◊〉 benefices M. Tooker â—â—â—rrâ—th that in this point Kings hauene more right then their subiects and other inferiour persons for so he saith Hoc habet iuris Regia Maiestas quod minor subordinata potestas habet The Kings Maiesty hath in this point of conferring beneficer the same right that an inferiour and subordinate power bath c. Whether of these two then should King Iames belieue if he had a fat benefice or an Archbishopricke now to bestow English Concord HEere is also a Iesuiticall trifling altercation about words Hainric by collation of Benefices vnderstandeth Presentation Nominations to Benefices the very Donation of Benefices Doctor Tooker thereby concclueth the Institution of Presbyters and the consecration of Bishops Dr Tooker acknowledgeth the Kings Presentation Nomination Donation Hainric by no meanes attributeth to the king either Institution or Consecration as both of them being proper go the Bishops The Kings presenthig of his Clearks to the Bishoppe for institution of them into such Benefices with Cure as respect the Kings hereditary right of Patronage is nor much different from the presentations made by his subiects who haue the like right of Patronage vnlesse it be herein viz that the King by his writ may and doth compell the Bishoppe especially after recoucry by Quare Impedie opposing himselfe therein to institute fitte Clarks presented by his Maiesty or by other Patrons to the said Bishoppe But the presentation of certaine Benefices with Cure after they haue continued void of any Incumbent for the space of 18 Monethes appertaines vnto the King by way of lapse as vnto the Supreme Ordinarie in his Dominions or the only Supreme Gouernour of the Church therein and that by the common lawes of England as is expresly shewed in Becano-Baculus Page 142. 150. Moreouer there are certaine Benefices with Cure called Donatiues which admit no Institution at all of these the King by his owne Donation onely without any either Episcopall Institution or Archidiaconall Induction makes the Clearks rightfull possessours Doctor Tooker knoweth well these triuial and vulgar matters as Becane here calleth them and beares in minde our most learned Soueraigne his words in his Monitory Preface touching the Collation of Benefices Page 33. How often haue the Kings of France withstood the Pope in such sort that they would not yeeld vnto him the very Collation of Benefices And those other words concerning Bishoprickes receiued from Kings and Emperours Page 29. Euen the Pope also with all obedience and submission did acknowledge himself to hold his Popedom of the Emperour And Page 31. He that peaceably is desirous to know in what sort the Bishops of Spaine Scotland England Hungary by ancient Institution euen vntill moderne innouation came in and were inuested by Kings with quiet possession of their temporals purely and intirely he shall finde the same by searching the liues of the Fathers and by reading Histories Walthram Naumburg lib. de Inuestit Episc Behold then how a threefold Concord ariseth out of that threefold Iarre which the Iesuit faineth The first Concord Hainric saith that the conferring of certain Benefices belongs to the Kings of England by way of lapse as they are the chief Gouernours of the Church of England Doctor Tooker affirmeth that the Collation of Benefices lying void of any Incumbents aboue 18. Monethes appertaineth to the King onely by way of lapse and not to the Bishops or Archbishops or to any other subiect The second Hainric saith that Kings by their own authority haue oftentimes giuen Benefices to weet Donatiues Tooker auerreth that the King may giue 40. 50. or moe within the compasse of one yeare if so many fall void The third Hainric saith that by the lawes of England Kings because of their Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction present to free Chappels and that none of their subiects to weet Bishoppes or Archbishops haue authority to visit the said Chappels Dr. Tooker instructed by the same lawes auoucheth that Kings onely haue that authority and no subiects but by the Kings grant Finally if the hungry Iesuite who mindeth onely his meat that is far Benefices or Archbishoprickes can produce but one little either word of Scripture or sentence in Ancient Father whereby it may appeare that the Collation of Benefices belonged to the Primate of the Christian Church as Primate let him haue the victory But if he cannot vnlesse hee be more then impudent let him seale vp his lips and recognize those words of the Parisian Aduocate Arg. 11. Page 25. That of Luk. 9. The Sonne of man hath not vvhere to rest his head is Equiualent with this The Church by Diuine right hath no Territory BECAN Exam. Page 173 SMall Benefices without Cure may be conferred vpon Clearks which are neither Priests nor Bishops Therefore Tooker by Collation doth not meane Institution or Sacration Againe hee saith that the King of England hath no other right then to name or present but to giue or conferre is more then to name and present you faine Tooker by Collation to vnder stand Instuntion or Consecration Therefore you dissent from Tooker Hainric saith the Collation of Benefices belongeth to the King of England as Primate of the Church of England but this you deny for you bid mee shew out of Scripture or Ancient Father that the Collation of Benefices belongeth to the Primate of the Church Not I but Hainric who affirmed it must shew that It is my part only to shew that English Writers dissent in this point This I haue done let me therefore haue the victory Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere the Iesuit is as a chased timorous Hart which hauing his deadly wound giuen him flyeth out a while straggling from his fellowes but feeling decay of his vitall spirits and lifes bloud runs into the brakes to hide his head and there to perish Becane in his verball but in no sort reall confutation of his
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
their deserts he may depose as Salomon did Abiathar In the meane time 1. Reg. 2. ver 27. the King alloweth not that any Bishop especially the Bishop of Rome should rule ouer all the Christian vvorld This Iesuit bringing in our King heer denying that hee will meddle with the matters of other men not his subiects as on the one side hee deseruedly commendeth our gracious King therein so on the other side he iustly condemneth that busie-body the Pope intermeddling in matters of the King his subiects endeucâ—ring impiously and impudently to auert his subiects froÌ„ swearing allegiance vnto their Soueraigne against the law of Nature Nations against the law of God and man therein shewing himselfe indeed to be that wicked man that sonne of perdition that very Antichrist described by St. Paule 2. Thes 2 especially considering that neither our King nor the meanest vassall or villaine of our King is the Popes subiect For by the right and ancient diuision of Prouinces this Realme of England was not vnder the Bishop of Rome Pope Innocent 400. yeeresafter Christ confesseth that he had not sufficient authority to call one poore Britan out of this Realme The case was this The Bishops of Africa prayed Innocentius cither to send for Pelagius the Britan or to deale with him by letters to shew the meaning of his lewd speeches tending to the derogation of Gods grace To whom the Bishoppe of Rome answered thus Quando c. When will hee commit himselfe to our iudgement write I what letters I vvill See B. Bil. Pag. 320. vvhereas he knoweth hee shall be condemned And if hee were to be sent for they may better doe it that are neerer to him and not so farre distant as I am BECAN Exam. Pag. 115 IF these propositions be equiualent viz. The King hath not Primacy Ecclesiasticall The King cannot execure offices Sacerdotall or Episcopall then it followeth that they who deny the King canexeciâ—te officas Sacerdot all deny the King to haue Primacy Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall And they vvho hold that the King hath Primacy Spirituall affirme that he may execute offices Episcopall This is rather to increase then to take away the Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere the Iesuit playeth the wrangling Sophifter his Elench is as the Schoole tearmeth it A dictosecundum quid addictuÌ„ simpliciter For these words Primaeus Ecclesiasticus doe not simply but secundum interpretationem vel sensum according as some Writers meane thereby signisie Primacy Episcopall and not Regall In which sense all Protestant Writers deny the King to haue Primacy Ecclesiasticall Others by those words Primatus Ecclesiasticus mean Primacy Regall or not Episcopall In which sense all English Protestant Writers ascribe vnto the King Primacy Ecclesiasticall and as Master Burhill vvriteth may vvell call it Primatum Spiritualem Spirituall Primacy So heere the Iarre is taken cleane away and the Iesuit is sully answered in all objected by him in due place The rest which against his owne and all good method hee iumbleth heere together hotch-potchwise as The King to be no Head nor to call Councells c. shall heereafter in their due place receiue also their full answere ⧠Becans Iarre III. Question Whether the King by vertue of this Primacy may bee called Primate of the Church MAister Henry Salclebridge doth absolutely affirme it For thus be writeth pag. 140. Dico Regem Angliae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Primatem esse I say that the King of England is Primat of the Church of England Nay he vvill haue this point to be so certaine and out of al doubt that he thinketh whosoeur should deny it to offend against the publike profession of England For so he saith pag. 177. Angliae RegeÌ„ Anglicanae Ecclesiae PrimateÌ„ esse in professione publica Anglicana Veritasis sacris liter is nixae ponitur That the King of England is Primate of the Church of England is founded in the publique English Profession of Truth grounded vpon the sacred Letter 2. M. Tooker and M. Burhill doe absolutely deny it For thus writeth M. Tooker pag. 3. Olere autem malitiam ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud videtur cùm RegeÌ„ Caput Ecclesiae Primatemque consingas It may seeme to sauour of malice and cry out vpon your saucinesse when as you feigne the King Head and Primate of the Church c. And Ma. Burhill pag. 133 Nec primatem quidem omnino Regem nostrum dicimus multò vetò minus Primatem Ecclesiasticism Neither doe wee at all call our King Primate and much lesse Ecctesiasticall Frimate c. 3. Heer-hence doe I frame a twofold Argument One out of M. Tookera words in this manner Hee that affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church is a sausy and malicious fellow But M. Salclebridge affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church Ergo he is a sausy and malicious fellow The other argument I frame out of M. Salclebridges words thus He that denieth the King to bee Primate of the Church doth offend against the publique Profession of the Truth receiued in England But M. Tooker denieth the King to be Primate of the Church of England Ergo he offendeth against the publique profession of the Truth receiued in England So I wis one Mule claweth another 4. But now it may bee demaunded whether of them doth iudge more rightly in this case M. Salclebridge who affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church or M. Tooker that denieth it This controuersie dependeth vpon another question to weet whether these two Names Primate and Primacy are necessarily connexed or as they say Coniugata M. Salclebridge thinketh that they are Therfore because he hath once affirmed the King to haue the Primacy of the Church hee consequently anerreik that the King is Primat of the Church For that with him this Argument hath force à Coniugatis The King hath Primacy Ergo the King is Primate As also this The Chaplaine hath a Bishoprick Ergo he is a Bishop 5. Now M. Tooker hee thinketh the contrarie For pag. 6. of his booke hee expresty saith That the King hath the Primacy of the Church but yet hee is not the Primate of the Church And contrariwise The Archbishop of Canterbury hath not the Primacy of the Church yet is he Primate of the Church So as hee denieth these two consequences à Coniugatis to weet I. The King hath the Primacy Ergo hee is Primate 2. The Archbishoppe is Primate Ergo hee hath the Primacy And perhaps hee vvill deny these in like manner I. The Chaplaine hath a Bishopricke Ergo hee is a Bishop 2. M. Tooker is a Deane Ergo hee hath a Deanery English Concord Pag. 29 WHy should I schoole an Asse with whom gently to claw and curstlie to kick Mule-like is all one Or why should I rubbe your memorie to recognize these your owne words Iames the most renowned potent King of England Refut Apol. Praef. monit Regis pag. 17.
at Ierusalem whether did raigne Christian or Pagan Princes how idle is this when the question is only about Christian Princes what is there no difference here betwixt a Iesuite and a Sophister But if Peter was then the sole Primate of the Church why did he not alone call that Synode and why did Iames sit President in that Councell what meane these words Visumest nobis it seemed good vnto vs and not rather it seemed good to Peter or alone or with the addition of Primate or after this manner it seemed good to our holy father Pope Peter after him to the residue of the Apostles and Elders If Peter or the Pope bee Supreme iudge of all controuersies what meane these words Visum est spiritui Sancto It seemed good to the Holy-ghost and not rather it seemed good to Pope Peter the Supreme iudge of all controuersies This is a great mysterie as if no mortall man but only the Holy-ghost could be Supreme iudge of all controuersies in the Church And why may not prouinciall Councells becalled by the Metrapolitan Nouel constit 123. leg 13. et 133 Franc. and Dioecesan by the Bishops by vertue of Ecclesiasticall lawes made by Christian Princes especially seeing as Dr. Tooker rightly affirmeth their indiction primarily appertayneth to the King and from him may be deriued to the Bishops These things doe excellently agree together BECAN Exam. Pag. 152 YOu say our English Writers touching the Kings Supremacy differ only in words or names An ingenuous confession whence I conclude his Supremacy to be verball and titular only and not reall Yet the Bishop of Rochester died for not acknowledging it And others for the same causes are imprisoned which makes you labour so much to bring asleepe or to extinguish this Nominall Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply I Say as I haue aboundantly proued in this Replie and in my English Concord that all our English-Protestant-Writers doe with full and vniforme consent agree in the reall solide and substantiall Supreme Gouernment of the King in all Causes and ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill within his Dominions next vnder Christ Further that all the said Writers sully agree in the verie name of that Supreme Gouernment to weet the English name Supremacy Moreouer that all the saide Writers in the sense of this reall thing and of the name of this reall thing call the same Supreme Gonernment in Latine Primatum Primacy and Iurisdictonem Spiritualem vel Ecelesiasticam Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction Againe that all the saide Writers call and acknowledge the King to bee reallie Supreme Gouernour in all Causes and ouer all Persons Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill vvithin his Dominions next vnder Christ. And in this sense all the said VVriters call the King Supreme Primate and Head of this Church as hath been shewed expreslie out of their owne writings Whereby appeaâ—eth that in very truth here is no English Iarre among our Protestant Writers Reall or Nominall And so these figge leaues wherewith Becane endeauoureth to couer the shameful nakednes of the Popish sort denying to acknowledge the Kings Supremacy aforesaid are remoued and taken cleane away But alas for for this seely Iesuit who is confined now in his English Iarre to Iarre Nominall only and not Reall and hath no other twigge to hang by but this scattered consequent viz. The Protestant English Writers expresse the selfe same substantiall thing to weet the Kings Supremacy with varietie of names and phrases Therefore the thing it selfe is not reall but nominall Our Academian school-boyes would deseruedlie might hisse this Iesuite with his consequent out of the Vniuersitie Schools as exceeding foolish and childish Thus rather would the argument proceede The Iarres of some Writers about a thing or matter are Nominal only and not Reall Therefore their consent is reall and the thing it selfe Reall Touching Rochester-Bishop inculcated by this Iesuite our King in his Apology pag. 121. according to the publike Records writeth thus Roffensis in carcerem coniect us est priusquam in iudicium capitis de Primatu Pontificis vocaretur idque partim quòd tardior esset ad successionem Regiae prolis confirmandam cui iam antea Regni Ordines subscripserant partim quod implicatus eo negotio tenebatur quod de sancta Virgine Cantiana ill is temporibus forte inciderat adeo vt propter â—elatas Pseudoprophetiae illius fraudes reus iudicatus sit Maiestatis ob non detectam coniurationem The Bishop of Rochester vvas imprisoned and condemned not onely for acknowledging the Popes Supremacy but also for gaine saying the lawfull succession of the Kings progeny and for concealing high treason against the King And why might not the Bishop of Rochester then or why may not the Popish ones here now in like case be imprisoned or put to death for treason against their Soueraign Who can denie that it is treason for any subiects to deny their Soueraigne to be their lawfull Prince But since euery lawfull Christian Prince is Supreme gouernour of his owne subiects in things Spirituall and Temporall or which is all one is Custos vtriusque Tabulae Keeper of both Tables to deny that of their Soueraigne is to deny him to be their lawfull Prince Assuredly to acknowledge the Popes Supremacy here as now it is defined and conuerted from Spirituall to Secular is to acknowledge the King to hold his kingdome of the Pope in Chiefe and that also at his will and pleasure as it is plaine by their Canon law and Canonists yea to hold their liues also as Tenants of Life at the Popes will by Iesuiticall doctrine as before in this Reply and in Becano-Baculus was expresly shewed and prooued demonstratiuelie And what is this else but apparantly to denie the King and to assert the Pope to be their Soueraigne Lord and King indeed And is not this high treason in the highest degree why then may not such lawfully be imprisoned condemned and executed as Arch-traitors At least why may not our King require an oath and this saide oath of his subiects against the Pope vsurping his right 2. King ca. 11. v. 4 as well as Iehoiada the high Priest did of the men of Iuda for Ioas their King against Athalia that vsurped his state Queene Elizabeth in her Explanation of the Supremacy caused these words to be printed and published to all her subiects viz. That if any her subiects would accept the oath of Supremacy with this interpretation sense meaning viz. That the K. or Q. Maiesty of England vnder God is to haue soueraignetie and rule ouer all manner of persons borne within her Maiesties Realmes Dominions and Countries of what estate Ecclesiasticall or Temporall soeuer they be so as no forraine Power shall or ought to haue any superiority ouer them her Maiesty is well pleased to accept euery such in that behalfe as her good and obedient subiects and shall acquite them of all manner penalties contained in the said Act against such as shall
exteriour Court and the second that the King hath not all Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court 6. The third Aâ—gument is That whosoeuer is subiect to another in Ecclesiasticall inrisdiction of the exteriour Court hath not supreme most ample and full lurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the exteriour Court But the King is subiect to some other body in Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court to wit to the Bishop because he may by him be excommunicated by sentence and cast out of the Church as Maister Burhill doth confesse Ergo hee hath not supreme most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the exteriour Court c. Or if your will contrariwise thus Hee that is subiect to no other in Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction cannot by any man be excommunicated by sentence But the King now if he haue supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction is subiect to no other in Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall Ergo he cannot by any other be excommunicated c. I doube not but you marke well that these things doe not agree English Concord Pag. 68 IN good sooth by this precedent chapter I obserue my Aduerlary a bad Disputer by the good leaue of his fellow Iesuits For manifesting hereof let vs first handle the question You enquire whether the King may excommunicate his subiects The worthy Bishop of Ely pag. 151. Doctor Tooker pag. 15. Maister Thomson pag. 83. 84. affirme of all our Writers in these words Omnes fatemur regem excommunicandipotestatem nullam habere Wee all confesse that the King cannot excommunicate I pray tell me in so full a concord is heere any difference Surely no English Iarre except a fained Becanicall Iarre for the Iesuite followeth not the question Whether the King can excommunicate but whether the King may be excommunicated and so proceedeth as you see to discourse of the offices of supremacy that is to say Whether this be not numbred among the residue That a Primate may be excommunicated of his subiects But here like an idle Sophister he fighteth without the lists and first it is worth our labour to marke his admirable skill in Logick wherby he goeth about out of our most vniforme consent to wrest an English discord This is therefore his first reason The King cannot execute all the inferiour actions of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction that is to say He cannot excommunicate therefore he hath no supreame Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction I am ashamed of such childish Iesuiticall fancies Is the Iesuit become ignorant or forgetfull of the question Is not our controuersie about one supreame Gouernour of the Church in all matters Ecclesiastical and aboue all Ecclesiasticall persons Yes wee reason about the office of that one onely supreme Gouernor as supreme Gouernour according to Saint Augustine ad Bonifac Epist 50. Inhoc ergo seruiunt domino reges in quantum sunt reges cum eafaciunt ad seruiendum illi quae non possunt facere nisi reges In this Kings serue the Lord respecting onely their kingly office that is vvhen they doe those things to serue him which they cannot doe except they vvere Kings Now sir if excommunication belong onely to the primate or supreame Gouernour for in our question they are both one then it should follow that all Bishops and euery meane Archdeacon for both these haue power to excommunicate are also supreme Gouernours of the Church and so there must needs bee by this Iesuits Logick as many onely supreme Gouernours as there bee Bishoppes and Archdeacons Is any thing more absurd See you not in what a brake the Iesuit is caught But for the power of excommunication vnderstand thus much The King of himselfe can excommunicate no man yet notwithstanding by the consent of all the estates assembled in the Parliament he can make Ecclesiasticall lawes by force and vertue wherof this or that obstinate subiect ought to be excommunicated And besides it is in the Kings absolute power to commaund any Bishoppe within his dominion to absolue any man whom by appeale hee shall finde to be vniustly excommunicated Secondly the Iesuit reasoneth thus The King giueth to other power to excommunicate therefore he he himselfe may excommunicate The Iesuit might haue learned out of Bernard whò they take for a brother of their owne the vanitie and weakenesse of this argument who though his doctrine heerein be not orthodoxall yet to infringe this consequent doth very accuratly distinguish thus writing to Eugenius Conuerie gladium tuum in vaginam Tuus ergo et ipse two forsitan nuiu etsi non tua manu cuaginandus c. Put vp thy sword into thy sheath saith Christ to Peter Then saith Bernard to the Pope Yea that sword is thine yet not to be drawn by thy hand but at thy direction Both swords are the Churches that is to say the spirituall sword and the materiall sword but the materiall sword is drawn for the Church the spirituall sword by the Church one of them by the hand of a Priest the other by the hand of a Souldier but yet at the pleasure of a Priest and the commaund of the Emperour Thirdly hee argueth on this manner The King is subiect to the Bishop excommunicating the King as vvas Theodosius to Ambrose therefore hee is not the onelie supreme Gouernour in his dominion ouer all persons and causes Ecclesiasticall I aunswere that if this be a strong argument then shall not the Pope be Primate of the Church for the Pope is subiect to a Priest in his act of Confession So writeth Panormitan Papatenetur confiteri Extra de poenit etremiss et in illo actu Sacerdos est maior illo Sacerdos potest illum ligare et absoluere The Pope himselfe is bound to confesse to a Priest and in that action the Priest is greater then the Pope for he hath power tobinde and loose him It also appeareth by a Councellat Constance See the Councels of Coustance and Basil and another at Basil that many Popes haue beene subiect to Bishops and by them conuented iudged excommunicated and deposed from their Papacie according to that of your Canon law Cum again de fide Dist 19. Anastasius in glossa tum Synodus maior est quam Papa When a controuersie is concerning faith then a Councell is aboue the Pope Therefore the Iesuit deceiueth by Elench a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Wee teach that our Kings are not Primats but priuate men in respect of Sacerdotall functions and by that meanes not onelie are â—â—feriour to Bishops but also to euery other Minister According to that vvorthy saying of Valentinian the Emperour Egosemin sonil Plebis EtenÌ„ collocato in Pontisicale solio cui nos quoque maderatores imperij nostracapita submittamusâ—â— also an Emperor Sozome lib. 6. â—â— 7 The doâ—eâ— lib. 4. cap. 5. am like one of the common people Place such a man in the Bishops throne to whom we that are managers of the Empire may submitour necks The Popes excommunications of any the meanest subiects of