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.
third argument is Tooker writes that Salomon deposed high Priests therefore the King of England may doe the same This also is no consequence for most graue Authors teach that These and such like consequences are not good c. The Kings in the old Testament had that power therefore Kings in the nevv Testament haue the same Dr. HARRIS Reply THis brew-bate Iesuit would faine haue made a Iarre betweene Hainric asserting the Kings power to depose Bishops and Doctor Tooker The English Concord sheweth that Doctor Tooker did not onely assert but also proue the same by the exemplarie act of Salomon deposing the high Priests Against this cleare concord the Icsuit opposeth nothing but this That most graue Authors deny the argument Which is nothing to the purpose For heere the question is not whether other Popish Writers dissent from Hainric or Tooker but whether Hainric Docter Tooker dissent heerein Neither in this case mattereth it whether this Argument from Salomons act be good or not It sufficeth that Doctor Tooker tooke it to be good BECAN Exam. Pag. 1â—2 THese your arguments help not your cause For either they are sound or not sound If sound they prone Tooker to dissent from himselfe and so there is a Iarre If not sound why doe they occupy any paper Dr. HARRIS Reply THis Iesuit is very vnlucky in his Dilemmaes For as the former haue been so this is thus retorted vpon him These arguments helpe my cause well for if they be vnsound by Becans dispute they prooue not Doctor Tooker to dissent from himselfe and so no Iarre if sound what cause hath the Iesuit to dislike either them or the printing of them Thus is his whole Examen in this ninth Chapter vtterly dissolued and brought to naught ⧠Becans Iarre X. Question Whether the King can excommunicate his obstinate subiects or no 1. HEere now doe our Adversaries ranke their King amongst ordinary men what they granted vnto him before heere now they seeme to revoke For they say that the King cannot excommunicate any of his subiects yet himselfe may be excoÌ„municated by them and expelled out of the Church of England whereof himselfe is supreame Head The former part heere of doth Maister Tooker affirme pag. 15. in these vvords Rex non habet potestatem distringendi gladium spiritualem vel quempiam excommunicandi The King hath no power to vnsheath the spirituall sword nor to excommunicate any man c. And the Chaplaine my Lord of Ely pag. 151. saith Nos Principi censurae potestatem non facimus Wee doe not giue authoritie to our Prince to vse Censures c. And againe Maister Thomson pag. 83. Excommunicare nullo modo ad Suprematú Ecclesiae pertinet To excommunicate doth no way belong to the Supremacie of the Church And againe pag. 84. Omnes fatemur Regem excommunicandi potestarem nullam habere Wee doe all confesse that the King hath no power to excommunicate c. 2. The later part of the former point affirmeth Ma. Burhill pag. 137. when he saith Quod Ambrosio licuit in Theodosium idem alijs in Regem simili de causa liceat c. As it was lawfull for Ambrose to proceed against Theodosius so is it lawfull also for others to proceed against the King in the like cause c. To wit hee vvould say as it was lawfull for S. Ambrose beeing a Bishop to excommunicate Theodosius the Emperour so in like manner it is lawfull for our Bishops of England to excommunicate King Iames if hee offend in like manner And then againe pag. 242. Supremus Ecclesiae Gubernator potest eijci ex Ecclesia The supreme Gouernor of the Church to wit the King may be cast forth of the Church c. And pag. 267. Rex etsi iustusimè excommunicatus non amittit Primatum The King although he should be most instly excommunicated yet hee doth not loose his Primacie c. 3. Now I doe not sec how these things can possibly hang together or agree vvith those vvhich hitherto before haue beene attributed to the King For vnto him is attributed That hee is primate and the supreme head of the Church of England That be is aboue all persons as well Ecclesiasticall as temporall in his Kingdome That hee bath supreme most ample and ful iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall no lesse then politicall and temporall And notwithstanding all this beeing so great a person yet can hee not excoÌ„municate any one of his subiects either Laicke or Church-man although neuer so rebellious and obstinate Nay although hee be so great as hee is hee may neuerthelesse be excommunicated by his subiects and cast out of the Church of England wherof he is supreame Head I cannot vnderstand this mysterie 4. Heerevnto will I adde three arguments more which will increase the difficultie The first is He that hath supreme most ample most full Iurisdection Ecclesiasticall in any Kingdom may exercise all the actions and offices that belong vnto Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of that Kingdom But now the King hath supreame most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the Kingdome of England as Maister Tooker and Maister Salclebridge doe confesse Ergo he may exercise all offices belonging to Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the Kingdom of England Ergo be may also excommunicate for that excommunication which is denounced by sentence is an act of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction Or else contrariwise if you will thus Hee that cannot exercise all acts of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in any Kingdome hath not supreame most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in that Kingdome But the King of England cannot exercise all acts of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdection in his Kingdome because hee cannot excommunicate any man Ergo hee hath not supreme most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in his Kingdome 5. The second argument is this Hee that giueth to another power to excommunicate without doubt hath power himselfe to excommunicate because no man can giue to another that which hee hath not himselfe But the King of England giueth power to his Bishoppes to excommunicate Ergo hee hath power to excommunicate The Minor is prooued out of Maister Tooker pag. 304. vvhere hee affirmeth That the Bishops of England doe receiue all their Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court from the King But now power to excommunicate belongeth to Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court as the Chaplaine pag. 41. and Maister Tooker pag. 305. expresly teach vs saying Rex habet omnem iurisdictionem spiritualem in foro exteriori exceptis quibusdam censuris The King hath all Iurisdiction spirituall in the exteriour Court excepting certaine Censures But now he excepteth ExcoÌ„munication wherin you see is to be noted againe a contradiction in Ma. Tooker for that he referreth Censures amongst which excommunication is one to the Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court True indeed But yet he adioyneth two other things that are contradictorie The first that the King can give vnto Bishops all Iurisdiction of the
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
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
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
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