Emperor as Primate and the Turke commaund them to follovv the Alcotan they must obey his commaund or othervvise they vtterly ouerthrowe his Primacy What is this else but to conclude thus If Pagan Kings be Primats of the Church then all men liuing in their dominions are bound to doe what they shall impiously commaund vnlesse the Iesuit will denie that the Turks commaund is impious viz. to follovv the Alcoran And is not this goodly hellish Iesuiticall doctrine practiced by the Iesuits according to their oath Caecae obedientiae of blind obedience to peruert the faith fidelity of subiects to God and their King to destroy Kings and kingdoms to disturbe the peace of Christendom by their combustions tumbling of garments in blond if their supreme ludge and Primate shâ—l commaund them so to doe Thirdly that the English Concord gaue this fondling more sufficient answere then he deserued to all these his questions by retorting them vpon himselfe thus The Catholick so called Venetians and Sorbonists acknovvledge the Pope to be their Ecclesiasticall Primate Then they are subiect to him as Primate Then if he as Primate commaund them to obey him in temporalls in order to spirituall things vvhat shall they doe Shall they obey him Then they shall doe against conscience Shall they not obey him Then they shall deny his Primacy Shall they obey him vvhen they thinke good Then the subiects shall make themselues Iudges of their supreme Iudge This pinched the Iesuit to the quicke answering fully his questions if hee had answered these but alas his sillinesse could shape no solid answere thereunto Fourthly I answere That supposing the Turkish Emperour to be Primat Ecclesiasticall in his dominions The English liuing therein are bound euer to obey him in all things lawfull and honest and neuer to obey him in things vnlawfull and dishonest Lastly I aunswere That Maister Thomson and Ma. Burhill hold the cleane contrary vnto that vvhich the Iesuit fathereth vpon them heere For they reach that Pagan Kings as Pagan haue not properly and truely Primacy Ecclesiasticall as hath appeared out of their writings therefore the Iesuit very ridiculously fighteth heere with his owne shadow onely BECAN Exam. Pag. 215 YOu say that I confesse the Primacy Ecclesiasticall of Kings Christian because vvhere Bellarmine vvriteth thus Quando Rex c. When a King of a Pagan becomes a Christian hee doth not lose the earthlis kingdome vvhich of right he had before but he getteth novumius a nevv right I interprete those vvords of Bellarmine a new right to be Ecclesiasticall Primacie I did not interprete the vvords of Bellarmine but of the Chaplaine though they seeme to be the same For Bellarmine addeth thus Acquiritius novum ad vitam aeternam Hee getteth a new right to life aeternall vvhich new right not onely Ethnick Kings but also their subiects obtaine vvhen of Pagans they become Christians But the Chaplaine meaneth by new right Primacie Ecclesiasticall for hee saith that the Christian King by force of excommunication loseth that new right Truely he cannot lose the rightto eternall life by excommunication but by his owne fault onely Richard goe now and triumph Dr. HARRIS Reply THe English Concord charged this Iesuit with acknowledgement of the Ecclesiastical Primacie of Christian Kings because vvhereas the reuereÌ„d Bishop of Ely cited the words of Bellarmine as out of Bellarmine himselfe and as fully to Bellarmines meaning as Bellarmine himselfe doth De Rom Pont. lib. 5. cap. 2. et 3. the Iesuit interpreted those said words cited by the Bishop of Primacy Ecclesiasticall which Christian Kings obtaine when of Pagan they become Christian Kings Vnto which this silly disputant hath nothing else to answere but this That hee did not interpret those words novum ius a nevv right as the words of Bellarmine but as the words of the Bishop Which answere is very idle seeing that the Bishop produced them as the words of Bellarmine and not as his own The Iesuit to back his aunswere saith That Bellarmine addeth for explication of those vvords a nevv right ad vitam aeternam to life eternall vvhich the Bishoppe leaueth out And further that the Bishop saith The new right may be lost by Excommunication but the right to eternall life cannot be lost by force of excommunication but onely by the owne fault of him that loseth it Lastly That not onely Kings but all their priuat subiects may gaine by their conuersion that new right to eternall life Vnto which I reply First that the words cited by the Bishop explicat those words nevv right to bee meant of a right to eternall life as fully as Bellarmines words doe The very expresse words of Bellarmine De Ro. Pon. lib. 5. c. 3. colum 1077. are these Quando Rexfit Christianus non perdit regnum terrenum quod iure obtinebat sed acquirit nouum ius ad regnum aeternum When a Pagan King becomes a Christian King hee loseth not his earthly kingdome which by right hee obtained but hee getteth a new right to the kingdome eternall The Bishops expresse words in Tort. Tort. pag. 40. 1.1 are these Rex quinis cum de Ethnico Christianus fit non per dit terrenumius sed acquiritius nouum puta in bonis Ecclesiae spiritualibus Euery King vvhen of a Pagan hee becommeth a Christian King dooth not lose his earthlie right to vvit in the spirituall good things of the Church By which words it is most apparant that the Bishop no lesse then Bellarmine explaneth that nevv right to ben right to eternall life vnto which the Christian Kings are brought by those said spirituall good things of the Church beeing the meanes which God hath ordained and sanctified to that purpose Secondly I reply that as ExcoÌ„munication grounded vpon no fault of the Christian King cannot take away his right to eternall life so it cannot take away his Primacy Ecclesiasticall Againe that Excommunication grounded vpon a grieuous sinne of the excommunicated ioyned with impenitencie and obstinacie may as well may rather cause him to lose his right to life eternall as it may force him to lose his Primacy Ecclesiasticall Doth not the perpetuall binding of any mans sinnes viz. beeing obstinate and impenitent exclude him directly from his right to eternall life but that binding if at all excludeth him froÌ„ the Primacy indirectly by consequent only Lastly I reply That although it be true that priuat subiects as wel as their Kings becomming Christians or Pagans get a new right to euerlasting life yet that is nothing to the purpose which intendeth Kings onely not priuat persons what they acquire or lose in becomming Christian Kings Now the new right to the Kingdome eternall is as their new seruice of GOD is to the King eternall But according to Saint Augustine Heerein Christian Kings as Christian Kings serue the Lord vvhen they do those things to serue him vvhich they could not doe but as they are or in that they are Christian Kings It is not
enough for a Christian King towards the obtaining of eternall life or as Bellarmine speaketh of Gods eternall kingdome to serue the Lord as a Christian King that is by executing his Primacy Ecclesiasticall as hee that is Custos vtriusque Tabulae The graund or Cause-keeper of both the Tables and so holding his nevv right to life eternall According to that of Saint Paul vnto the same sense though in another case 1. Tim. chap. 2. ver 15. Women through bearing of children shall be saued if they continue in faith and loue and holinesse vvith modestie so Christian Kings shall be saued by well vsing their Primacy Ecclesiasticall if they continue in faith loue and holines Thus are all these seuerall examinations Iesuiticall as Potters sheards shiuered to nothing thus haue we this Iesuit acknowledging the Ecclesiasticall Primacie of Christian Kings Why then vnlesse the Iesuit haue somwhat to say in arrest of iudgement shold not we as we haue obtained so openly proclaime the victory ⧠Becans Iarre XIII Question Whether the King may constraine his Subiects to take the Oath of Primacy or no 1. HItherto haue wee treated of the Iarring and disagreement of our Aduersaries about the nature offices origen of the Kings Primacy Now there remaineth a certaine practicall question vvhich toucheth the Conscience to the quick to vvit Whether the King may constraine or force his subiects to sweare that they acknowledge his kingly Primacy vvhereof wee haue spoken before Or vvhether they will acknowledge the King as Primate supreme Head of the Church of England vnto vvhom as vnto their Primate and supreme Head they vvill promise fidelity no lesse in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall matters then in Politick temporall This question hath two points The first whether the King of England doth defacto exact or hath at any time exacted such an Oath of his subiects The other is Whether his subiects are bound in conscience to take such an Oath if the King should exact the same Of both these points seuerally I mean to speake a vvord or two The first Point 2. The first point then is Whether the King of England doth exact or at any time hath exacted such an Oath of his subiects It is manifest that King Henry the 8. did For so writeth Doctor Sanders In his booke of the Schisme of England Laurentius Cocchus Prior Coenobij Dancastrensis vnà cum tribus Monachis duobuslaicis Aegidio Horno Clemente Philpotto quòd nollent Ecclesiasticum terrent Regis Primatum iuratò confiteri excluâ—i èterris ad caelestem aeterni Regis gloriam transmissi sunt Laurence Coch Prior of the Monasterie of Dancaster together vvith three Monks and two Laymen Giles Horne and Clement Philpot for that they would not sweare to the Ecclesiasticall Primacie of a tempor all King beeing excluded from â—arth vvere translated to a celestiall glory of the eternall King c. And then againe Proponebantur cisnona Comitiorum Decreta iubebantur inreinrando affirmare Regem Ecclesiae supremum esse Caput The new decrees of the Parliament were propounded vnto them and they were commaunded to sweare the King to beesupreme Head of the Church c. 3. Now that Queene Elizabeth the daughter followed heerein her Father K. Henry it is manifest by the former Oath that shee exacted of her subiects which is this Ego A. B. prorsus testificor declaro in conscientia mea Reginam esse solam supremam Gubernatricem et istius Regui Angliae aliorum omnium suae Maâ—estaus dominiorum regionum non ninùs in omnibus spiritualibus atque Ecclesiasticis rebusvel causis quam temporalibus Et quòd nemo externus Princeps Persona Praelatus Status vel Potentatus aut facto aut iure habet aliquam iurisdictionem potestatem superioritatem praeeminentiam vel authoritatem Ecclesiasticam aut spiritualem in hoc Regno Ideoque planè renuntio repudio omnes forinsecas iurisdictiones poâ—esâ—ates superioritates atque authoritates c. â— A. B. doc verilie testifie and declare in my conscience that the Queene is the onelie supreme Gonernesse as well of this kingdom of England as of all other her Maiesties dominions and Countries as well in all spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters causes as in temparall And that no forraine Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath either by fact or right any Iurisaiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall in this kingdome And therefore I doe vtterly renounce and abandone all forraine Iurisdictions powers superiorities and authorities c. 4. The very same also doth now King â—ames vvho bindeth his subiects not with one Oath alone but with two to wit of Supremacie and Allegiance The former Oath of Supremacy beginneth thus Ego A. B. palam â—estor ex conscientia mea declaro quòd Maiestas Regia vnicus est supremus Gubernator huâ—â—s Regni omniumque aliorum suae Maieslatis dominiorum territoriorum tam in omnibus spiritualibus sine Ecclesiasticis rebus causis quà m in temporalibus Et quòd nullus extraneus Princeps Persona Praelatus Status aut Potentatus habet aut habere debet vllam iunsdictioâ—eÌ„ poteslatem superioritatem praeeminentiam vel authoritatem Ecclesiasticam siue spiritualem intra hoc Regnum c. I A. B. doe publiquely testifie in my conscience declare that the Kings Maiesty is the onely suprewe Gouernour of this kingdome and of all other his Maiesties dominions and territories as well in all matters and causes spirituall or Ecclesiasticall as in temporall And that no forraine Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to haue any turisdiction power superiority preheminenci or authority Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within this Kingdome c. The later Oath called of Allegiance beginneth thus Ego A. B. verèâ—t sincerè agnosco profiteor testificor declaro in consctentia mea coram Deo Mundo quòd supremus Dominus noster Rex Iacobus c. I A. B. doe truly and sincerely acknowledge professe and testifie in my conscience before God and the vvorld that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames c. 5. Both these Oathes are set downe at large in his Maiesties Apology and in both of them his subiects are required publiquely and openly toprofesse and acknowledge that King Iames is the supreme Gonernour and Lord of all England not onely in politick and temporall matters but in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall also And that neither the Pope nor any other forrainer hath any power or Inrisdiction in or oner the Church of England Againe the former of these Oathes was brought in by K. Henry the 8. as his Maiestie confesseth in his Apologie in these words Sub Henrico octauo primùm introductum est Iuramentum Primatus sub eoque Thomas Morus Roffensis supplicio affecti idque partim ob eam causam quòd Iuramentum illud recusarent Ab eo deinceps omnes mei Praedecessores quot quot sunt hanc Religionem
Celsus Mancinus Thomas Bozius Franciscus Bozius Isidorus Moscouius Laelius Zecchus Cardinall Baronius lastly Alexander Carerius who in his booke publiquely printed was not afraid to call Bellarmine and all who tooke part with him against the other forenamed Impious Politicks and Hereticks of our time I say in these points of the Popes Primacy and at this present time the Iesuits extreamely dissent from the Sorbonists and the Venetian and French from the Romane Papists On the other side all Protestant-English Writers with one vniforme consent agree in the Kings Supremacy as they who willingly haue taken the Oath of the Kings Supremacy which is set downe in these expresse words following viz. I A. B. doe vtterly testifie and declare in my conscience that the Kings Highnesse is the onely Supreme Gouernour of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries as well in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticll things or causes as Temporall And that no forraine Prince person Prelat State or Potentate hath or ought to haue any Iurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme And therefore I doe vtterly renounce and forsake all forrain Iurisdictions Powers Superiorities Authorities And doe promise that froÌ„ henceforth I shall beare faith and true alleagiance to the Kings Highnesse his heires and lawfull Successors And to my power shal assist and defend all Iurisdictions Priuiledges Preheminencies authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highnesse his heires and Successors vnited or annexed to the Imperiall crowne of this Realme So helpe mee GOD c. But by the lawes of England in these very words syllables Supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall or Power Spirituall is for euer vnited and annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of this kingdome These things then beeing so certainly and manifestly true let Becan himselfe iudge if he will iudge sincerely ingenuously according to this oath of Supremacy taken willingly by all Protestant English Writers without refusal of any one 1 Whether the King of England hath not Supremacy or Primacy in this Church 2 Whether that Primacy or Supremacy be not Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall viz. vvhich is in all things causes Ecclesiasticall Spirituall 3 Whether the King by his Primacy or Supremacy may be called Primat of the Church to weet as one is called a King of his kingdome a Bishop of his bishoprick or a Bailife of his Bailiwick 4 Whether by the same Supremacy or Primacy hee may not be called Head of this Church that is to say the onely supreme Gouernour in all things and causes Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall 5 Whether that Primacy or Supremacy do not consist in Power or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall to weet which consisteth in all things Ecclesiasticall and ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall and which is tearmed by the expresse words of the lawes of England Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction or power Spirituall seeing that the Oath of Supremacy respecteth the Kings authority Ecclesiasticall and the Oath of Fidelitie his authoritie Ciuil As our King IAMES in his Booke most accuratly distinguisheth them 6 Whether the King by his Primacy or Supremacy may not call Councells and presede in them viz. as the onely supreme Gouernor of this Kingdome in all things causes ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall Spiritual For do not all CouÌ„cells consist of persons Ecclesiasticall are not things Spirituall Ecclesiasticall handled in Councels 7 Whether the King may not make Ecclesiastical lawes to weet as the onely supreame Gouernour in all things ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall according to that of Saint Augustine Contra Crescon lib. 3. c. 51. Heerein Kings as it is from heauen prescribed vnto them serue God as Kings if in their kingdome they commaund those good things and forbid those euills which pertaine not onely to humane societie but also to Diuine Religion 8 Whether the King may not coÌ„ferre Ecclesiasticall Benefices As the only Supreame Gouernour in all causes ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall 9 Whether the King may not make and depose Bishops As the only Supreame Gouernour in all causes ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall 10 Whether the King may not compell his subiects to the oath of Supremacy As the only Supreame Gouernour in all causes ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall 11 Whether the King hath not his Supremacie by the right of his Crowne As the only Supreame Gouernour in all causes ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall As for ExcoÌ„munication if the Iesuit meane by it Retaining of sins that respecteth the Iurisdiction internall and all both Protestant and Popish Writers acknowledge that our King challengeth no such power But if he vnderstand the inhibiting froÌ„ the Communion other holy exercises performed by the Minister and faithfull people in the Church then in England where euery not only Archbishop but Archdeacon and his Officiall doe excommunicat we shal haue according to Becane his dispure heere so many Primats of the Church of England as there be in it Archdeacons or their Officialls But heere the controuersie is of one onely Supreame Primat or Supreame Gouernour Therfore this Question of Becane touching the Kings power to excommunicat is very idle and â—riuolous As touching the Iudge of Controuersies all Protestant Writers hold no mortall man to be Iudge of theÌ„ Notwithstanding Hainrik Salobrig and long before him Iewell in his Defence of the English Apologie Par. 6. c. 13. Dâ—uil 2. out of the Ecclesiasticall Writers especially out of Socrates and Cardinall Cusanus write That Christian Princes with good commendation haue heard and determined some Controuersies of faith According also to these words of Charles the Great produced by the reuerend Bishop of Ely viz. Wee doe decree and by Gods assistance haue decreed Tort Tort. Pag. 165. what is to be firmly holden in that cause or Controuersie It was a cause of Faith against Eliphandus vvho asserted Christ to be the adopted Sonne of GOD. Lastly who would heere regard the naked names of Sanders Genebrard Pol. Virgil and Thuanus which Becane doth heere muster Are these also Aduersaries to Becane or doe these as Aduersaries extreamely dissent touching these Questions As for Caluin Tortura Torti a good while since hath answered thus As Caluin did not allow the Pope to be King or the King to be Pope Pag. 379. so vve approue not that in the King vvhich we detest in the Pope But Caluin vvith vs and wee with him thinke that those things belong to the King in the Church Christian vvhich belonged to Iosias in the Church Iudaicall And we desire no more Now hauing passed these Rocks the remainder of our way is easie and all Becans Iarres heereafter obiected against vs may as it were with the blast of some few words bee eftsoones scattered and brought to nought For by this which is already demonstrated it is most manifest that all our English Protestant Writers doe fully and vniformely agree in the whole substance or
Maiesties Apologie and Preface Monitory sets down the Conferring of Benefices as one of the proper offices of the Supreme Primate Ecclesiasticall as hee vnderstood it Sacerdotall or Episcopall Hainric in his Becano-Baculus tolde the Iesuite that although by none either Scripture or Ancient Father it can be shewed that Collation of Benefices belonged as proper to the said Primate Ecclesiasticall yet hee would encounter him therein and beat him with his owne weapon as he did soundly prouing that good Emperours haue giuen Popedoms and that according to the Canon Law That Catholike Kings by their prerogatiue Regall haue giuen as to this day they giue Archbishopricks Bishopricks and other Benefices Because Becane the Iesuit neuer as yet answered nor euer will be able to answere Hainric therein I vrged the Iesuit by Scripture or Ancient Father to shew the Collation of Benefices to belong to their Ecclesiasticall to weet Episcopall Primate promising vpon that condition that we would yeeld the victory vnto him But this seely Iesuit not being able for his life produce the least either word of Scripture or sentence of Ancient Father for it runnes away into the brakes of his clouded ignorance crying out thus Let mee haue the victory for I haue proued an English Iarre How ridiculous is this Iesuit here Hainrie as hath appeared denied the Collation of Benefices to belong to the Supreme Primate Episcopall yet supposed that it did appertaine to a Supreme Primate to weet Regall that thereby he might cudgell the Iesuite with his owne weapon and according to Becane his dispute proue the King to be Primate to weet Regall because the Collatiò of Benefices belongs vnto him Therfore not Hainric but onely Becane was to shew it out of Scripture or Ancient Fathers which because he neither hath nor can doe his mouth is to be stopped vp herein euer hereafter Touching the Benefices he speaketh of the Iesuite cannot name any small Benefices without Cure conferred vpon Clearkes that are neither Priests nor Bishops which may not by the lawes of this Kingdom be giuen as well by the King as by the Bishops or Archbishops But what a trifling Sophister is this going about to proue that Doctor Tooker by Collation did not mean Institution sacration when as these his expresse words shew that he meant therby nothing else Duel Page 36. Reges Angliae Beneficia Curata vel non Curata non conferunt omnino in quempiam Maiora Minoraue multo minus Episcopatus per vniuersum ambitum regni sui illorum certe Collatio vel Institutio est quorum est destitutio id est Episcoporum comproumcialium qui potestatem habent personas ipsas facrandi In short and in English thus The Collation of Benefices or Bishopricks belongs not to the Kings but to Bishops whose office is to Institute and Consecrate Certainely in the Iesuites sense the inferiour Bishops doe not conferre that is doe not giue Archbishopricks But in Doctor Tookers sense they doe conferre Archbishopricks that is they doe consecrate Archbishops being nominated not by Bishops but by the King being chosen not by Bishops but by the Deane and Chapter Whereby it is most manifest that Doctor Tooker by Collation meant Consecration Collation as say the Canonists in the large signification thereof containeth Presentation Nomination Donation and Institution or Consecration Hainric by Collation vnderstandeth Presentation Nomination and Donation all which he proueth to belong to the King as Dr. Tooker also acknowlegeth Dr. Tooker by Collation vnderstandeth Institution and Consecration which he and also Hainric assert to belong to Bishops and not to Kings So that Hainric and Dr. Tooker agree fully in this point being vnderstood according to their expresse words My selfe and Hainric also conspire wholly heerin for Hainric in his Becano-Baculus and I in my English Concord assert expressely that the Collation or Presentation of Benefices by way of lapse after 18. Monethes belongeth to the King as Supreme Primate Regall Therefore with very great either ignorance or impudency dooth the Iesuite obiect any Iarre between me and Hainric in this point Both Hainric and my selfe auerre that Collation of Benefices cannot be shewed in Scripture or Ancient Father to belong to the Episcopal Supreme Primate But Hainric hath proued it sufficiently that Collation of Benefices and Bishopricks did of old belong to the Supreme Primates Regall Therfore this imputation of a Iarre between Hainric and Harris or Hainric and Tooker or Tooker Harris deserueth a whip or a cudgell for Becane rather then a garland of victory BECAN Exam Page 176 IF by Collation of Benefices Hainric and Tooker meane diuers things then there is a Iarre If they meane the same thing then Tooker did not meane Institution and Sacration Therefore you dissent from your selfe Dr. HARRIS Reply THe two hornes of this Dilemma as of the former are thus bent directly into the Iesuites face If by Collation of Benefices Hainric and Tooker meane things diuers then Hainric may alcribe Collation to the King and Tooker may deny Collation to belong to the King without Iarre If they mean the same thing then according to Becane his dispute here there is no Iarre between Hainric and Tooker For if their meaning of things diuers doth arguea Iarre their meaning of the selfe same thing must argue Concord BECAN Exam. Page 177 IF by Collation Tooker meant only Institution and Sacration and yet acknowledge the King to conferre 40. or 60. Benefices in the yeare then b◠granteth that the King doth Institute 40. or 60. into Benefices in the yeare Euery where you intangle your selfe Tooker saith nothing of Presentation by way of lapse nor to free Chappell 's exempt from Episcopall Visitation but rather the contrary in these words Hoc habetiuris Regia Maiestas quod minor et subordinata potestas habet ius inquam Nominandi et Praesen andi apud nos The King and his Subiects haue like right to nominate and present their Clearks Dr. HARRIS Reply VVHat a clay-witted Sophister is this Martin Father Iesuit forsooth Diuinity reader in Mentz reasoning thus Tooker vnderstanding by Collation of Benefices Presentation Nomination Donation as Hainric doth acknowledgeth the Kings right to conferre 60. Benefices or moe in a yeare and 10. or 12. Bishopricks in a yeare as they may fall void Therefore Tooker taking Collation for Institution and Sacration granteth right and power to the King to Institute and Consecrate so many Priests and Bishops yearely So boyishly daunceth this Iesuite vnder the net of Equiuocation easily perceiued by all who running do but cast their eyes vpon him The Kings different and supereminent right and power aboue all his subiects in bestowing of Benefices hath in the English Concord beene vnfolded distinctlie and more sufficiently then Becane deserueth thus 1. The King only by his Breue Episcopo Writ to the Bishop after presentation in his Maiesties Court recouered compelleth the Bishops to institute the Presentee 2. The King onely presenteth
HARRIS Reply WHata malicious scoffing Sycophant is this who being perswaded in his coÌ„science that I euen in this straine ascribe too much to our Primate the King saith I detract too much from the King heerein First this rude and ignorant Iesuit must be taught that according to the lawes and customs of this kingdome though the King be heere immediatly next vnder Christ the supreme Gouernor Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill yet it pertaineth not to his Maiestie alone without consent of the Orders of the kingdom in Parlament to make any law euen ciuill thereby absolutely to binde all the subiects of his Kingdom which all Statutes made by the vniform consent of the said Orders in the Parliament with the approbation of the Kings Maiestie doe manifest Touching the supposed Iarre betweene Hainric mee Hainric writing generally of the power of all Christian Kings and Emperours to make Ecclesiasticall lawes asserted that the said Kings and Emperours laudably by their owne power made such lawes which I also auerre And I heere writing of the power of his Maiestie therein as it is vsed and limited by the lawes and customes of this Land assert that his Maiestie by consent of the Orders or States of the Kingdome in Parliament may make Ecclesiasticall lawes by force whereof such and such should be excommunicated which Hainric will averre to be very true So this seeming Iarte in the view of the goggle eyed Iesuit is in very deed a sound concord Further I reply that Queene Elizabeth of blessed memory by her own authority set forth Iniunctions as Ecclesiasticall lawes And our gracious King Iames by his owne authority confirmed the last Ecclesiasticall law-Canons made in the Conuocation house Lastly I say That by the lawes of this kingdom his Maiestie by his owne authoritie and letters Patents may authorize any persons beeing naturall borne subiects to his Highnes whom he shall thinke meet to exercise vse occupy and execute vnder him all manner of Iurisdictions priuiledges preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdictions within his Reasmes to visit reforme redresse order correct and amend all such errors heresies schismes abuses offences contempts and enormities whatsoeuer which by any manner sprituall or Ecclesiasticall power authority or Iurisdiction can or may lawfully be reformed ordered redressed corrected restrained or amended to the pleasure of Almightie GOD for increase of vertue c. Will the vile Iesuite call this vilifying of our Ecclesiasticall Gouernour Questionlesse it grindeth his hart that our Church the true visible Church of Christ Iesus ascribeth so much vnto his Maiestie BECAN Exam. Pag. THat which you adde is a new Paradox viz. That Ecclesiastic all lawes made by the King haue force to excommunicate and yet that the King cannot excommunicate It is the most certaine rule of Lawyers that vvhoseuer hath power to make apenall law hath also power to punish This common rule holds in matters Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall vvhy exempt you your King from the common rule confine him into such straights Dr. HARRIS Reply TO an vnlearned Iesuit plaine vulgar things seeme Paradoxes Date the Iesuit deny that Clergie men haue power to make lawes for putting to death of Hereticks and against such such erroncous obstinate persons as hereticks and dare he affirme that Clergy men may giue the sentence of death or shed the bloud of any heretick sith by their triuiall and vulgarly known popish Canon they may not sit vpon the bench when the sentence of death is pronouÌ„ced by the ciuil Iudges That most certain rule of his Lawyers is most plainly false viz. That whosoeuer hath power to make a penall law hath power to punish vnlesse the meaning be of power to punish by commaunding such Officers to punish vnto whom the inflicting of such punishment appertaineth In which sense our King also may be said to excommunicate or absolue that is to coÌ„mand Bishops to excoÌ„municate or absolue men according to the lawes prouided in that behalfe Yea further the Kings writ of prohibition absolueth that subiect of his which is wrongfully excommunicated by Ecclesiasticall censure And this is not to straighten but to enlarge much more then the Iesuit would haue it his Maiesties supreme power heerein Who knowes not that Christian Kings and Empeperours haue made Ecclesiasticall lawes by vertue whereof such and such Priests should be suspended depriued degraded and others chosen and instituted into their Benefices and yet it pertained not to those Emperours to suspend depriue degrade choose or institute the same in their own persons And that this rule holdeth not in ciuil matters was shewed before BECAN Exam. Pag. 196 MY second Argument was this The King giues vnto another power to excommunicate therefore himselfe hath power to excommunicate or if he haue not that power he cannot giue it to another You deny the Argument alleaging Bernard to shew the invalidity thereof But Bernard rather hindereth then helpeth your cause for he reasâ—noth as I doe thus Peter had no temporall possessions therefore he could not giue them to another Hee had care of the vvhole Church therefore he gaue it to his successor Bernard saith nothing of this consequent but of a double power of the Pope the one temporall indirectly all offices of which power Bernard denieth that the Pope by himselfe way execute the other his power spirituall directly vvhich hee granteth may be executed by the Pope himselfe This Position viz. No man can giue to another that which hee hath not himselfe Bernard and I assert to which you answere nothing Dr. HARRIS Reply THe Iesuit is heere ensnarled by the testimony of Bernard as one fallen into a quagmire who the more hee struggleth to get out plungeth himselfe deeper into it Bernard asserteth the right and power of both swords equally to be in the Pope for that of Directly and Indirectly is not Bernards distinction but the Iesuits vaine and new found fiction and therefore be may giue power to others ad nutum ipsius to execute the Materiall sword yet by himselfe cannot vse or draw out the same What is this else but that one may giue power to another to doe that which hee cannot doe himselfe The Iesuit is intolerably ignorant if he know not that by their Canon law the Pope is made Lord of the whole vvorld in temporalibus by vvhom Kings raigne and of vvhom they hold their Scepters In popish books printed and allowed They who hold the materiall sword to be in the Pope not directlie but indirectlie are censured for Politilian Hereticks these times-seruers But what if I should vse the same distinction heere and say that supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall were it the King indirectly to weet in or dine ad custodiam vtriusque tabulae to pronide and procure that all Ecclesiasticks performe their duties according to the prescript of Gods law Were not this Iesuits Argument according to his owne dispute heere dasht in peeces For as the Pope
faith Touching the Reall presence there is no discord amongst vs but therein are discords endlesse amongst the Papists as in the other points heere mentioned though this Iesuit with brasen face deny the same If any man hauing an honest and good hart doubt in any matter of faith our King hath heere put that man in the King of heauen his high way to put him our of doubt viz. by sending him to the Law Esay 8. and to the Gospell Thirther flie wee and not to our King in controuersies of faith But miserable Papists who leaue the law Gospell as dead Inke whither should they flie in their controuersies of faith To the Pope belike as the Thomists and Scotists did The case was this There fell out betweene those two Sects this odious quarrell Whether the Virgine Mary were conceiued in sinne or no. The one side said yea The other faction cried nay Their factions encreased the Schooles were enflamed the world troubled No Doctor no Coucell was able to accord them The Scotists alleaged for themselues the Councell of Basil The Thomists said that Councell was disorderly summoned and therefore vnlawfull In the midds of these broyles Pope Sixtus tooke vpon him as supreme Iudge to determine that controuersie in faith between them When all the world expected his resolution desirous to bee satisfied in that question The Pope commaunded both the Thomists and the Scotists to depart home and to dispute no more of that matter and so left them as doubtfull as he found them Could not a Supreme Iudge made of clowts haue done the office of a supreme Iudge therein as vvell as Pope Sixtus that is to say haue done iust nothing Lastly whereas this trifling Sophister framing his childish argument Papist Writers iarre in many points Therefore English Writers iarre not in the poynt of their Kings Primacy vpon the anvile of his owne fantasie onely and so framed would father it vpon mee let his fatherhood learne by this reply that my onely scope therein was in vrging him to the quick by those obiected iarres as it were by so many incisions of his Basilica vaine to giue a vent vnto that falt fierie scoffing humour of his at our seeming iarrs which in his plethorick body was so redundant and put◠ifying in him As also to giue him to vnderstand how pat those words of our Sauiour Christ fall vpon his head Math. 7. v-5 viz. Hypocrite first cast out the beame out of thine owne eye and then shalt thou see cleerely to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye Their Popish Iarres are Beame-Iarres our English seeming Iarres are lesse then Mote-Iarres In truth they are no Iarres at all but true Concords And thus is his froath once againe scattered to nothing ⧠Becans Iarre XII Question Whence and by vvhat Title hath the King his Primacie in the Church 1. THe sense heereof is Whether the King precisely in that hee is a Christian King hath the Primacy of the Church The former part of this point Ma. Thomson seemeth to approoue pag 78. where he saith Omnes Principes etiam Pagani obiectiuè habent supreman potestatem in omnes omnino personas suorū subditorum generatim in res ipsas siue ciuiles sint siue sacrae vt in cultu diuino Religione procuranda saltem quoad modum exercitium All Princes yea euen those that bee Pagans haue for the obiect of their supreme power all manner of persons that be their subiects and generally all things vvhether ciuill or sacred as in advauncing Gods honour Religion at least-wise so farre forth as belongeth to the manner and exercise thereof c. And then againe pag. 94. Primatus est Regium bonum quod Censurâ tolli non potest Nec est absurdum Regem velut Ethnicum esse Primatem Ecolesiae Primacy is a certaine Kingly right that cannot bee taken away by censures Nor is it absurd that a King as he is an Ethnicke be Primate of the Church c. And yet further in the same place Rex Ethnicus cum Christo initiatur non acquirit Primatú de nouo An Ethnicke King saith hee vvhen as hee is instructed in Christ or the Christian faith doth not purchase any new primacie c. To whom consenteth Ma. Burhill pag. 251. thus Rex titulo Registemporalis potest sibi vindicare assumere Primatum Ecclesiae A King by the title of a temporall King may claime vnto himselfe and take vpon him the Primacie of the Church c. And pag. 267. Rex etsi iustissimè excommunicatus non amittit Primatum in rebus Ecclesiasticis A King although he be most iustly excommunicated yet doth he not loose his Primacy in Ecclesiasticall matters c. 2. My L. of Ely now he teacheth vs a quite contrary lesson in his Tortura Torti pa. 39. where he averreth that the Primacie of the Church doth belong to the King not because hee is a King but because hee is a Christian King and therfore Ethnick Kings haue no Primacy in the Church so long as they remaine Ethnicks but doe then receiue the said Primacy when they are made Christians and loose the same againe also when they be excommunicated His vvords are these An non Regi Ethnico praestare fidem fas Imo nefas non praestare In Ethnico enim est vera potestas temporalis idque sine ordine ad potestarem Ecclesiasticam Is it not lawfull then to yield Allegiance to an Ethnicke King Nay rather not to yield it is a vvickednes For in an Ethnicke there is true temporall power and that vvithout respect to Ecclesiasticall power c. And a little after Rex quiuiscùm de Ethnico Christianus fit non perdit terrenum ius sed acquitit ius nouum Itidem cùm de Christiano sit sicut Ethnicus vigoresententiae amitut nouum ius quod acquisierat sed retinet terrenum ius in temporalibus quod suerat illi proprium priusquam Christianus fieret c. Euery King when as of an Ethnicke he becommeth a Christian dooth not loose his earthly right but getteth a nevv right And so in like manner vvhen as of a Christian hee becommeth as an Ethnicke to wit by excommunication then by vigour of the sentence hee looseth that nevv right vvhich he had gotten but yet notwithstanding he still retaineth his earthly right intemporall things vvhich vvas proper vnto him before he became a Christian c. 3. So as according to the opinion of Ma. Thomson and Ma. Buthill it followeth that all Kings vvhether Christians or Ethnicks or of vvhatsoeuer other Sect or Religion they bee are Primates of the Church in their owne Kingdoms Therefore all Englishmen and Scots vvho liue at Constantinople are by their sentence subiect to the Turke in Ecclesiastical matters as also they that liue in Spaine are subiect to King Philip and they at Rome to the Pope so to others in other places What now shall these men doe
for I deny the King to haue Primacie but out of yours vvho affirme hee hath it Therefore out of your opinion I might vvell dispute thus Whence hath hee Primacie Whether as a King or as a Christian King to shevv the discord For by Thomson and Burhill all heathen Kings as vvell as Christian By the Chaplaine onely Christian Kings are Primates of the Church This is a great Iarre compound it if you can And vvhere you adde that it mattereth not how hee haue it so he hath it This is a new Iarre For it mattereth greatlie according to Thomson and the Chaplaine For if he haue the Primacie because hee is King hee cannot lose it so long as hee is King if because he is a Christian King hee may lose it If hee may lose the Primacie hee is not secure if hee cannot lose it hee may take his quiet rest Dr. HARRIS Reply HIs first words of the 12. Question shew that he makes the Suppositum of himselfe not out of our Writers opinion especially Ma. Thomson and Ma. Burhill heere named by him For hauing set downe the Question thus Whence and by vvhat title hath the King Primacie in the Church hee saith The meaning of this Question is Whether the King haue Primacie as a King or as a Christian King But as Becane hath produced Ma. Thomson Ma. Burhill in his 1. and 2. Questions They both deny the King to haue Primacie in the Church Therefore the Iesuit heer sets downe the Suppositum as of himselfe and not as out of their opinions But what meant the Iesuit to say hee disputed heere when he onely asked the Question Do boyes vse to dispute with their Maisters when they onely aske questions of their Maisters Indeed if the Iesuit had disputed hee should haue disputed as in my English Concord is set downe and so by his dispute he had not taken away his ovvn Suppositum as heere hee doth but had disputed out of the opinion of some others who averre the Kings Primacy As touching the Iarre the English Concord euen out of the expresse words of Ma. Thomson manifested the agreement between the reuerend Bishop and Ma. Thomson in this point so plainly directly that Ma. Thomson himselfe wondred that Becane could stumble at it as at any Iarie And now lately comes forth Ma. Burhill in his Appendix pag. 289. asserting That an Ethnick King vvhiles he is an Ethnicke King can no more be supreme Gouernour of the Church then an Ethnick man vvhile he is an Ethnick man may be a Priest of or in the Church And so touching this poynt this Question heere is made up a full vniforme Concord and the Iesuiticall myst of this supposed great Iarre vtterly dispelled But is this Iesuit well in his wits affirming That if the King precisely as King haue Ecclesiasticall Primacie then hee is secure because as long as hee is King he can not lose it but if hee haue it as a Christian King hee may lose it vvhen as death or by their Antichristan popish new doctrine the Pope by one breath of his mouth at his pleasure excommunicating and thereby proscribing any Christian King may take away his kingdome and so his primacie but neither Pope death nor diuel can take away his Christianitie Rom. 3. ver 35. Note also heere good Christian Reader the horrible impudencie of this Iesuit who ironically afferteth That Kings are sure and may be secure to enioy their kingdoms when as Suarius in his spanne-new Booke hath made it knowen to all the world that by Iesuiticall doctrine most stiffely defended as orthodoxall and now in force Kings are not sure to enioy for the space of one moneth weeke or day their kingdoms liberties or liues if the Pope be disposed to bereaue any of them thereof That is to excommunicate them and that is very easily done euen by the breath of his mouth wheasoeuer he is pleased to pretendany cause thereof For then by their Canon law because hee is supreme Iudge whose will stands for reason and law is summa ratio reason no man must say vnto him Domine cur Itafacis Sir Iudge Supreme vvhy doe you so Thus in plaine truth by these poysonfull miscreant Iesuits are the liues and kingdoms of all Kings Christian brought at this day into farre more imminent danger then are the liucs and liuings of the meanest vassals of the said Kings and yet saith this Iesuit Kings in respect of their kingdoms may sleepe soundlie on both sides Which indeed is nothing else but to lull them asleepe in the bedde of carelesse securitie thereby with more speed and lesse danger to cut their throats BECAN Exam. Pag. 214 YOu obiect that I should reason thus According to Thomson and Burhill Ethnick Kings as vvell as Kings Christian haue Primacie of the Church Therfore all liuing in those Kingdoms are bound to doe vvhatsoeuer those Ethnick Kings impiously shall còmaund That was not my inference but this Therefore all Scots and Englishmen liuing in those Kingdoms are subiect in Ecclesia sticall matters to those Ethnicks as Primates of the Church Vpon it I doe not so much dispute as demaund thus What the English or Scottish would doe if those Kings should cōmaund them any thing touching the Church or religion If they should alwaies in all things obey they should doe against conscience if neuer obey they should not acknowledge their Primacy If then onely they should obey vvken they thought good they should make them selues Iudges of their Primats To these three they should haue answered or answere you if they deny to aunswere Dr. HARRIS Reply IAunswere first that vvhereas the Iesuit in diuerse places of his Examen hath professed that he vvill dispute nothing but about the English Iarres hee hath heere forgotten himselfe and endeuoureth the refutation of Ma. Thomson and Ma. Burhill touching the Ecclesiasticall Primacy of Pagan Kings requiring an aunswete thereof either from me or them Secondly that the Iesuits ignorance in Logicke is such that he doth not vnderstand when he reasoneth and when hee reasoneth not In his English Iarre chap. 12. Sect. 3. his words are these According to the opinion of Thomson Burhill all Pagan Kings are Primats of the Church Therefore all Englishmen liuing in Constantinople or Rome are subiect to the Turke or Pope in matters Ecclesiasticall Therefore vvhat shall they doe if the Turke commaund them to follovv the Alcoran or the Pope to pray for the dead Shall they obey the commaund Then they shall do against conscience Shall they not obey Then they deny their Primacy Shall they obey vvhen they thinke good Then subiects shall make themselues Iudges of their Kings Heere are fiue seuerall inferences all tending to evince the absurdities wich necessarily sollow vpon the supposed opinion of Maister Thomson and Ma. Burhil heerein and yet the Iesuit saith hee doth not dispute Moreouer in expresse words hee concludeth thus That if the English be subiect to the Tufkish
much as God can doe And I will yet deale more articulately and plainly kk Ioh. de Paris de Pot. Reg. Pap. Auentinus l. 6. Hee shall be Lord in temporal things thorough the vvhole world directly indirectly ll De Maior Solitae Anto. de Rosâ—l The King of Kings and Lord of Lords mm Dist 98. Si Imper. in gloss Extra de foâ—o coÌ„petent ca. Licet Beeing aboue all Emperours as his vassalls nn De Maior vnam sanctam Hauing of his owne both swords oo Auent in Adriano 4. Anno 1154. Beeing set ouer Nations and Kingdoms to destroy to pluck vp build and plant pp Hard. Iew. p. 5. c. 6. D. 8. From whom alone all Emperours hold their Empires qq Auent in Adrian 4. In vvhose power it is to giue them or take them from vvhom hee vvill rr Carion de Alexand. 3. Who treadeth the necks of Kings vnder his feet Å¿Å¿ Caelestinus Papa Vide RogetuÌ„ Cestrâ—nsem et Houenden And to conclude vvho crowneth Kings with his feet and vvith his feet againe spurneth the Crowne to the ground tt De Maior Solitae gl Beeing seuentie times seuen greater then the greatest Kings I will yet expresle the matter more articulately uu Lyra in Dâ—ut c. 17. Hee shall be so absolute a Iudge of all Controuersies that if hee shall say the right hand is the left or the left hand the right his saying is to bee belieued And this is the opinion of Bellarmine xx De Pont. Po. li. 4. c. 5. If the Pope should commaund vice and forbid vertue the Church were bound to belieue that vertue were euill and vice were good And they giue this reason thereof yy Panor de Constit c. 1. The fulnesse of the Popes power excelleth all Positiue lawes zz De transl Epis Quanto glossa Hostiensis ibidem and it sufficeth that the Popes will goe for a law whereby he can make righteousnes of vnrighteousnesse And heereupon Philelphus Decad. 6. Hecast 9. beautifully describeth the Pope as Antichrist saying Non Scytha non Turcus non quiterrore Damascum Aegyptumue tenet sed maximus ille Sacerdos E medio templi nostrum emersurus in axem Antichristus erit quise canit ore colendum Pro christo cuius refer at nomenque vicemque Which I English thus No Tartar grim or Turk or feared Saladine Shall be that Antichrist but that high Priest That midst the Temple sits adored with dread dinine Who beares the name Vicar is of Christ. I might be infinite in numbring the seuerall offices which are thought to be the offices of the Romane Primacie out of which I wil frame this after Becans maner I A. B. doe publiquely testifie and sweare in my conscience that I will be faithfull and obedient to the Bishop of Rome as often or whensoeuer hee shall by his owne proper authority directly in temporall causes create Emperours vvhom hee will or by the same power depose vvhom hee vvill If this part onely of the Popes Supremacy should be exacted of all the Iesuits what doe you thinke would bee done Would all thinke you yea they which adhere vnto the Pope sweare this Let them sweare that would as Baronius Triumphus Carerius and almost all the Canonists and many other famous Popish Writers Yet I amsure that Bellarmine and Becane if they be constant men will neuer sweare For thus writeth Bellarmine Papa not habet vllam merè temporalem iurisdictionem directè iure diuino lib. de Pont. Rom. 5. cap. 4. The Pope hath no meere temporall iurisdiction directly by the law of God And Becane in his Refuration pag. 18. Acprimum non disceptamus de primatu in temporalibus illum quisque Rex insuo regno legitimè habeat Wee dispute not of the Primacy in temporall causes let euery King in his kingdome lawfully possesse the same What then Is this so sure a ground with Bellarmine and Becane that they firmely determine to lose their liues like many glorious Martyrs in this kingdome rather then to admit the Popes supremacie abiure the Kings For this is thought to be one of the prime offices of the Popes supremacy That the Pope is Lord of the whole world directly in all temporall causes But this is vtterly false in the conscience of Becane and Bellarmine Or whether partly for preseruation of externall peace and gouernment which these menesteeme more then their faith and religion or partly that one of them may be made Pope the other a Cardinall which good fortune may befall them heereafter will they sweare against their owne conscience vnto the Popes supremacie with all functions which are thought to be parts thereof and thereof shall be branded as Carerius hath marked them to be impious Polititians of our time deseruing rather the name of Hareticks then of Catholicks Of whom may Pope Paul the fist truly affirme That he hath found more truth in sauage wilderobbers then in these kinde of men viz. the Iesuits which teach practice the Art of Equiuocation euen in their solemne swearing And thus much for the first reason which I am sure is enough if not too much for Bellarmine and Becane also His second reason is this King Iames dooth often protest that he claimeth no more right or iurisdiction ouer the Church then did the Kings in the old Testament long agoe But the Kings in the old Testament could not compell their subiects to sweare such an oath as this is I A. B. doe openly testifie and in my conscience declare that Ieroboam is the onely supreme Gouernor of this kingdome of Israel as well in spirituall as temporall matters And that no forrainer hath or ought to haue any iurisdiction power superiority or authority in this kingdom Ergo King Iames c. And a little after hee explicateth his Minor proposition thus After King Salomon there vvere two distinct kingdoms Iuda and Israel and there vvere two Kings vvhereof both had their successors There vvere Priests and Leuites in both who vvere chiefely ruled by the high Priest who liued in Ierusalem And yet Ieroboam could not lawfully say to his Priests and Leuites you shall not obey that High Priest resident in Iuda you are exempt from his iurisdiction c. So Becane I answer Can any man endure either in a Diuine so great ignorance or such malice in a Iesuit As though the Kings Maiestie did euer belieue write or so much as dreame either that all those things which the wicked Kings of Israel of whom Ieroboam was ring-leader did practice impiously in Ecclesiasticall matters or that all that iurisdiction which those vngodly kings did challenge ouer the Church doth belong to the King supremacy Of Ieroboam thus speaketh holy writ 1. Kings 12.28 The King made two golden Calues and said vnto the Israelites It is too much for you to goe vp to Ierusalem Behold the Gods that brought you vp out of the Land of
to be orthodoxall professors who vse the word Primatus So that heer at enothing but dissimilitudes vnlesse it be in this that as the Fathers deuised a new name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abolish that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Arian hereticks ascribed vnto Christ so Mr. Thomson deuised a new word Suprematus to abolish the other word Primatus as the Popish hereticks doe now ascribe it to the Pope But what more doe I espy in this Iesuit heere Truly if he be not a very vnskilfull linguist in the Greeke and Syriack tongues I behold in him Heresie and Blasphemy Heresie in that he holdeth them hereticks that say Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consubstantialis of the same substance with the Father For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vnitas substantiae the vnity of substance viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is consubstantialitas or substantiae vnitas consubstantialitie or vnitie of substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very identity of substance vvithout any difference variance or distinction His Blasohemy in challenging to themselues I meane the sect of Ieluits the name of Iesuits that is to say Sauiours from sinnes which is the most proper name of the Lord Christ according to that saying of the Angel Mat. i. v. 21. Thou shall call his name IESVS in Syriack Ieshua for he shall saue his people from their sinnes And according to that of St. Peter Neither is there Saluation in any other A◠4. v. 12. For among men there is giuen none other Name vnder heauen vvhereby wee must be saued Therefore what horrible and detestable blasphemous caytifs are these Iesuits to appropriat this name the name of Sauiours vnto themselues Our Lord Iesus is called Christ passiuely because he was annointed with the oyle of gladnesse aboue his fellowes So then in that oyntment he had fellowes or partakers The Oyle was first poured vpon the Sacrificers head but afterward it ranne downe to the skirts of his clothing Therefore saith St. 1. Ioh. 2. ver 20. Iohn Yee haue an oyntment from that holy One Then as our Lord Iesus our Head because hee was anointed was called Christ that is to say Anoynted so his members the Saints because they also are anointed with the same oyle though not in the same degree are called Christians that is to say Anoynted But our Lord Christ was called Iesus or Ieshua actiuely because he should saue his people from their sinnes And onely he called Iesus or Ieshua because There is no Saluation in any other For that among men there is giuen none other Name vnder heauen whereby we must be saued Therfore there is but only one Iesus or Ieshua in name or in deed by whom Gods people are saued frō their sinnes so all the members of Christ are called people Saued and not one of thē Sauiours from their sinnes But the word Iesuits according to the Syriack language signifieth in English Sauiours as though they were Sauiours of their people from their sins as Christ is the Sauiour of his people from their sinnes By plaine narration of which certaine truth grounded out of the expresse words of the Scripture euery Idiot may perceiue how blasphemous this Sect of Iesuits is in assuming vnto all men of their Sect and to none but of that Sect the name of Iesuits that is Sauiours of the world Vnlesse it be by way of contrarietie as Mountaines because they moue not are called Montes a non mouendo so they are called Iesuits Sauiours of the vvorld beeing in very truth the most notorious and infamous Destroyers of the world of Kings and kingdoms fighting manfully vnder the banner of their Lord God Antichrist the Pope who by St Iohn Reue 9. ver 11. is rightly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But now it is high time to see how this Iesuit in the profundity of his ignorances and absurdities against all common sense reason and diuinity vvould haue these following Parallells to meet together 1 The name of Iesuits but of 79. yeeres standing The name of Christians beeing of standing almost 1600. yeeres Are of the same Antiquitie Explication Ignatius Loyala the first Author of the Sect of the Iesuits and the first imposer of the name of Iesuits vpon that Sect as Becane in his Examen Pag. 14. confesleth did not associat his fellowes whom hee afterward called Iesuits till the yeere 1534. that is 79 yeeres past but the Professors of the Gospell Act. 11. ver 26. were about the yeere of Christ 40. first called Christians viz. 1573. yeeres past 2 To be anointed as all Christians are To be Sauiours as onely Christ is Is one the same thing 3 To be called by a name common to all Christians in the vvorld To bee called by holy a name common to no Christian in the vvorld but to them onely who are of the Sect of Iesuits Is all one 4 To be called by a holy name imposed by the Apostles warranted by Scriptures giuen according to the profession of the publique Christian faith To be called by a name of blasphemy imposed by that monster Ignatius Loyola according to their destroying profession directly against the Scripture which condemneth all Sects Sectaries vvith their Sect names 1. Cor. 3. v. 3.4 c. Is euen the selfe same 5. Sectaries to take voluntarily vnto themselues names and titles of Schisme or Sect as Dominicans Franciscans Iesuits c. Orthodoxall professours by their hatefull and hereticall aduersaries to be tearmed malignantly in scorne by Sect-names which they detest as Caluinists Hugonots c. Is all one selfe same thing Who euer wrote so vnlearnedly and so absurdlic as this Iesuite Became here doth I much maruaile that his Superiours suffer him to blurre papers and to publish them abroad in this so learned Age. But before I part here with the Iesuite thus he mustacknowledge that whereas in my booke of Concord I proued out of Pope Gregory the great the name and title of their Popish Primate to weet Vniuersall Bishop to be an arrogant profane sacrilegious Antichristian Luciferian and Apostaticall name giuen to him and taken by him against their owne Canon law And whereas also out of and by vertue of their Canon law I wrapped-vp their Primate in the dust of hellish confusion because he desireth and ambitiously challengeth a Primacie in earth aboue all Princes Kings and Emperours vpon earth cuen in their Temporalls their Crowns and Kingdomes and as the case is now their very lines he hath not here one word to say for his Lord Godthe Pope in this his desperate case and in the Iesnits accurate Examination for so he would make vs belicue of my Concord book Gentle Reader I haue beene the more prolyx here in my Reply against the Iesuites Examen in this first chapter because it giucth such light to the remainder as dispelleth the foggy mists which this Iesuite endeuoureth to raise whereby to make
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
Egypt And hee put one of them in Bethel and the other in Dan. Also hee made a house of the high places and made bim Priests of the lowest of the people vvho were not of the sonnes of Leui. And Ieroboam made a feast in the fifteenth day of the eight Moneth like vnto the feast that is in Iudah and sacrificed on the Altar So did hee in Bethel and offered vnto the Calues that hee had made And hee constituted in Bethel the Priests of the high places which hee had made And you may read in the 13. chapter That beeing rebuked by a Prophet for this matter yet hee departed not from his euill way but turned himselfe and made him Priests of the high places de saece populi of the dregs of the people and vvhosoeuer pleased him hee consecrated him and made him a Priest of the high places And againe 2. Chron. II. chap. 13. verse And the Priests and the Leuites that vvere in all Israel resorted to him out of all their coasts meaning Roboam the sonne of Salomon For the Leuites left their suburbs their possessions and came to Iudah and to Ierusalem for Ieroboam and his sonnes had cast them out from ministring in the Priests office before the Lord. But thus writeth the King and his learned Interpretour the Bishoppe of Ely in Tort. Tort. pag. 381. Quodcunque in rebus religionis reges Israel fecerunt nec sine laude fecerunt id vt et Regi Iacobo faciendi ius sit atque potestas Whatsoeuer the Kings of Israel did vvith commendation in the maters of Religion the same power and iurisdiction now hath King Iames. Let this therefore be the Proposition or first part of the second reason which Becane himselfe acknowledgeth in his Refuration cap. 8. pag. 124 and then I will assume the Minor But the Kings of Israel not without commendation by their royall authoritie in matters of Religion 1. Haue enacted lawes 2. Delegated of their subiects to iudge of such lawes 3. Haue bound all their subiects both Clergie men and Lay-men by oath of Allegiance 4. Haue pumshed the transgressors of such lawes 5. Haue called assemblies or Councells 6. Haue ruled all estates as the Heads of the Tribe of Leui as vvell as of the other Tribes and vvere as much Kings of the Clergie as of the Laitie 7. If any Abiathar or High Priest vvexed proud they bridled him by their censure and if there were cause deposed Abiathar from the High Priesthood 8. They abolished all strange worship as when they razed the high places brake in peeces the golden Calues and the brasen Serpent c. To conclude they gaue order for things indifferent which appertained to the outward splendour comlinesse of the house of G O D And by their authoritie cut off idle and curious questions in religion vvhich were wont to be the mother and breeder of schismes as the Scriptures expresly witnesse whereof you may read in Tort. Torti pag. 381.382 Therefore I will conclude that King Iames hath the same power and iurisdiction and therfore may binde his subiects by an oath I A. B. doe openly testifie and declare in my conscience that King Iames is the oneliâ— supreme Gouernour of this Realme and of this Church of England c. as was Dauid and Salomon of the Church of Israel and Asa Ezekias and Iosias of the Church of Iuda and that no forrainer hath or ought to haue any iurisdiction power c. within this Kingdome as they had none in Iuda and so may lawfully say to the Priests subiects Obey not the high Priest which dwelleth in any forraine kingdome but obey me alone as the onely supreme Gouernour of this Church You are all exempt from his power and iurisdiction For so Dauid Salomon Asa Ezekias and Iosias might lawfully commaund their Priests Leuits and therefore so may King Iames commaund his Clergie These things thou maiest perceiue learned Reader are collected out of the pure fountaines of sacred Scriptures and so conclude our cause solidly and beyond all exception But Becane his Sillogisme is a monstor in Logick running vpon some feet yet halteth For King Iames speaketh of godly religious Kings and not schismaticall either of all Israel or onely of Iuda and of their Ecclesiasticall gouernment the very patterne and exemplary primacy commended vnto Christian Kings in the Scriptures But Martin the Sophister that is the Iesuit assumeth impious schismaticall Kings of Israel rent from Iuda among whoÌ„ neuer any one is remembred in scripture to haue handled Ecclesiasticall matters with commendation And heere I intreat the ingenuous Reader to obserue the Iesuiticall and serpentine subtilty of Becane who to decciue his Catholiques passeth by all the godly Kings of Iuda and onely bringeth Ieroboam on the stâ—ge a schismaticall King the first head of that iniquitic and the ring-leader of all them that are branded with notes of infamy in the holy booke as 1. King 15.29 And Baasa strooke all the house of Icroboam hee left no soule aliue because of the sinnes where-with Icroboam sinned and made Israel to sinne And 2. Chron. 13.5 Ought you not to know that the Lord God of israel hath giuen the Kingdome ouer Israel to Dauid for euer euen to him and to his sonnes by a Couenant of Salt And Icroboam the sonne of Nebat the seruant of Salomon the sonne of Dauid is risen vp and bath rebelled against his Lord c. Loe this is that most impious rebellious and schismaticall Ieroboam vvhich must comfort and confirme the Romish Catholiques But seeing our Iesuit is conuersant among schismes and schismatiques let him assume and make his instance those three Antipopes who troubled the world about the time of the Councel of Constance Or let him take any one of them and tell me 1. Who was then the Primate of the Church 2. Who was then the supreme head of the Church 3. Who had then the Ecclesiasticall Primacy 4. Who did then exercise the supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction 5. Who could then by his owne authority call a generall Councell and sit therein President 6. Who had power to conserre that fat benefice of the Papacy it selfe 7. Who could then create Popes and depose the Antipopes 8. Who was then the supreme Iudge of all Controuersies especially of papall or popish questions But I will yet presse the Iesuit more necrely What if the French so called Catholique Church should create to it selfe a Patriarch leaue the See of Rome seeing the Pope Paul the fist claimeth temporall iurisdiction ouer the King of Fraunce What if other Kings both Protestants all those which call themselues Catholiques seeing the Pope claimeth iurisdiction ouer all in a common cause that so much concerneth their Crownes and royall dignities should ioyne hands and harts and establish a Patriarch in their seuerall Kingdoms who should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take and exercise the same iurisdiction that the old Roman Patriarch had did