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
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
Pag. 48. DIstinguish but the times as St. Augustine teacheth you namely the times of the Churches peace wherein raigned Christian Princes and the times of persecution wherin Pagan Kings had the Soueraignty and you shall rightly vnderstand the Scriptures Of the peaceable times of the Church so writeth Dr. Tooker pag. 42. It belonged to King Dauid Salomon Iehoshophat and Iosias to giue lawes to the Leuites and to the whole congregation of Israel And in the same place he writeth again of the times of persecution Erat Apostolorum omnium c. It vvas not one but all the Apostles which both called the Councell and decreed vvith like solemnity of these words Visumest Spiritui sancto et nobis It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to vs. Ma. Thomson speaking of this matter doth not denie that the lame Apostolicall law had any force without the fauour of Caesar as though there had neuer beene law in the Church vvithout the aforsaid approbation of the Emperour but onely that without it they had no force vnder paine of corporall punishment as is most plaine by the tenor of his vvords So that heere is no Iarre or dissension among the English Writers as hee affirmeth but onely a dreaming dorage of the Iesuit who childishly sporteth himselfe with a fallacy of Equinocation especially when hee endeuoureth to match in equall ranke the lawes and Canons of Bishops with the lacred decrees and Constitutions of the Apostles Well wrote Saint Augustine Dâ—Nâ—ur et Grana c. 61. I am bound to consent to the holy Scriptures of the which sort are the decrees of the Apostles without all refusall And in another place Iread other Writers Epist 19. ad Hiero. Dist 9. Egoâ—oht how much soeuer they excell in holinesse or learning so as I doe not therefore thinke it truth because they thought so but because they perswade mee by other canonicall Authors or by probable reasons not differing from truth And against Faustus Lib. 11. ca. 5. We must read this kind of learning such as are the writings of the holy Fathers and Doctors non cum credendi necessitate sed cum libertate iudicandi not as bound to belieue them but as free to iudge them And vnto this purpose he writeth in another place Neither vvill I obiect the Councell of Nice vnto thee Cont Maxinn l. 5. c. 14. neither must thou obiect the Councell of Ariminum vnto mee let matter vvith matter and reason dispute vvith reason out of the authorities of holy Scriptures The Iesuit I hope will not deny that all the Apostolicall Sanctions vvere giuen by Diuine Inspitation and dareth hee affirme so much of all Ecclesiasticall Canons of Bishoppes yea though the Popes Holinesse haue breathed vpon them yea of the Councell of Trent Against which the Embassadours of the French King Anno 1562 who was there present protested in this manner Minus legitima minusque libera c. All those Councells vvere euer accounted lesse free and therefore not so lavvfull vvhen they vvho vvere assembled not ledde by the holy Ghost spake after the pleasure of some other to vveet the Pope And the Vniuersitie of Paris Anno 1517. in their appeale against Pope Leo the tenth and his Councell assembled at Rome wrote in this sort Leo Papa dicimus in quodam coetu c. Leo the tenth in a certaine Assembly in the Citie of Rome vvee knovve not hovv gathered together yet vve are sure not in the holy Ghost And is Becane the Iesuit ignorant in what pleasant manner Cardinall Cusan brake this iest vpon Eugenius the Pope saying De còcord lib. 2. ca. 20. Hovv can Pope Eugenius affirme this thing to be true because hee vvill haue it so and for no other cause Ac si inspiratio ipsius Sancti spiritus c. As if the mind of the holy Ghost vvere in the power of the Bishop of Rome and must then inspire vvhen the Pope vvill have him inspire To conclude this Question I desire the Iesuit Becane in the behalfe of Ma. Thomson to yeeld a sound reason wherefore the Bishops in the first Councell of Constantinople did in this humble manner entreat Theodosius the Emperour Rogamus clementiam c. Wee beseech your clemency that by the letters Patents of your Piety you vvould confirme and cause to be ratified the decree of this Councell BECAN Exam. Page 162 THe Apostles by diuine right might make lawes Which right cannot be proued to haue bin transtated froÌ„ them to Kings or Emperours but to Bishops successours of the Apostles with whom as with the Apostles the Spirit of truth remaineth for euer Therefore the Bishoppes and their Lawes or Canons euen in England are no lesse diuinely inspired then the Apostles or their Lawes or Canons Apostolicall Which if you deny the Arch-bishop of Cauterbury or certainely the Bishop of Ely will cause you to be punished therefore You are abasht to speake any thing of King Henry 8. his law touching the lawfull marriages in degrees not prohthited which carnall knowledge followed Dr. HARRIS Reply VVHat modest Hearer will not be abashed and what Christian heart will not tremble to heare these blasphemies vttered by the Iesuite The Apostles were Gods chosen pen-men to write the Scripture as they were immediately mooued by the Spirit of God 2. Pet. 2.19 21 without possibility of error They were Gods immediate instruments either joyntly in Councell or singularly alone to set downe Lawes and Canons Essentiall parts of that Scripture wherof we read thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Tim. 3.16 1. cor 15.15 The whole Scripture is gluen by inspiration of God The Apostles were such chosen witnesses to testifie Gods truth Gal. 3.8 that if an Angel from heauen should testifie otherwise than they did he must be accursed Are all Bishoppes or any one two three c. Gods immediate pen-man to write portions of holie Canonical Scripture Are all the Lawes and Canons made by Bishops in all Councells essentiall parts of Canonicall Scripture giuen by inspiration of God Are all Bishops God immediate chosen witnesses to testifie the truth so without all possibility of falshood that the Churches faith should depend thereon so sure that if an Angell of heauen testifie other wise then they haue preached or written he should be accursed Then must writings testimonies and lawes hereticall go for Scripture Canonical and so Diuine Scripture must be hereticall Is not this blasphemy And this necessarily followeth from the Iesuite his premisses here to weet That all Bishops and the lawes and Canons in Councells and other writings made by Bishops are and were inspired by the spirit of truth without errour as the Apostles and their Canons and writings were Ten seucrall prouinciall Synods gaue consent with the Arian Heretikes And whereas in the first and most famous generall Councell of Nice which maintained or thodoxally Christ his God-head there were but three hundred and eighteene Bishops In the hereticall
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
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.
in his Apology and monitory Préface to the Emperour c. endeuoureth to proue that himselfe in England and euery King in his kingdome is Head or Primat of the Church There you confound Head Primat as one thing heere by a two-fold question you sepatate them as diuerse things So the Mule scratcheth himselfe The King doth make no expresse mention of the word Primat yet as you say hee endeuoureth to proue and proueth demonstratiuely that he is Primat of the Church Therefore as the King wee and your lelfe understand it it is all one to have the Primacy of the Church and to be Primat of the Church Sith then weeagree in the thing why doe you wrafig be about the name heere of Primat as before of Primacy Doctor Tooker and Maister Burhill lume openlie professed subscribed and sworne that the King is the onely Supreme Gouernour in and ouer all causes and persons Eoclesiasticall vvithin his Realine that is â—hâ— Hainrick and Thomson and your selfe vnderstand it in one word Primat But Tooker and Burhill deny the King to be Primat of the Church They doe so that rightly to weet in your popish sense of Supreme Primat of the Church Sacer do tall or Episcopall By which distinction well vnderstood and vsed it appeareth that among vs there is no Iarre at all touching the Supremacy or Primat BECAN Exam. Pag. 120 YOu call mee an Asse because I said the English Protestant Writers Iarre in this point If I be an Asse by contend you with me Haue you learned to strine onely vvith Asses Belike you thought you had to doe vvith English Predicants I am not of that Tribe Neither am I contrary to my selfe for I doe not distinguish Primat and Head of the Church but I shevv the English Writers to dissent in both And that is very true because some afsirme and others deny the King to be either Primat or Head of the Church Dr. Harris Reply TO his quest I answere thus By Gods grace I haue learned to dispute and to grapple with the most learned Iesuit in the bunch And I am sory that it was my ill hap to meet with such a slug as this Icsuit is But sich it fulleth out so I must take vp this burden and proceedin answeting as Salomon saith a foole in his folly lest hee be proud I know by their books many Iesuits to be very learned and I knowe many English Preachers in learning to be nothing inseriour to their chiefest Iesuits Therefore this Iesuit Becane without all truth and good manners sets the Asses eares vpon so many learned English Preachers but they will nothing lesse then fit them hee must resume the eares to himselfe and carie them about with him as his owne Touching his assertion I did not say that he distinguished the Head and Primat of the Church as two things diuerse but that he confounded them as one Hcere as one that is at daggers drawing against himselfe hee confesseth hee did not nor doth distinguish them and yet heere with two disiunctiue particles hee separateth them Indeed with the Papists what is the Papall Primat of the Church but the Supreame Head of the Church Therefore iustly I found fault with the Iesuit for making two questions of one viz. I. Whether the King bee Primat of the Church 2. Whether the King be Supreme Head of the Church and not thus rather according to his words and meaning Whether the king be Head or Primate of the Church or Head that is Primate c. But in this his Examen the Iesuite doth increase and not lessen the Iarre with himselfe BECAN Exam. Page 121 I Do not inquire what Tooker and Burhill haue professed or sworne of the kings Supreme Gouernment but what they haue written of the Primate of the Church Both of them deny that the king may be called Primate of the Church Hainric saith be may be so called There is the Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply TRue it is in our English tongue as we doe not call the kings Supreme gouernment of this Church Primacy but Supremacy so doe we not cell the king Primate Ecclesiasticall or Primate at all But in respect that the English word Supremacy is translated into the Latine word Primatus as we in Latine ascribe vnto the king Primatum Ecclesiasticum or Primatum in omnibus causis et supra omnes personas Ecclesiasticas Primacy Ecclesiasticall or Primacy in and ouer all Causes and persons Ecclestasticall so wee in Latine call the king Primatem Ecclesiasticum Primate Ecclesiasticall to weet of his foresaid Regall not Episcopall Primacy or Supremacy Ecclesiasticall that is in and ouer all Ecclesiasticalls which Mr. Burhill is so far off to deny that hee hath expressely allowed them who assert it So that here is nothing but empty striuing about words which the Apostle condemneth I will therefore leaue this Iesuite snatching at syllables and catching of flics I say I will leaue him so striuing and with are him thus reasoning BECAN Exam. Page 121 〈…〉 Doctor Tooker and M. Burhill disputing against me who denied the King to be Primate of the Church doe denie it in that sense wherein I said the King vsurped the Primacy of the Church But I did not meane that the King vsurped the Primacy of the Church Sacerdorall for I elsewhere confesse that the King disclaimeth it Therefore they denying the King to haue Primacy Ecclesiasticall doe not meane that hee hath not Primacie Sacerdotall Dr. HARRIS Reply WHo taught this vnlearned Iesuite to dispute from all particulars Concerning the general do all disputers at all times reason according to the meaning of the Aduersarie which often times they vnderstand not Touching the Minor or later proposition or Assumption of Becane who would not thinke his meaning to be that the king by his confession disclaimeth all Primacy sacerdotall that is Episcopall Archiepiscopall or Patriarchall for all Bishops Archbishops and Patriarkes are Priests and therefore their Primacy Episcopall c. is Sacerdotall but this Iesuite meaneth nothing lesse For by Primacy Sacerdotall he meaneth here onely the power of inferiour Priests or Presbyters in Court internall onelie who haue no iurisdiction in Court externall as though all our dispute were not of Primates and Primacy As though any inferiour Priests who were not Bishops haue at any time bin called Primates feeling that by the Canon law Primates Patriarks are all one as though Primacy with the Papists doth not respect the externall Court only These are as plaine as the nose on Becanes face Therefore his face is hard who abuseth his Reader so grosly But I 'le returne this his argument vpon his owne head thus If Dr. Tooker and Mr. Burbill deny the King to be Primate or to haue Primacy in that dense than Becane saith The King vsurpeth Primacy and Becane saith The King vsurpeth Primacy Sacerdotall that is to say Episcopall Then it followeth that they deny the King to be Primate or
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