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
as their right Primacy in earth Not onely ouer the whole Cleargy contrary to that Inhibition of S. Peter 1. Pet. 5. v. 3. Not as Lords ouer Gods Heritage but also ouer Kings and that not only in Spiritualls but also in their Temporalls viz. in their Goods Reuenews Crownes Kingdomes liberties and lines As their chiefest Iesuite Writers Bellarmine Suarius and this meane Iesuite Becane haue not beene ashamed to dogmatize in their late publike writings some whereof haue beene euen by State-Papists in their Parliaments censured and condemned as seditious pernitious against Kings prerogatiues royall crownes and dignities And some of them by vs here lately haue beene purged by fire and also most ambitiously haue and do desire and practise to get the Popedome and being opposed therein do by all euen bloudy meanes endeuour to retaine the same Onuphr in Chronie Rom. Pont. as the thirtie Schismes in the Church of Rome about the Popedom wherof the last worst lasted by the space of fiftie yeers together raysed and continued by the ambitious desire thereof in the Popes themselues euen to the shedding of the liues bloud of two hundred thousand christians caused by two Antipopes at once doth more then demonstrate To instance this ambitious desire in one but their principall one and chiefetaine Hildebrand the first who with brasen face did openly vndertake to depose the Emperour from his Empire The Cardinall Beno who liued with Hildebrand and knewe him too well writeth thus of him Hildebrand poysoned sixe Popes to make his waie to the Popedoma Nauclere reporteth that the clergy saide Pope Hildebrand was excommunicated by the Bishops of Italy as hauing defiled the Apostolike Sea with Simonie c. And Abbat Vrspergensis writeth Anno. Dom. 1080. that the Councell of Brixia censured Pope Hildebrand as an vsurper of the Sea of Rome not appointed by God but intruding by fraude money And to speak in general as Mantuan saith of Rome and Romanists Venalia nobis Templa Sacerdotes Altaria Sacra Coronae Ignis thura preces coelum est venale Deusque Where Church Priest Altar Masse Crowne for money tolde Also Fire Incense Prayer Heauen and God are solde Where all things come for money there is no probabilitie that the Popedom there more worth then all things else should come freely without money c. Rome is no changeling of which the Iesuites may read in the Canon law thus Roma fundata fuit a praedonibus adhuc de Primor dijsretinet dicta Roma quasirodens manus Roma manus rodit quos rodere non valet odit Rome was first founded by thieues and sauoreth still of her beginnings By th' hand Rome byteth States and whom shee cannot bite she hates If Rome bite all not giuing sans gifts shee popes none liuing Now since the Assumption is so plainely proued we may thus conclude Therefore the Popes of Rome shall finde confusion in Heauen Hence the Popish Antichrist is by the Apostle tearmed fitly Filius perditionis The sonne of perdition or confusion Moreouer from the words of Cyprian is this Syllogisme as canon-shot directed against the verie heart of the Popes Primacy thus If Peter did not ne could challenge to himselfe Primacy then the Pope hauing no Primacy but as Peters successour cannot challenge Primacy to himselfe But Peter could not challenge Primacy to himselfe as Cyprian here saith De Simple Praelator and else where proueth thus Hoc erant vtique c. The rest of the Apostles vvere the same that Peter vvas endewed vvith like fellowship of Honour and Power Therefore the Pope cannot challenge the Primacy This of Cyprian the Iefuit passeth ouer dry-foot and not without cause seeing hee could get no baulme from Gilead to cure this deadly wound giuen to the Pope by Saint Cyprians foresaid Canon-shot 3. The Iesuite doth here shamefully bely Chrysostom affirming that hee speakes promiscuously of both Primacies Secular and Ecclesiasticall whereas most distinctly hee writeth thus of them Dominus introduxit c. The Lorde brings in a diffeference betweene worldly or temporall Princes and Ecclesiasticalls because the Princes of the vvorld are therefore made that they might rule ouer their subiects and serue themselues of them 1. Sam. 9 ver 11. c. and spoyle them to their owne profit and glory according to the saying of God to Samuel This shall be the manner of your King hee will take your sonnes for his Chariot-driuers Captaines and Husbandmen and your Daughters for Apothecaries Cookes and Bakers he will take your fields and vineyardes and giue them to his seruants c. But the Princes Ecclesiasticall are therefore made that they may serue their vnderlings and minister vnto them all things which they haue receiued from Christ That they should neglect their owne profit and procure the profit of others and if neede be that they should not refuse to die for the safety or saluation pro salute of their inferiours Therefore if these things be so there is cause and profit to desire the Secular Primacy but to desire the Ecclesiacticall there is neither reason nor cause For what wise man would hasten vvillingly to submit himselfe to seruitude labour griefe and such a danger as to render an account for all the Church before the inst Iudge vnlesse peraduenture he thinke there is no iudgement of God or feares it not as one abusing his Ecclesiasticall Primacy secularly changeth the Ecclesiasticall into the Secular Than which words what could be written more distinctly and plainely against this lying Iesuite and his Popes Primacy to stop the mouth of the one and to plucke vp the other by the rootes I meane the Primacy Papall which is now become the highest temporall Primacy in the earth of which the Emperours as vassals holde their Imperiall crowns yea their liues and yet neither of these but during the Popes pleasure And this is with them become an article of the Romish faith Hence it is that his Maiesties subiects are forbidden by the Pope in their oath of Allegiance to sweare that what in them lieth they will preserue the life of their Soueraigne against the Papall and all other forrain power because as the Pope hath definitiuely set it down they should therein deny the faith Is not this his Ecclesiasticall Primacy become Temporall or rather Diabolicall Therefore euery good Christian from Chrysostome here is to learne That the Pope either thinketh there is no God or Iudgement of God to come or that the feare of God and of his Iudgement is not before his eyes Surely if the popish Primacy be that Ecclesiasticall here described by Chrysostome the Pope will no longer contend for it he will soon hate it worse than dogge or snake 4. The Iesuite here either very ignorantly or very impudently abuseth his Reader whom hee would make belieue that Chrysostome in that Homily so distinguisheth the Primacy of Honour to witte Ecclesiastical from the obtaining of that Primacy as though he
following You profit nothing I vvill teach you once againe It casilie appeareth that you neuer saw either the Glosses or Canons Such Glossators out of England are of no estimation Who would not admire the insolency of this Iesuiticall Bragadochio obiecting ignorance to the incomparablie learned Bishop Iewel vnto whom in the indifferent iudgement of any equall and indicious Readers of the writings of them both Becane is not worthy to holde the candle or to carry his books after him This I thought meete gentle Reader to signifie vnto thee in generall because this trifling disputer in his whole discourse following about Citations dooth nothing else but misspende the time in such emptie sopperies As for this Citation in particular viz. Dist. 9. ca. Innocent The very truth is it was onely the fault of the Transcriber for those very words D. 9. ca. Innocent written I expuncted with mine owne hand before any Iesuiticall censure passed ouer them The matter comprised in the words which I cited viz. That all power is giuen to the Pope as vvell in heauen as in earth was a thing so well knowne to all papists of any reading and also acknowledged as an article of popish faith that for proofe thereof I set downe no Citation in the Margine of my booke But now least this vnlearned Iesuite hauing read so little as by all his writings may appeare in the Canon law or popish Councells or Canonists should imagine that no proofes of the said matter are to be found in them I will direct him for his schooling sake first to the Canon law Dist 22. ca. Omnes Where Pope Nicholas speaketh thus Christ himselfe alone founded the Romane Church and erected it vpon the rock of faith when he gaue to Peter clauiger of eternall life the rights of the Empire earthly and also heauenly What is this else but more plainely translated into English thus He gaue to Peter and consequently to the Pope all power in heauen and earth But it may be the Iesuite would faine see the place where the very words are written Therfore Secondly I doe direct him to the popish Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Leo the tenth in which Councell Stephanus the Bishop of Petracha spake thus openly with great applause In the Pope is all power aboue all powers as well in heauen as in earth Thirdly I direct him to the most famous Canonist Abbot Panormitan who super prima primi de Electione cap. Venerabilem verb. Transtulit writeth thus The Pope may vpon very great cause transferre the Empire from one nation to another because he can doe vvhatsoeuer God can doe otherwise Christ had not beene so diligent a father of his family if he had not lest one on earth in his place vvho can doe all things that Christ himselfe can doe By this it is plaine that as All power in heauen and earth was giuen to Christ So all power in heauen earth is giuen to the Pope And consequently it is as plaine that as Christ is God so the Pope is God For better vnderstanding of which consequent I send the Iesuite to that learned and iudicious yet popish Writer Marsilius Patauinus who relateth out of Bernard thus All things were giuen to Christ because he was the eternall Sonne of God And Christ doth challenge to himselfe all things by the right of creation and merit of redemption And vvhosoeuer takes these vnto himselfe makes himselfe indeede God 2. Thes 2.4 That is as Saint Paul describeth him the popish Antichrist sitting in the temple of God as God shewing himselfe that he is God or rather exalting himselfe aboue all that is called God or worshipped Which may better appeare by Becanes solution of these two Questions following First whether as to Christ and Pope All power is giuen in heauen and earth so both Christ and Pope haue one and the same name giuen to them viz. The name aboue euery name that at the name of the Pope Phil. 1.9 as at the name of lesus euery knee should bow of things in heauen in earth and vnder the earth Vnto this former questioÌ„ I suppose Becane would say Respondetur quod sic that is affirmatiuely because in his Examen pag. 133. he saith The Pope Peter was receiued into the fellowship of the name and dignity of the indiuiduall vnity or Godhead Then the second questioÌ„ goes further thus whether at the name yea at the feete of the Pope all should not doe more than bow the knee since the greatest Emperours must fall downe flatte with their faces on the ground to kisse his feete and with their necks stretched out must receiue and entertaine his feete trampling vpon them and lastly as it is challenged at this time must offer readily their throats to be cut at the Popes pleasure Before I leaue this Straine I must set downe that which the Glosse out of the foresaide Canon Omnes D. 22. inferreth viz. thus Argumentum quod Papa habet vlrumque gladium et spiritualâ—m et temporalem This argueth that the Pope hath both the swords Spirituall and Temporall Euen as the Canonists also thence gather the Popes supreme power temporall euen ouer the Empire to conferre it to vvhom he will and to transferre it whence and whither he will And so the Pope falleth into the iust condemnation of God and Confusion in heauen whereof we heard before out of Chrysostome Here two great mischiefes are necessarily inferred pat vpon the Popes head the former That he is that Antichrist and his Primacy Antichristian The later That the Pope by reason of that his Primacy lieth deepely plunged into hellish confusion And yet here the Iesuite Becane is as mute as a fish so miserable a desendour of the Pope is he even that Becane who in the Preface to his Examen wished that he might be the kings valiant Champion to desend his Cause Now surely his Maiestie should be maincly wel holden vp through his great store of ignorance more grosse then euer I perceiued in any Iesuite Writer whatsoeuer English Concord BEcame in his Iarre Question 3. demanded Whether the King by reason of his Primacy may be called Primate of the Church And I in my Concord demand Whether the Pope by reason of his Primacy Anton. de Rosellis may be called as popish Writers call him King of Kings and Lord of Lords For example Boniface 8. vvho in time of solemne supplications vvent apparelled right as the Emperour himselfe Crowned vvith a golden Crowne Caesar like glistering in an embroidered gowne and a naked sword carried before him at his commandement Can ye Vide vit Dond in Sexco ô Academicks for the Iesuite often speakes to you beholding this spectacle forbeare laughing Vnto this the Iesuite saith no more but as followeth BECAN Exam. YOu cite out of the life of Boniface 8. vvhich is in the sixt booke of the Decretals these words Boniface 8. In time of solemne â—pplication but falsery There is no such
Gregory the great called Mauritius the Emperour his Lord and himselfe the Emperours Seruant but afterwards the case was altered cleane contrariwise and the Pope became the soueraigne Lord of the Emperour and the Emperour the Popes vassall In the yeare 1133 when Pope Innocent the second had set the Crowne vpon the Emperour Lotharius head hee caused the solemne manner thereof to be painted on a wall in his Lateran-Palace and vnder the picture these verses following to be written Rex venit adfores iurans per vrbis honores Post homo fit Papae sumit quo dance coronain The king at Palace of the Pope sweares fealty and than The king receiuing Crowne of Pope made is the Popes sworne man True it is that by the Popes Canon law Dist. 63 c. Tibi Domino et 22. q. 5. de forma in Glossa the Emperours as the Popes vassals must sweare homage to the Pope as holding their Crownes and Empires of him but it was neuer heard of before these Iesuiticall traytours had so heretically dogmatized that the Kings and Emperours hold their liues also of the Pope as the basest villaines that euer were to witte at the Popes pleasure Now iudge Christian Reader what noble schoolemaisters these Iesuites are teaching all Christian subiects the Art of killing their Kings Saint Iohn in his Reuelation Chap. 17. vers 16. prophecied That the King should hate the vvhore the scarlet vvhore died first in the bloud of Martyrs but now in the bloud of Kings and make her desolate and naked and should eate her flesh and burne her vvith fire If euer there were iust cause presented to kings to doe it surely now it is giuen them to the full Prou. 8.15 The King of heauen by vvhom they rule and decree iustice stirre vp betimes their royall hearts with vnited forces to constraine the Pope to renounce this his Antichristian bloudy claime or else to pull his triple Crowne from his head and to lay his Romish Popedome in the dust choosing another Patriarke if a Patriarke must needes bee had and bounding that new one within the Ecclesiasticall tedder onely That learned Gerson in his booke De Aufeberilitate Papae of taking the Pope of Rome cleane away gaue a good Item for this long since BECAN Exam. Page 100 YOu cite out of Bellarmine these words If the Pope should command vice and forbid vertue the Church were bound to belieue vertue to be euil and vice good but most deceitfully For Bellarmine doth not absolutely affirme that which you faine but vpon condition that grant one absurdity another will follow Bellarmines words are these It can not be that the Pope should erre in commanding any vice or forbidding vertue because then he should erre about faith For the Catholike faith teacheth that all vertue is good and all vice is euill But if the Pope should erre in commanding vices and prohibiting vertues the Church were bound to belieue vices to be good and vertues euill vnlesse it would sinne against conscience Dr. HARRIS Reply THis Iesuit makes Bellarmine write farre worse than as I produced him For in my Citation he spake thus If the Pope should command vice or forbid vertue the Church should belieue vice to be good and vertue to be euill but Becane brings him in writing more impudently and blasphemously thus If the Pope should erre in commanding vices or forbidding vertues the Church vvere bound to beleeue vices to be good and vertues to be euill vnlesse the Church would sinne against her conscience Which is plaine blasphemie and for which Bellarmine incurreth S. Pauls curse directlie For hee can not deny but that the blessed Angels of heauen and Apostles were as free from errour in their Angelicall and Apostolicall doctrines of faith and maners as the Pope is yet saith S. Paul Gal. 1. vers 8 If vve or an Angell from heauen should preach vnto you otherwise than that yee haue receiued let him be accursed But Bellarmine thus If the Pope should preach otherwise viz. vertue to be euill and vice good according to that of Esay Chap. 5. vers 20. Woe be to them that speak good of euill and euill of good the Church ought to hold the Pope so blessed as that she should sinne if shee did not belieue him so erring and erroneously preaching What is this else but to giue the holy Spirit of God the Lie in his face 〈◊〉 is here most absurd in writing thus Dato 〈…〉 do sequitur aliud If vvee grant one absurâ—â—◠〈◊〉 followeth another For grant that one absurdity that a blessed Angel of heauen should preach errour should this â—â—â—urditie follow That the Church vvere bound to beleeue him No saith Paul the Church vvere bound to holde him accursed Further it is apparantly vntrue wherewith Becane doth heere charge mee viz. that I said Bellarmine did absolutely affirme the Pope to command vice and forbid vertue or that the Church should belieue vice to be good and vertue euill for I cited it in a hypotheticall or conditional proposition thus If the Pope should command vice c. and not by a categoricall or singlie affirmatiue proposition thus The Pope doth command vice and forbid vertue c. It may be Becanes learning extendeth not so farre as to knowe when a thing is vttered categorically and when hypothetically and so of ignorant simplicitie he falsely burdened me with it If it were so I will the rather forgiue him but then I would haue him to goe to schoole againe to learne the principles of Logike if he knew it and yet would write thus he abuseth his Reader not a little But I will leaue this vnlearned Iesuite a while and indeede I begin to growe very weary of him with Bellarmine here would I gladly change a few wordes and learne of him whether the Church bee bound in any case to beleeue errour in faith or in the necessary precepts of manners If he affirme it he shewes himselfe to be an Heretike 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned in his owne conscience if hee deny it then suppose the Pope should erre in faith or manners yet the Church should not belieue him therin By the rules of the CanoÌ„ law If the Pope erre in faith that is if he be an Heretike he should be deposed but by Bellarmines paralell If the Pope erre in faith he must be beleeued If this be not doctrine hereticall what can be hereticall Therefore to the euerlasting shame of Iesuites let this hereticall position of Cardinall Bellarmine which Becane seekes heere to defend but the very heathen would blush to assert of any bee ingrauen with a penne of yron in lead or stone for euer viz. If the Pope should erre in commanding vices and forbidding vertues the Church is bound in conscience to belieue vices to be good and vertues to be euill Goe to now ô Pope and say Soule thou hast enough for now doe but command the bloudy and traiterous crime of Regicide that is killing of kings
matter of the Kings Primacy or Supremacie and that Becane throughout his Iarre striueth onely about words or syllables Against which kind of contention St. Paul writeth thus vnto Timothy 2. Tim. 2. ver 14. Protest before the Lord that they striue not about vvords vvhich is to no profit but to the peruerting of the hearers Vnto all this in my Concord from page 12. vnto page 19 Becane in his Examin answereth not one word ⧠Becans Iarre The I. Question Whether the King of England haue any Primacie in the Church 1. THE first Iarre or contention then is concerning the name of Primacy Many of our Aduersaries admit this Name but M. Richard Tompson had rather haue it called Supremacy then Primacie His reason is because Primacy doth signifie a power of the same Order Now the King hath not power in the Church of England of the same Order with Bishops and Ministers but a power of higher and different Order from them Ergo hee hath not the Primacy but the Supremacy The vvords of M. Tompson pag. 33. of his booke are these Nos in Anglico nostro idiomate belliores longè sumus quà m per inopiam Latini sermonis nobis Latinè esselicuit NoÌ„ enim dicimus The Kings Primacy Regis Primatum sed The Kings Supremacy Regis Suprematum Quo vocabulo nos quoque deinceps vtemur Multùm enim differunt Primatus Suprematus Illud enim Potestatem eiusdem Ordinis videtur significare hoc non item Wee in our English tongue doe speake much more properly then vvee can doe in the Latine speech through the penury thereof For wee doe not say The Kings Primacy but The Kings Supremacie which word 〈…〉 For that Primacy and Supremacie doe greatly differ Primacie seeming to signifie a power of the same Order but Supremacie not so 2. Out of which words wee gather two things The one that all Englishmen vvho vse the Name of Primacie doe either erre or speake improperly if vve beleeue M. Tompson For if they speake propertie seeing that the vvord Primacy doth properly siguifie a Power of the same Order they doe plainely vnderstand that the King hath Power of the same order with the Bishops and Ministers of his Church But this now according to M. Tompsons opinion is an error wherefore either they doe erre or speake improperly 3. The other is that a Coniecture may be made of the thing signified from the word signifying The vvord Supremacie is a new and lately inuented vvord vnknowne to the Ancient Fathers not vsed in Scriptures vnheard of in the Christian world Moreouer vvhat doth it signifie The Supreme power forsooth of the King in the Church Wherefore this is new also Surely if the ancient Fathers either Latine or Greeke had knowne this power they would haue found out at least som word whereby to haue expressed the same properly But this it seemes none of them did English Concord Page 20 IS Becane the Iesuite become a captious cauiller at syllables Pri. and Sapre Our Soueraigue Lord K. Iames translated the english word Supremacy a Apol. â—ur fid pag. 54 into the Latin word Primatum and Mr. Thomson translated the same English Supremacy into his Latine word Suprematum Here is full agreement in the thing it selfe and will the Iesuit striue about words or diuâ—rs names of the selfe same thing Certainely a Christian king is neither Presbiter Priest nor b August Q ex viroq Testa mixt Q. 101 chiefe of Presbiters that is Bishop nor chiefe among the Bishops that is Archbishoppe nor chiefe of Archbishops that is Patriarke nor chiefe of Patriarkes to weet Pope and in that sense he is no Primate or hath Primacy but he is the onely Supreme gouernour of all Presbiters Bishops Archbishops Patriarkes and Popes within his dominions whose supreme gouernment we call in English Supremacy or after the Latin word which our king vâ—ed Primacy and acknowledge the same by our oath thereof taken But now let vs attend these two goodly consequences which the Iesuite maketh 1. R. Thomson hath deuised a new Latin name to expresse the selfe same thing and the selfe same English name of the same thing Therefore the thing it selfe is new The Fathers of the Nicene Councell deuised a new name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to expresse the Deitie of Christ or Christ in respect of his Deity Therefore is Christ his Deitie new or Christ in respect of his Deitie new Take heede Becane of such a consequent Thus rather perhaps the sequell would runne more roundly The name Iesuits is new Therefore deseruedly may the Iesuits be called as blasphemous so new sectaries Indeede if the ancient Fathers had acknowledged the power of Vniuersall Bishoppe they would haue found at least one word whereby to haue expressed the same properly especially considering that if we will beleeue Gregory the great Gregor li. 4. Ep it 76.78.80 et lib. 7 Epist 79 To assume that arrogant profane sacrilegious Antichristian name of Vniuersall Bishoppe is all one and the same as to be the king of pride Lucifer who set himselfe before his bretheren to be an Apostate from the faith and the forerunner of Antichrist In the Canon law we read thus Dist 99 Primx Let not the Bishop of the first Sea be called the Prince of Priests or high Priest or any the like but onely the Bishop of the first Sea but let not the very Bishop of Rome be called Vniuersall Bishop Let Becane tell me which of the ancient Fathers either acknowledged the Popes supreme power ouer the whole Church or in proprietie of speech and as proper vnto him called the same Primacy touching which Chrysostom as hee is cited in the Canon law Dist 40 Multi writeth thus Whosoeuer shall desire Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heauen neither shall he be numbred among the serwants of Christ who doth handle or contend for Primacy His second consequence is this Mr. Thomson deuised a new word or name whereby to expresse in Latin more fully and properly as be tooke it the English word Supremacy Therefore whosoeuer doe not call Supremacy in Latin Suprematum speake improperly Fy how hang these together Forsooth please it the Iesuites as scattered broomeshaggs To conclude Becane himselfe Quest 12. page 43. brings in Mr. Thomson speaking thus Primacy is a royall good thing or the Prerogatiue royall vvhich can not be taken away by Ecclesiasticall censure neither is it absurd that an heathen king should be Primate of the Church Therefore according to Becane his dispute here They vvho ascribe Primacy to the king and call him Primate of the Church erre not but speake properly BECAN Exam. Page 106 YOu say this strife is about the name It is so I vrge nothing else But of they strine as you say where is the concord which you promise In the very beginning you despaire of concord And of you cannot dissolue the strife about the name what shall become
should eate the labours of their hands and drink the water of their own wells with more security Were your Priests Iesuits or confounded none vvould hurt or destroy in all the mountaine of Gods holinesse None would hatch the Cockatrise egges or weaue the Spyders web of Gun-powder treasons and milhons of other trayterous complots and bloudy conspiracies You you are they who in very deed trouble Israell and bring the whole Christian world into combustion It is a statute enacted in the heaueÌ„s that euery soule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 13. ver 1. as saith ChrysosÌ„tome writing vpon those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be hee an Apostle or Euangelist or Prophet or any other Peter Pope or whosoeuer should bee subiect to the higher Powers for conscience sake But by the Popes statute or Canon the vilest shaueling Priests aforesaid are so exempted froÌ„ subiection to the highest Powers Kings and Emperours that they are not bound to obey them or their lawes for Conscience but onelie for Order sake Therefore they are not bound to giue neither will they giue to Caesar that which is Caesars viz. Tribute for Tribute belongs to him nor Custom yet Custom is due to him They will not as Saint Paul did stand at Caesars iudgement seat to be tryed there much lesse will they as Christ did present themselues to that tribunall vvhich hath power giuen to it from aboue to bee condemned there Some kind of reason they may haue for it as this They hold with Antichrist why then should they follow Christ Touching the popish Layicks If as the Iesuit heere saith all the Kings subiects vvithin his Realmes are bound to obey the King why doe they disobey him euen in the face beeing open and professed wilfull Recusants to come to Church there to heare Gods word truely preached and his Sacraments duely administred to pray to God to praise God in the congregations of his Saints Why doe they against the law of God of Nature of Nations and of their King refuse to testifie by oath their Allegiance to their Soueraigne Why vnlesse it be for that they want motion as hauing no vertue of motion thereunto deriued vnto them from their Pope-Head or else because they take them selues to be the subiects of the Pope and not of the King And this is indeede Preiudiciall to the King in the highest degree BECAN Exam. Pag. 132 YOu cite out of the Canon law some maimed words which you read not there nor vnder stand That you may vnderstand them I will cite them whole as they are The Sacrament of this office c. They are Pope Nicolas words and containe these three things 1. That Christ placed the Sacrament of Preaching the gospell principally in Peter when he saw the vessell let downe from heauen and when it was said vnto him Rise Peter kill and cate 2. That God would haue the vertue and effect of the gospell to be powred vpon the Gentiles from Peter as from a Head 3. That God tooke Peter into the Jellowship of indiuiduall vnitie by communicating his name and dignitie to him for he would haue Peter called the rocke and foundation of that Church whereof he is the rocke and foundation What gather you hence against the Pope nothing as all Onely you bewray your dulnesse and ignorance berein Dr. HARR IS Reply I Gather hence that the Pope is very Antichrist shewing himselfe as God The Scripture saith that by preaching the gospell 1. Cor. 3.7 Paul may plant and Apollo may water but this God onely giues the increase that is the vertue and effect of preaching But here Peter to weet the Pope is said to giue the vertue and effect of preaching The Scripture 1. Cor. 3.11 yea the Canon law saith that there is no foundation or rocke of the Church but onely Christ Iesus But here the Pope challengeth not onely the name but the very Dignity of Christ viz. to be as Christ is The foundation and rock of the Church God saith Esay 48.11 Hee will not giue his Glory or Dignity to any other but here it is said that Peter to weet the Pope is assumpted into the Dignity of the indiuidual vnity The indiuiduall vnity is our Lord God but here the Pope is assumpted into the fellowship of the name and hence it is that the Papists or Papi-coliks call that Romish Anrichrist their Lord God the Pope Thus haue I gathered out of the blasphemous assertioÌ„s of this Iesuit here and out of their Canon law enough for this one time and to much for Becane to answere all his life time against their Pope-Head But how doth the Iesuit gather that the Sacrament of preaching was principally constituted in Peter when after the vessell let downe it was said vnto him Rise Peter kill and eate seeing that Christ before his passion did constitute the Sacrament of preaching equally and with the selfe same words in all his Apostles saying Gopreach the gospell to all the world By vertue whereof the rest as well as Peter did preach the Gospell but this vision and this speech to Peter was after Christs ascension not to constitute the Sacrament of preaching the Gospell principally in him but to reforme the errour that was principally in him viz. that he ought not to preach the gospel to the Gentiles Therefore by that speech and vision he was emboldned to preach the Gospell to Cornelius a Gentile but not to kill Cornelius as Cardinall Baronius expounded those words against the Venetians If the Iesuite had cited the whole words of the Canon as he promised to doe he might haue learned by those words of the Canon Dexteras Societatis the right hands of Fellowship that the Sacrament of preaching the Gospell was as principally constituted in Paul towards the Gentiles as it was in Peter towards the Iewes As touching me I had read that Canon often but I purposely cited out of it those words onely which shew what a blasphemous Head the Church of Rome hath who challengeth to be assumpted into the fellowship of the indiuiduall vnitie in such sort that all gifts and graces of God are powred vpon the Church from him and through him as the Head of that his body the Church And those words which I cited were not maimed but full enough to euince the Pope to be such a blasphemous Head indcede Notwithstanding I must giue the Iesuite leaue to hold on his course viz. to wound his Pope when he seeks to heale him to disgrace mee without cause and to bely mee without blushing BECAN Exam. Page 133 YOu cite out of Durand truely that all Bishops descend from the Pope as members from the head Which is nothing else but this that they all receiue from the Pope Iurisduction of the externall Court Which as English Academicks say is in liâ—e sort giuen by the king to the Bishops in England Therefore here is the Iarre between you and the Academicks Dr. HARRIS Reply
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
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
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
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.
key hee open to the Pope that is remit his sinne then heab solueth the Pope For wherefore is one excommunicated but because his sinnes are bound wherefore is one absolued but because his sinnes are remitted If it bee not in respect thereof the King may be said to haue power to excoÌ„municate that is to say to keep men from the Communion viz. when he committeth some to close prison where neither any can speake to them nor they to any Now therefore if the Priest may be the cause of the cause that is if hee can binde the Popes sinnes vvhy may he not be the cause of the effect that is why may he not excommunicate the Pope or which with S. Paul is all one deliuer him to Sathan According to that of Saint Hierome to Heliodore of the Eremiticall life God for bid that I should speak any euill of those who succeeding the Apostolike degree make the body of Christ vvith their sacred mouth vvho hauing the keyes of the kingdome of heauen in sort iudge before the day of Iudgement It is not lawfull for mee to sit before a Priest hee may if I sinne deliuer mee to Sathan for the destruction of the flesh that the Spirit may be saued And so Saint Rasil of the solitarie life cha 23. Peter inquit Amas me c. Christ said vnto Peter Louest thou mee Feed my sheep And in like sort vnto all Pastors and Doctors hee gaue the same power A token vvhereof is this that all binde and loose equally as vvell as Peter If euery Pastor and Doctor binde and loose equally as well as Peter vvhy not in Court exteriour as well as Peter sith the sheep are committed vnto them as well as vnto Peter The Minor Proposition I also deny heere as I did in the English Concord That is I deny that any Bishoppe hath power to throwe the King out of the Church or to excommunicate him according to canonicall excommunication so properly called and defined And further I denied that the supposed excommunication of Theodosius by Ambrose was canonicall excommunication yeelding there some reasons thereof Whereunto though very materiall this silly Iesuit answereth not one word and yet with Iesuiticall that is with brasen face is bold to set before thee Christian Reader his loathsome Coleworts twise yea thrise sodden ⧠Becans Iarre XI Question Whether the King may be Iudge of all Controuersies in the Church 1. COntrouersies that arise in the Church are of two sorts some are about faith and Religion others are concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires The former of these questions then is Whether the King by vertue of his Primacy bee supreame Iudge of all Controuersies vvhich pertaine vnto faith and Religion Maister Salclebridge saith be is pag. 163. in these vvords Sic luce clarius est Christianos Principes cum laude Controuersias fidei dijudicasse diremisse etiam in vniuersalibus octo Concilijs c. So as it is more cleare then the Sunne that Christian Princes vvith praise haue iudged of and decided controuersies of faith and that in eight Generall Councells c. Which is as much to say in the first of Nice the first of Constantinople that of Ephesus Chalcedon the second third and fourth of Constantinople and the second of Nice vvherein diuerse controuersies concerning matters of faith vvere iudged of and decided especially cuncerning the diuinitis of Christ against the Hereticke Arius of the diuinitie of the holy Ghost against Macedonius of one person of Christ against Nestorius of two Natures in Christ against Eutiches and Dioscorus and so of others All these Controuersies saith Maister Saclebridge were iudged of and decided by Kings and Emperours 2. Maister Tooker now hee affirmeth the quite contrarie vvho by no meanes vvill haue Kings or Emperours to bee Iudges of Controuersies of faith For thus hee vvriteth pag. 3. of his books Olere autem malitiam ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud videtur cùm Regem caput Ecelesiae Primatemque confingas omniumque causarum controuersiarum quae ad sidem Religionem pertinent iudicem tribuas It may seeme to sauour of malice cry out vpon your sausinesse vvhen as you faine the King to be head of the Church Iudge of all causes and controuersies vvhich pertaine vnto faith and Religion c. And againe pag. 50. Rexin suo Regno omnibus superior sit nullisubditus Fidei iudex no appelletur quidem Although the King in his owne Kingdome be aboue all subiect to none yet hee may not be called in any case the Iadge of our Faith c. And pag. 313. Reges Christiani non sunt fidei ac Religionis Iudices Christian Kings are not Iudges of faith and Religion 3. So as if now in England there should chaunce to arise a dissension or debate concerning any point of Faith or Religion as for Example concerning the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist vvhat should your Academicks heere do To vvhom should your Cittizens and the rest of the subiects haue recourse Should they goe vnto the King as Iudge in this point and aske his sentence determination Maister Tooker you see vvould not goe to the King What should they goe to some other Iudge then But Maister Salclebridge hee vvill admit no other What then vvere best to bee done in this case Truly euen that vvhich hitherto hath been done in the debate of the Kings supremacy to vvit alwaies to braule and iarre thereabout and neuer end the controuersie And vvhat 's the cause In very deede no other but for that some thinke one thing some another and they cannot or rather vvill not finde out the certaine and true Iudge vvho can decide the matter And this is the propertie of hereticks 4. The other Question is Whether the King be Iudge of all Controuersies that concerne other Ecclesiasticall affaires Maister Salclebridge saith that hee is pag. 165. in these vvords Audin ' Controuersias Episcopales ab Imperatore diremptas Doe you not heare Sir that Episcopall Controuersies haue been decided by Emperours c. is hat Ma. Tooker thinketh of this point is not vvell knowne For sometimes hee affirmes it as for example pg. 24 thus Nemini dubiuÌ„ est quin in Primitiua Ecclesia de rebus personis Ecclesiasticis â—us dicerent Imperatores No man can doub but that in the Primitiue Church Emperours iudged of matters and persons Ecclesiasticall c. And yet pag. 23. hee seemeth to deny it Non est Princeps supra res sed supra personas The Prince saith he is not aboue the matters but abone the persons c. And then againe pag. 49. Rex in suo Regno supremus est non supra res sed supra homines The King in his owne Kingdome is the chiefe or principall but yet not chiefe ouer things but ouer men And thus you see euery vvhere nothing but iarring and disagreement English Concord BOth Doctor Tooker and Hainric deny the King to be supreme Iudge in
few Questions following I. Whether the King of England haue any Primacy in the Church or no II. Whether the Primacy of the King bee Ecclesiasticall and spirituall III. Whether the King by this Primacy may be called the Primate of the Church IIII. Whether by vertue of the same Primacy the King may be called Supreme Head of the Church V. Whether this Primacy consist in any Power or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall VI. Whether the King by reason of his Primacy can assemble or call together Councels and sit as President therein VII Whether he can make Ecclesiasticall Lawes VIII Whether he can dispose of Ecclesiastical liuings or Benefices IX Whether he can create and depose Bishops X. Whether he can excommunicate the obstinate XI Whether hee can be Iudge and determine of Controuersies XII From whence hath the King this his Primacy XIII Whether he can force his Subiects to take the Oath of Supremacy In these Questions doe our Aduersaries extreamely differ and disagree but especially these M. Doctor Andrewes in his Tortura Torti M. William Tooker Deane of Lichefield in his Combat or single Fight with Martin Bucane M. Richard Tomson in his Reproofe of the Refutation of Tortura Torti M. Robert Burhill in his Defence of Tortura Torti and M. Henry Salclebridge in his Refutation of Becane his Examen Besides these as opposite vnto them I will also cite Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England Genebard in his Chronology Polydor Virgil in his History of England Iacobus Thuanus of Aust in the History of his time Iohn Caluin in his Commentary vpon the Prophet Amos and others English Concord THe Regall Primacy in the Church of England is much more ancient then the Popish Primacy in the Romane Church The Regall Primacy had his beginning from the * Daniel chap. 7. v. 6 Ancient of Dayes vnder the most ancient Patriarchs It flourished magnifically vnder the Orthodoxall Kings Israeliticall and Euangelicall and now in England it flourisheth most of all vnder King Iames soundly sounded vpon the rock and built vpon the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets permanent for euer so that by the fall of raines the comming of flouds and the wine-blasts of any Iesuits whatsoeuer it cannot be so much as moued much lesse remooued and least of all rent and torne in peeces But of the Popish Primacy rightly saide Christ in the Gospell Euery Kingdome diuided in it selfe shall be desolate Now what and how great their Iarres and discords are I am to shew in handling these few Questions following English Concord BEcane in his booke of English discord and in his first Question demanded Whether the King of England haue any Primacy or Supremacy in the Church And I in my book of English Concord demaunded Whether the Pope haue anie Primacy in the Church considering that Saint Cyprian asserteth that Peter did neuer challenge or assume any such thing Epist ad Quintum 71. sect 3 as to say that he held the Primacy and that Chrysostome dogmatically writeth thus Whosoeuer desireth or affecteth the Primacy in earth as all Popes doe shall finde confusion in heauen Homil. 35 in Matth. Whereunto the Iesuite in his late book entituled Examen Concordiae Anglicanae The examination of the English Concord answereth or obiecteth thus BECAN Exam. THat they are not the words of Chrysostome Pag. 92 but of some other author ioyned with him 2. That these words are against our King desiring Supremacie in earth 3. That the Author speaketh promiscuously of both the Primaces Secular and Ecclesiasticall 4. but distinguisheth betweene the desiring and obtaining of the Primacy referring the one to vanitie and the other to the iudgement of God Dr. HARRIS Reply 1 I Doe commiserate the seely ignorance of this Iesuite Becane who knoweth not that these very words aforesaide are not onely canonized but also expresly fathered vpon Chrysostome in the Popes Canon law which the Iesuite dare not affront Dist 40. ca. Multi The wordes of the Canon are these Also Iohn Chrysostome Not euery one is a true Priest which is named a Priest Many Priests and few Priests Many in name but few in work Take heede therefore brethren how you sit vpon the Chayre because the Chayre doth not make the Priest but the Priest the Chayre c. The same Chrysostome Whosoeuer shall desire Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heauen neither shall he be numbred among the seruants of Christ Qui de Primatu tractauerit Who handleth or ambitiously speakes of or challengeth Primacy De Scriptor Ecclesiasticis And according to that Canon the most profound and famously renowmed Canonist euen by Bellarmine in his late booke to witte Henry Cardinall Hostiensis vpon the 15. Chapter of Penitency and Remission Cap. Cui Papa ascribeth these words vnto Chrysostome as to the Author of them thus And so in the Penitentiall Court the Pope is made lesse and his Confessor greater and this Chrysostome insinuateth Dist 40. Multi Wherefore the Iesuite may take from mee thus cleared this falsity vnto himselfe or else hee must returne it ouer To the Authoritie of their Apostaticall Church To their authentike and ordinary glosses and explanations of the Gospell To the decrees of the Romane Bishops To their chiefest Canonists and Diuines for in the writings of all those he may finde sentences written in that Worke called the Imperfect Worke alleaged as out of Chrysostom 2. By the expresse words of the foresaid Canon it is manifest that the words of Chrysostō are by their Canon law referred vnto Priests and Priests onely who sit vpon the Chayre in expresse tearmes often repeated Whereby it appeareth what a seely and vnmannerly Sophister this Iesuite is who thence frameth his Argument against our King drawne thus into form syllogisticall as indeed from thence it can be drawne no otherwise What Priest soeuer desireth Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in Heauen The King of England is a Priest desiring Primacie in earth Therefore he shall finde confusion in heauen Were this Iesuite in our Vniuersitie Schooles he wold be hist out as an absurd Dunse for arguing Our gratious King is no Priest but detesteth their Priests and Priesthood as Antichristian Hee is by the grace of God the high and potent Monarch of Great Britanne France and Ireland and vnder Christ made of God without any ambitious desire of his Primate or Supreme Gouernour ouer all persons and in all causes Ecclesiasticallor Temporall within his Dominions maugre the beard of the Pope and all his Shauelings But if the Iesuite will rightly assume out of the Maior proposition set down in the said Canon law he must take the triple crowne of Primacy from the Popes head and wrap it vp in the dust of Confusion thus What Priest soeuer though it were Peter himselfe doth challenge or ambitiously desire Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heauen But the Popes of Rome haue and now most of all doe challenge