few Questions following I. Whether the King of England haue any Primacy in the Church or no II. Whether the Primacy of the King bee Ecclesiasticall and spirituall III. Whether the King by this Primacy may be called the Primate of the Church IIII. Whether by vertue of the same Primacy the King may be called Supreme Head of the Church V. Whether this Primacy consist in any Power or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall VI. Whether the King by reason of his Primacy can assemble or call together Councels and sit as President therein VII Whether he can make Ecclesiasticall Lawes VIII Whether he can dispose of Ecclesiastical liuings or Benefices IX Whether he can create and depose Bishops X. Whether he can excommunicate the obstinate XI Whether hee can be Iudge and determine of Controuersies XII From whence hath the King this his Primacy XIII Whether he can force his Subiects to take the Oath of Supremacy In these Questions doe our Aduersaries extreamely differ and disagree but especially these M. Doctor Andrewes in his Tortura Torti M. William Tooker Deane of Lichefield in his Combat or single Fight with Martin Bucane M. Richard Tomson in his Reproofe of the Refutation of Tortura Torti M. Robert Burhill in his Defence of Tortura Torti and M. Henry Salclebridge in his Refutation of Becane his Examen Besides these as opposite vnto them I will also cite Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England Genebard in his Chronology Polydor Virgil in his History of England Iacobus Thuanus of Aust in the History of his time Iohn Caluin in his Commentary vpon the Prophet Amos and others English Concord THe Regall Primacy in the Church of England is much more ancient then the Popish Primacy in the Romane Church The Regall Primacy had his beginning from the * Daniel chap. 7. v. 6 Ancient of Dayes vnder the most ancient Patriarchs It flourished magnifically vnder the Orthodoxall Kings Israeliticall and Euangelicall and now in England it flourisheth most of all vnder King Iames soundly sounded vpon the rock and built vpon the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets permanent for euer so that by the fall of raines the comming of flouds and the wine-blasts of any Iesuits whatsoeuer it cannot be so much as moued much lesse remooued and least of all rent and torne in peeces But of the Popish Primacy rightly saide Christ in the Gospell Euery Kingdome diuided in it selfe shall be desolate Now what and how great their Iarres and discords are I am to shew in handling these few Questions following English Concord BEcane in his booke of English discord and in his first Question demanded Whether the King of England haue any Primacy or Supremacy in the Church And I in my book of English Concord demaunded Whether the Pope haue anie Primacy in the Church considering that Saint Cyprian asserteth that Peter did neuer challenge or assume any such thing Epist ad Quintum 71. sect 3 as to say that he held the Primacy and that Chrysostome dogmatically writeth thus Whosoeuer desireth or affecteth the Primacy in earth as all Popes doe shall finde confusion in heauen Homil. 35 in Matth. Whereunto the Iesuite in his late book entituled Examen Concordiae Anglicanae The examination of the English Concord answereth or obiecteth thus BECAN Exam. THat they are not the words of Chrysostome Pag. 92 but of some other author ioyned with him 2. That these words are against our King desiring Supremacie in earth 3. That the Author speaketh promiscuously of both the Primaces Secular and Ecclesiasticall 4. but distinguisheth betweene the desiring and obtaining of the Primacy referring the one to vanitie and the other to the iudgement of God Dr. HARRIS Reply 1 I Doe commiserate the seely ignorance of this Iesuite Becane who knoweth not that these very words aforesaide are not onely canonized but also expresly fathered vpon Chrysostome in the Popes Canon law which the Iesuite dare not affront Dist 40. ca. Multi The wordes of the Canon are these Also Iohn Chrysostome Not euery one is a true Priest which is named a Priest Many Priests and few Priests Many in name but few in work Take heede therefore brethren how you sit vpon the Chayre because the Chayre doth not make the Priest but the Priest the Chayre c. The same Chrysostome Whosoeuer shall desire Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heauen neither shall he be numbred among the seruants of Christ Qui de Primatu tractauerit Who handleth or ambitiously speakes of or challengeth Primacy De Scriptor Ecclesiasticis And according to that Canon the most profound and famously renowmed Canonist euen by Bellarmine in his late booke to witte Henry Cardinall Hostiensis vpon the 15. Chapter of Penitency and Remission Cap. Cui Papa ascribeth these words vnto Chrysostome as to the Author of them thus And so in the Penitentiall Court the Pope is made lesse and his Confessor greater and this Chrysostome insinuateth Dist 40. Multi Wherefore the Iesuite may take from mee thus cleared this falsity vnto himselfe or else hee must returne it ouer To the Authoritie of their Apostaticall Church To their authentike and ordinary glosses and explanations of the Gospell To the decrees of the Romane Bishops To their chiefest Canonists and Diuines for in the writings of all those he may finde sentences written in that Worke called the Imperfect Worke alleaged as out of Chrysostom 2. By the expresse words of the foresaid Canon it is manifest that the words of Chrysostō are by their Canon law referred vnto Priests and Priests onely who sit vpon the Chayre in expresse tearmes often repeated Whereby it appeareth what a seely and vnmannerly Sophister this Iesuite is who thence frameth his Argument against our King drawne thus into form syllogisticall as indeed from thence it can be drawne no otherwise What Priest soeuer desireth Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in Heauen The King of England is a Priest desiring Primacie in earth Therefore he shall finde confusion in heauen Were this Iesuite in our Vniuersitie Schooles he wold be hist out as an absurd Dunse for arguing Our gratious King is no Priest but detesteth their Priests and Priesthood as Antichristian Hee is by the grace of God the high and potent Monarch of Great Britanne France and Ireland and vnder Christ made of God without any ambitious desire of his Primate or Supreme Gouernour ouer all persons and in all causes Ecclesiasticallor Temporall within his Dominions maugre the beard of the Pope and all his Shauelings But if the Iesuite will rightly assume out of the Maior proposition set down in the said Canon law he must take the triple crowne of Primacy from the Popes head and wrap it vp in the dust of Confusion thus What Priest soeuer though it were Peter himselfe doth challenge or ambitiously desire Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heauen But the Popes of Rome haue and now most of all doe challenge
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
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
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
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
intestine Iarres and differences of Romane Writers about the Popes Supremacie and our full agreement in the Kings Supremacie What shall I neede to speake of the iniquity of his Cause For it fights against the Church of Christ in the behalfe of the honour and Soueraignetie of Antichrist after the manner and biasse of Icsuits And in this case what one of the forenamed hath he not iust cause to feare Againe your indifferent equitie wherein with the Venetians and the Parisian Sorbonists you detest the Iesuites who seeke to iustifie their Cause by the imprisonments bonds and deaths of Traitors suffered for their rebellions against their natiue Kings whose hands vnlesse they were the hands of this Becane would it not shake and cause to let fall the penne whose spirits though neuer so lofty would it not depresse infringe and dissipate saue onely of Becane But very impiously and impudently doth he apply to the Gun-powder Traitors that which Saint Paul 1. Cor. 4. wrote of the persecuted Saints viz. You are made a gazing stock to God to Angels and to Men. Let them be so since the Iesuite will haue it so 1. Agazing stock to God who beholding their trecherous and couert conspiracies against their most gracious Soueraigne his Anointed as the Iesuite here confesseth laugheth them to scorne enfeebling their forces for our victory and preparing hell fire for their eternall punishment 2. A spectacle to Angels who wondring there be any so much as stiled with the name of Christians that tremble not to call the royall Supremacies of Kings in the Church ordained by God himselfe grounded vpon Scriptures practised with commendation by the best both Kings of Israell and Emperors Christian Potentissimos Inferorum Principatus The most potent principalities of hell reioyce to beholde such infamous and execrable Traitors committed to the safe custody and torture of spirituall wickednesses Lastly A spectacle to men who being dispersed through the whole world and but hearing of these most inhumane and bloudie Iesuiticall conspiracies more sauage then cruelty it selfe are inflamed for the Lords Anointed to vndergo perpetuall combats with all these pestilent Emissaries of Antichrist Moreouer if you know not with what great varietie inconstancy and vanitie of opinions the popish Writers trauell and with what vniforme consent of all our Writers the Kings Supremacie is maintained listen and read-ouer but cursorily this little Booke which here I present to you and in it you shall finde particularly expressed before your eyes wherein and in what heads they differ among themselues about the Popes Supremacie and how we accord in the Supremacie of our King And heere it much concernes your desire of peace and tranquillitie to obscrue how gallantly this Becane presenteth himselfe to you with his counterfaite and childish wiles to entrappe you wherein he playeth his prizes so skilfully and subtilly to circumuent you that by his onely cunning hopeth to gaine no small praises But seeing he is ready for the combat I will so prouide that he shall not finde me vnprepared not only to meete with his blowes but also to repell them and to turne them backe againe vpon his owne head Of which our conflict I desire you to be Spectators In the meane time I beseech the most mercifull heauenly Father to grant you zeale according to knowledge c. The most desirous of your saluation Richard Harris Becan Exam. By the way of a lie and calumnie you write that I did vse that of the Apostle You are made a gazing stock to God Angels and Men of Traitors I did not vse it of Traitors but of those Catholikes who are with you imprisoned banished spoyled of their goods and fortunes or also put to death You knowe who they are Dr. HARRIS Reply I Knowe the Iesuite heerein belyeth this State most impudently by which none but traiterous or at least seditious obstinate Cacolikes not any one meerly for faith or religion haue been or are imprisoned exiled dispoyled or executed 2. The Iesuit here confesseth that those said traitors were Catholikes and themselues euen the Gun-powder-traitors confessed that their treason was vndertaken for their faith and religion So traiterous and dangerous to Christian States is the Iesuited Popery 3. This Becane in his cōscience thinketh that these words You are made gazing stocks were and are most fitly and truely to bee applyed to Garnett that cunning but arch-traitour viz. when hee was dismembred and his head and quarters fixed on high to be gazed on 4. The present Iesuited Romish faith is impious heresie and Idolatrous blasphemy the religion is grosse superstition and open rebellion against God and the King or rather an open profession of the lawfull killing of Kings Gods Anointed by the meanest vassals of the said Kings authorized by the Pope to kill them As it is plainely set downe by Suarez in his late booke against our King Lib. 6. chap. 4. imprinted by publike authoritie with priuiledge Therefore by all lawes diuine and humane why may not all such Iesuited Cacolikes be most iustly imprisoned dispoyled exiled or executed as guiltie of high treason for this their traiterous and rebellious faith and religion so stiffely maintained by them especially when as by their owne popish doctrine Hereticall obstinate Schismatikes such as indeede all those Cacolikes are may be imprisoned and dispoyled of goods lands and life it self and when as so many thousand deare Saints of the Lord meerely for their orthodoxall faith and pure religion haue beene in their bloudy Inquisition and other popish persecutions most sauagely tortured euen to death Therefore with great impudency doth he charge vs with shedding the bloud of Martyrs for faith and religion from which wee are as free as they therein are guilty 5. No small number of popish Martyrs so canonized and enrowled amongst them were in truth haynous and diabolicall Traitors against the King Queen and State heere and accordingly were here executed therefore indeede these words You are made agazing stock c. the Iesuite applied to Traitors to wit such popish Martyrs 6. Lastly the exceeding clemency of our King towards the now imprisoned seditious and treacherous Cacolikes is such that they fare more deliciously and liue more sportfully I might well haue said riotouslie then millions of his Maiesties good subiects doe who enioy their libertie This is too too well knowne And this forsooth is that hard-hard vsage and hot persecution which hath bred this Iesuiticall exclamation BECANVS Iarre THE Kings Supremacy in the Church of England is a new thing It began vnder King Henry the 8. continued vnder King Edward the 6 and Queene Elizabeth and now vnder King Iames the same is rent and torne in peeces with so many domesticall iarres and diuisions that long it cannot stand So as Christ in the Gospell said full well Omne regnum in se diuisum desolabitur Euery Kingdome diuided in it selfe shall be destroyed But what and how great these discords be I will shew in these
as their right Primacy in earth Not onely ouer the whole Cleargy contrary to that Inhibition of S. Peter 1. Pet. 5. v. 3. Not as Lords ouer Gods Heritage but also ouer Kings and that not only in Spiritualls but also in their Temporalls viz. in their Goods Reuenews Crownes Kingdomes liberties and lines As their chiefest Iesuite Writers Bellarmine Suarius and this meane Iesuite Becane haue not beene ashamed to dogmatize in their late publike writings some whereof haue beene euen by State-Papists in their Parliaments censured and condemned as seditious pernitious against Kings prerogatiues royall crownes and dignities And some of them by vs here lately haue beene purged by fire and also most ambitiously haue and do desire and practise to get the Popedome and being opposed therein do by all euen bloudy meanes endeuour to retaine the same Onuphr in Chronie Rom. Pont. as the thirtie Schismes in the Church of Rome about the Popedom wherof the last worst lasted by the space of fiftie yeers together raysed and continued by the ambitious desire thereof in the Popes themselues euen to the shedding of the liues bloud of two hundred thousand christians caused by two Antipopes at once doth more then demonstrate To instance this ambitious desire in one but their principall one and chiefetaine Hildebrand the first who with brasen face did openly vndertake to depose the Emperour from his Empire The Cardinall Beno who liued with Hildebrand and knewe him too well writeth thus of him Hildebrand poysoned sixe Popes to make his waie to the Popedoma Nauclere reporteth that the clergy saide Pope Hildebrand was excommunicated by the Bishops of Italy as hauing defiled the Apostolike Sea with Simonie c. And Abbat Vrspergensis writeth Anno. Dom. 1080. that the Councell of Brixia censured Pope Hildebrand as an vsurper of the Sea of Rome not appointed by God but intruding by fraude money And to speak in general as Mantuan saith of Rome and Romanists Venalia nobis Templa Sacerdotes Altaria Sacra Coronae Ignis thura preces coelum est venale Deusque Where Church Priest Altar Masse Crowne for money tolde Also Fire Incense Prayer Heauen and God are solde Where all things come for money there is no probabilitie that the Popedom there more worth then all things else should come freely without money c. Rome is no changeling of which the Iesuites may read in the Canon law thus Roma fundata fuit a praedonibus adhuc de Primor dijsretinet dicta Roma quasirodens manus Roma manus rodit quos rodere non valet odit Rome was first founded by thieues and sauoreth still of her beginnings By th' hand Rome byteth States and whom shee cannot bite she hates If Rome bite all not giuing sans gifts shee popes none liuing Now since the Assumption is so plainely proued we may thus conclude Therefore the Popes of Rome shall finde confusion in Heauen Hence the Popish Antichrist is by the Apostle tearmed fitly Filius perditionis The sonne of perdition or confusion Moreouer from the words of Cyprian is this Syllogisme as canon-shot directed against the verie heart of the Popes Primacy thus If Peter did not ne could challenge to himselfe Primacy then the Pope hauing no Primacy but as Peters successour cannot challenge Primacy to himselfe But Peter could not challenge Primacy to himselfe as Cyprian here saith De Simple Praelator and else where proueth thus Hoc erant vtique c. The rest of the Apostles vvere the same that Peter vvas endewed vvith like fellowship of Honour and Power Therefore the Pope cannot challenge the Primacy This of Cyprian the Iefuit passeth ouer dry-foot and not without cause seeing hee could get no baulme from Gilead to cure this deadly wound giuen to the Pope by Saint Cyprians foresaid Canon-shot 3. The Iesuite doth here shamefully bely Chrysostom affirming that hee speakes promiscuously of both Primacies Secular and Ecclesiasticall whereas most distinctly hee writeth thus of them Dominus introduxit c. The Lorde brings in a diffeference betweene worldly or temporall Princes and Ecclesiasticalls because the Princes of the vvorld are therefore made that they might rule ouer their subiects and serue themselues of them 1. Sam. 9 ver 11. c. and spoyle them to their owne profit and glory according to the saying of God to Samuel This shall be the manner of your King hee will take your sonnes for his Chariot-driuers Captaines and Husbandmen and your Daughters for Apothecaries Cookes and Bakers he will take your fields and vineyardes and giue them to his seruants c. But the Princes Ecclesiasticall are therefore made that they may serue their vnderlings and minister vnto them all things which they haue receiued from Christ That they should neglect their owne profit and procure the profit of others and if neede be that they should not refuse to die for the safety or saluation pro salute of their inferiours Therefore if these things be so there is cause and profit to desire the Secular Primacy but to desire the Ecclesiacticall there is neither reason nor cause For what wise man would hasten vvillingly to submit himselfe to seruitude labour griefe and such a danger as to render an account for all the Church before the inst Iudge vnlesse peraduenture he thinke there is no iudgement of God or feares it not as one abusing his Ecclesiasticall Primacy secularly changeth the Ecclesiasticall into the Secular Than which words what could be written more distinctly and plainely against this lying Iesuite and his Popes Primacy to stop the mouth of the one and to plucke vp the other by the rootes I meane the Primacy Papall which is now become the highest temporall Primacy in the earth of which the Emperours as vassals holde their Imperiall crowns yea their liues and yet neither of these but during the Popes pleasure And this is with them become an article of the Romish faith Hence it is that his Maiesties subiects are forbidden by the Pope in their oath of Allegiance to sweare that what in them lieth they will preserue the life of their Soueraigne against the Papall and all other forrain power because as the Pope hath definitiuely set it down they should therein deny the faith Is not this his Ecclesiasticall Primacy become Temporall or rather Diabolicall Therefore euery good Christian from Chrysostome here is to learne That the Pope either thinketh there is no God or Iudgement of God to come or that the feare of God and of his Iudgement is not before his eyes Surely if the popish Primacy be that Ecclesiasticall here described by Chrysostome the Pope will no longer contend for it he will soon hate it worse than dogge or snake 4. The Iesuite here either very ignorantly or very impudently abuseth his Reader whom hee would make belieue that Chrysostome in that Homily so distinguisheth the Primacy of Honour to witte Ecclesiastical from the obtaining of that Primacy as though he
and so procuring great peace to those Churches Whereupon Rhenanus marginall note was The Bishop of Rome doth Montanize But Tertullian saith againe that he afterward by the means of Praxeas reuoked his said letters and reiected Montanus Whereupon euen on the text word reuocare Beatus Rhenanus his annotation is this Rectissime ergo Ro Pontifex egit c. Therefore right well did the Bishoppe of Rome to condemne Montanus Doth not this shew apparantly that the Bishop of Rome was once a Montanist but after recanted And doth not the Iesuit feele this his owne weapon retorted into his owne hart BECAN Exam. Pag. OVt of the Councell of Constantinople you cite these words Anathematizari curauimus Honorium c. You follow the fraud of the Grecians who vpon enny inserted the name of Honorius when as it is plaine or certaine constat that Honorius vvas not there condemned as Bellarmin de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap. 11. proueth out of the Library â—â—eper Athanasius and others Dr. HARRIS Reply IN asserting Honorius to be a Monothelit heretick I doe follow three generall Councells viz. the 6. act 13. the 7. act the last and the eight act 7. And two Popes Agatho in his Epistle to Constantine the Emperour to be seene in the Synod 6. act 4. and Pope Lco 2. in his Epistle at the end of the 6. Synod And further I follow then owne Pontificall of the Popes liues in Leo 2. besides many as learned Writers as Bellarmine by whom it appearech manifestly that Honorius was an Heretick Our English man Harding in his booke against Bishoppe Iewell page 131. of Pope Honorius writeth thus Now at length Ma. Iewell you say that which hath some face of truth for Honorius indeed fel into the heresie of the Monothelits And this is the only Pope who may iastly be burdened with heresie Pope Leo 2. in his Epistle to the Emperour at the end of that 6. generall Councell hath these words We accurse Honorius who hath not lightened this Apostolick Church with Apostolick doctrine but by wicked treachery hath laboured to subuert the vndefiled faith In this my citation I sollow not as this fulse Iesuit saith the Greeke fraude but the edition of Councells by their owne Binnius Tom. 3. thus Concilium Constantinopolitanum tertium sextum vniuersale in quo ducenti octoginta et nouem Episcopi sub Agarhone Papa Constantino Pogouato Imperatore An. 680. et 631. Pag. Binnij 67. act 13. Impia execramur dogmata Sergij Cyri Pyrrhi et Theodori quos Agatho Papa abijcit vtpote contraria rectae fidei sentientes quos Anathemati submitti definiuimus Cum his verò simul proijci à sancta Dei Catholica Ecclesia simulque anathematizari praeuidimus Honorium qui fuerat Papa antiquae Romae eo quod inuenimus per scripta quae ab eo facta sunt ad Sergium quia in omnibus eius mentem secutus est et impia dogmata confirmauit We detest the impious doctrines of Sergius Cyrus c. whom we haue accursed vvith these we haue also cast out of Gods holy Catholick Church and accursed Honorius who was Pope of old Rome because vve found by those things vvhich he wrote to Sergius that he was vvholly of Sergius opinion and confirmed his impious doctrines Heere if I would hunt after Butterflies as this tryfling Iesuit doth I could tax him for his ouer-sight or ignorance in putting downe Athanasius for Anastasius But leauing this vnlearned Iesuit to correct his errors vnto Bellarmine hcere obiected against mee I say that Anastasius writing of the Popes liues in the life of Pope Leo 2 setteth downe Honorius among the hereticks who were condemned by the sixt generall Councell And for further answere I referre Bellarmine vnto Mr. Dr Whitaker Controuers 4. cap. 6. and to Mr. Dr. Reynolds his Conference against Hart ca. 7. Diuis 2. who both very largely and learnedly haue refuted all which Bellarmine hath written materiall for the cleering of Honorius By these Pope Hereticks the Christian Reader may learne what a dangerous thing it is to make the Pope Iudge of all Controuersies And further hee may heere obscrue with what deep silence the Iesuit letteth passe The Pepes Liberius and Leo for Arrian hereticks and Pope Anastasius for a Nestorian heretick So worthy a champion defender is Becane of the Popes Primacy English Concord BEcane in his Iarre and 12. Question demanded Whence the King hath his Primacy And I in my Concord Quest 12. demaunded Whence the Pope hath his Primacy Whether of Christ who said Ioh. 18. v. 36.1 Pet. 5. v. 3. Ro. 13. v. 1. My kingdome is not of this vvorld or of Peter Who forbade his fellow Presbyters to dominere ouer the Clergie much more ouer Kings Or rather of the Diuell Mat. 4. v. 9. Luk. 4. v. 6 who said I will giue vnto thee all the kingdoms of the vvorld and the glory of them for that is giuen to mee and I giue it to vvhom I will And euen so said the Diuels heire Pope Adrian Whence hath the Emperour his Empire but from vs Behold it is in our power to giue it to whom we will By these sayings it is demonstrated that the Pope hath his Primacie not from Christ but from the Diuell Yet heere the Iesuit hath not one word to answere for his Popes Primacy English Concord BEcane in his Iarre and 13. Quest demaunded Whether the King may compell his subiects to the oath of Primacy And I in my Concord and 13. Quest demaunded Whether the Pope may compell his subiects that is all Christians to the oath of Primacy Because according to their Canon law Dist 81. ca. Siquis What Christian soeuer will not obey the Popes precept euen to kill his Soueraigne and natiue King runnes into the sinne of Idolatry Heathenisme Especially the Bishops who 〈◊〉 etyed to the Pope by oath Aenae Sylnaus ad Mogunt That if they gaine-say the Pope though they speake the truth yet they sin against their oath made to the Pope Lastly De Rom. Pont. l. 4. cap. 5. because Bellarmine saith If the Pope should commaund vice or forbid vertue the Church were bound to belieue vertue to be euill and vice to be good BECAN Exam. Page 99 YOu cite out of Gratian Dist 81. cap. Si quis these vvords of the Pope If any will not obey our precept c. You have not read this chapter neither is the beginning of it Si quis but Si qui. Neither doth the Pope there decree that hee incurres the sinne of Idolatry who vvill not obey him in killing his nature King as you calumniate but the Priests and Deacons who after admonition will not abstaine from fornication and also they vvho will presume to heare those Priests and Deacons in their publique Ministery beeing interdicted to enter the Church Consult with the Canon and you shall find it Dr HARRIS Reply IHaue read that Canon ouer diligently more often
then Becan hath fingers on both his hands wherein I find that if vnrepentant fornicators Priests or Deacons forbidden entrance into the Church wil yet presume to vse their Ministery in the Church the people are inhibited to heare them And whosoeuer will not obey that precept incurres the sinne of Idolatry according to that of Samuell It is the sinne of vvitcherast not to obey and the vvickednes of Idolatry not to listen or assent So farre reacheth that rule particular Then followeth in that Canon the generall rule in these vvords Peccatumigitur Paganitat is incurrit c. Therefore whosoeuer saith hee is a Christian and contemneth to obey the Sea Apostolicall incurreth the sinne of Paganisme So that by this Canon what Christian soeuer disobeyeth the Sea of Rome cōmaunding any thing good or euill as Bellarmine hath it incurres the sinne of Paganity he must be reputed an heathē If the Iesuit knew not that the Canon riseth ab Hypothesi ad thesin from the particular to the generall he shewed himselfe to be a very vnlearned man if he knew it in writing thus he sheweth himselfe to be a brasen-fac't abuser of his Reader That the Reader may see the truth of this generality a matter so neerly concerning the crownes and liues of Princes I wil produce for proofe thereof two other places of the Canon law wherin that foresaid generall rule is thus set down The former Clementis de haereticis ca. Adnostrum in Glossa Peccatū paganitatis incurrit quicum Christianū se asserat sedi Apostolicae obedire contemnit What Christian soeuer disobeyeth the Sea Apostolick incurres the sinne of Paganisme Where that Glosse to proue that generall citeth Dist 10. ca. Nulli fas Nulli fas est velle velposse transgredi Apostolicae sedis praecepta It is not lawfull for any to be either willing or able to transgresse the precepts of the Aposlolick Sea The second place is Extrauag Ioan. 22. de verborum significa cap. Cuminter nonnullos in Gloss Haereticus est ille qui animo superbienti dispositionem sedis Apostolicae Articulos fidei non infringentis seruare et ei obedire contemnit cum peccatum ariolandi sit non obedire scelus Idololatriae non acquiescere et vitium Paganitatis contemnere obedire 81. Dist Si qui sunt 8. q. 1. Sciendum Hee is an Heretick who with a proud mind contemneth to keepe and obey the disposition or order of the Apostolike Sea not infringing the Articles of faith sith it is the sin of witchcraft not to obey and the wickednes of Idolatry not to harken and the voice of Paganisme to contemne to obey Thus by the expresse words of the Canon the generality of this is apparant viz. To disobey the Sea of Rome commaunding any thing which is not hereticall for in matter of manners saith Bellarmine the Pope can not erre is withchraft Idolatry Heresie Therefore if the Pope should commaund a Iesuit or the vilest slaue in a kingdome to kill the King who retaineth his crowne after the Pope hath excommunicated him depriued him of his crowne it is vvitchcraft idolatry and heresie in that iesuit or slaue who vvilfully refuseth to kill that King The Mysterie of Antichristian iniquitie as it is now reuealed proceedeth yet further euē to the lawfull killing of Kings by the vilest vassall without any commaund of the Pope or of any Superior not onely after such a King be solemnly depriued of his dominions by the Pope but without that after sentence declaratorie only pronoūced to weet of heresie or any other crime of that King containing the penalty of depriuation For that is now an orthodoxall position of the Cacolike Romish faith Printed Cum priuilegio and expressely maintained by Suarius in his booke with this Title The defence of the Catholike faith against the errours of the English sect vvith the answere to the Apologie of the oath of Fidelity and the Preface monitory to the king c. The words of Suarius containing that Antichristian iniquitie Impietie Impudency are these It is most true Lib. 6. cap. 4. that the Pope may inflict the penalty of Deposition and pronounce the sentence of Depriuation of the Kingdome of any King supreme in his temporals after vvhich iust sentence so pronounced vvhereby ipso facto hee is deposed of his kingdome If a priuate man shall kill the king he doth it not by priuate authority but in the vertue of the sentence and consequently as an instrument of authoritie publike When a king is deposed then he is no king nor lawfull Prince Yea if such a king after Lawfull deposition of him persisting obstinate doth vvithholde his kingdome by force in this he begins to be a tyrant because hee is no lawfull king neither by any iust title doth possesse his kingdome This more plainely appeareth in a king that is an Heretike for by his heresie forsooth ipso facto hee is depriued in some sort of his Dominion and the proprietie of his kingdome because it either remaineth confiscate or euen by the very law is deuolued to his Successour if he be a Catholike And yet neuerthelesse he may not presently be depriued of his kingdome but doth possesse and administer the same iustly vntill by sentence at least declaratory hee be iustly condemned of his crime But after that sentence giuen he is altogether depriued of his kingdome so that hee can not with iust title possesse the same Therefore from that time hee may be handled altogether as a tyrant and consequently may be slaine by any priuate man vvhatsoeuer Now in the last point proposed this is to be saide That after the sentence condemnatory of the king for the priuation of his kingdom giuen by the Pope or vvhich is all one after the sentence declaratory of a crime hauing such a penalty by the law imposed on that crime certainely hee vvhich gaue sentence or to vvhom he committed it may depriue the king of his kingdome euen by killing him either if hee can not otherwise depriue him or if the iust sentence extend to the depriuing of him Marke well ô yee Christian Princes especially ô yee Princes Protestant orthodoxall doe you behold for it more neerely concerneth every one of you into what even the highest pitch of traiterous impudency and impietie this Coccatrice broode and Generation of vipers to witte the Iesuites are mounted when as in their treasonfull dogmaticall positions published in print to all the world and most stiffely by them auerred as doctrines of Catholike faith they teach it to be lawfull for any the basest villaine of a king to kill the king being excommunicated deposed or otherwise declared to be so and so criminous Moreouer they teach that the saide base vassall or villaine is in such case a more publike person lawfully to kill the king then the king or his Iudges are to sentence that villaine Traitor-Regicide The time was when Emperours were the soueraigne Lords of the Bishop of Rome
* Deu. 13 10 Leurt 24.23 matter of religion and by Regall authoritie to punish the transgressors of them To call Councells of Synods by his authoritie f 1. Câ—ton 13.3 for reducing of the people to Gods worship h 2. Chr. 19.4 and purifying of the Templepolluted Touching persons To administer iustice vnto all of all sorts i 2. Chr. 29.5 who should be To speake as the Scripture doth The head of the Tribe of Leuie k 1. Sa. 15.17 no lesse then of the other Tribes The king no lesse of Clerkes then of Laikes To depriue the high Priest if he do deserue of his high Priesthood l 1. Reg. 2.27 In matters of Religion To breake down the high places To abolish strange worship m Exo. 32.10 to breake in peeces the brasen Serpent which Moses erected n 2. Reg. 18.4 In matters of Order To ordaine such things as pertaine to the comlinesse o 2. Chro. 24 12 Socrat. lib. 2 ca. 17 of GODs house and to suppressefriuolous and vnprofitable questions These by Dinine right are the rights of Regall Primacie To weet wherby the king may 1. Be called p Tort. Tort. p. 339 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Supreme head of the Church 2. Call Councells and presede in them 3. Make Lawes Ecclesiasticall 4. Constitute and depose the High Priests 5. Binde his subiects by oath to keep the lawes by him made To conclude hereby may the Aduersaries see that Regall Primacy is founded in the Scriptures and propagated from the first religious kings vnder the olde to the first religious Emperours and kings and so to our Soueraigne Lord King Iames vnder the new Testament and in that long distance of time nothing impaired or diminished What then neuer to decay I doubt it not What 's the reason Heare it out of Gods booke not out of triuials Iesuiticall q If it be of God Acts 5.39 you can not dissolue it Goe now Icsuite and play with your sooleries and very childish questions In the meane time let mee aske and answere in your owne words The Primacy Iesuiticall hath it lesse power in France for in Venice it hath none at all than it hath had there or else where So it appeareth Is it then in so short a time abated and diminished in France So men say Is it therefore neere his end I doe not doubt it What 's the reason Heare it from the Iesuites triuiall That which suddainly came for we know wel the swaddling clouts of Loyola the Iesuits Syre is soone gone BECAN Exam. Page 112 THE Primacie or Supremacie vnder King Henry King Edward and Qucene Elizabeth was Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall but vnder King Iames it is not so and what it will be is vncertaine Here is a Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply IN my Concord booke I shewed in generall and in particular the Regall Primacy vnder K. Iames to be the selfe same which was vnder K. Henry K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth adding that it so would continue as certainely it will during this orthodoxall Religion among vs which I hope shall continue so long as the sunne and moone endure though the Iesuiticall and all other Papisticall bowels burst thereat I shewod it in general for that the Supremacie then was and now no lesse is The kings Supreme power in and ouer all causes and all persons within his kingdom Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall and therefore in the selfe same lawes of this kingdome then and now in force called The kings supreme Power Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall In particular I demonstrated the same by setting downe the most materiall points out of the expresse words of Scirpture wherein the kings saide Supreme power Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall consisteth in which saide both generall and particular points as there they are set downe all English Protestant Writers with full consent agree without any Iarre or difference whatsoeuer If this shallow Iesuite had had any sound matter in him in this his ExameÌ„ he would haue answered to the matter especially to those materiall points founded vpon the Scriptures and haue proued that either those particular points belong not to the office of Regall Supremacy or else that wee Protestant Writers iarre in some one or moe of those said materiall points gathered by the R. Bishop of Ely and there set downe as not warranted by holy writte to belong to kings but this Iesuite passeth them ouer with Noli metangere and onely sets before the Reader his twise sodden Ioathsome Colewoorts viz. That Mr. Burhill writeth thus We doe not giue vnto the king Primacy Spirituall or Ecclesîasticall but rather Primacy in and ouer causes and persons Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall whereas Mr. Burhil in his Appendix to the confutation of Eudaemon Page 283. cuts this Iarre all in sunder writing thus In the 21. chapter of my booke against Becane I purposely and plainly taught how the said Regall Primacy may be called both waies to weet Primacy Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall or Primacy in matters and ouer persons spirituall or Ecclesiasticall and that they who call it spiritual Primacy meane nothing else then wee vvho in regard of the cauillations and calumnies of the Aduersarie by Spirituall power vnder standing nothing else but power Sacerdotall or Episcopall call it Primacy in ouer causes and persons spirituall or Ecclesiasticall And that in the very thing there is no dissent at all among vs. What could be spoken more fully and plainly to put to silence the lying and iarring lips of this Iesuit BECAN Exam. Pag. 114. IT is your priuat fansy none but you will say that the King hath or that himselfe challengeth power to appoint or depose summos Pontifices the highest or chiefest Bishoppes vvho should rule ouer all the Christian vvorld and vvho dwell out of his kingdome as hee hath in his Preface monitorie protested Dr. HARRIS Reply BElike the Iesuit hath not read this Question in Saint Augustine and the answere vnto it Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Presbyter hocest Summus Sacerdos What is a Bishop but the chiefe Priest And accordingly Lactantius lib. 4. ca. 30. calleth euery Bishoprick Supremum Sacerdotium the highest Priesthood If the Iesuit could vnderstand Greeke I would produce Ignatius ad Trallianos putting the question and making answere vnto it as Augustine did thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What other thing is a Bishoppe but one hauing principality and power ouer all men Belike the Iesuit will be bold with Ruffin and tax him for calling Athanasius who was no Pope Pontificem maximum the highest Bishop But then comes in Hierom speaking of euery Bishoppe and dogmatizing thus Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet The safety of the Church dependeth vpon the dignity of the highest Priest With vs in England are not only Bishops but Archbishops also euen Primats that is Patriarks ouer whoÌ„ the King in his Supremacy is Supreme Gouernour whom as he may nominat and appoint so vpon
in his Apology and monitory Préface to the Emperour c. endeuoureth to proue that himselfe in England and euery King in his kingdome is Head or Primat of the Church There you confound Head Primat as one thing heere by a two-fold question you sepatate them as diuerse things So the Mule scratcheth himselfe The King doth make no expresse mention of the word Primat yet as you say hee endeuoureth to proue and proueth demonstratiuely that he is Primat of the Church Therefore as the King wee and your lelfe understand it it is all one to have the Primacy of the Church and to be Primat of the Church Sith then weeagree in the thing why doe you wrafig be about the name heere of Primat as before of Primacy Doctor Tooker and Maister Burhill lume openlie professed subscribed and sworne that the King is the onely Supreme Gouernour in and ouer all causes and persons Eoclesiasticall vvithin his Realine that is â—hâ— Hainrick and Thomson and your selfe vnderstand it in one word Primat But Tooker and Burhill deny the King to be Primat of the Church They doe so that rightly to weet in your popish sense of Supreme Primat of the Church Sacer do tall or Episcopall By which distinction well vnderstood and vsed it appeareth that among vs there is no Iarre at all touching the Supremacy or Primat BECAN Exam. Pag. 120 YOu call mee an Asse because I said the English Protestant Writers Iarre in this point If I be an Asse by contend you with me Haue you learned to strine onely vvith Asses Belike you thought you had to doe vvith English Predicants I am not of that Tribe Neither am I contrary to my selfe for I doe not distinguish Primat and Head of the Church but I shevv the English Writers to dissent in both And that is very true because some afsirme and others deny the King to be either Primat or Head of the Church Dr. Harris Reply TO his quest I answere thus By Gods grace I haue learned to dispute and to grapple with the most learned Iesuit in the bunch And I am sory that it was my ill hap to meet with such a slug as this Icsuit is But sich it fulleth out so I must take vp this burden and proceedin answeting as Salomon saith a foole in his folly lest hee be proud I know by their books many Iesuits to be very learned and I knowe many English Preachers in learning to be nothing inseriour to their chiefest Iesuits Therefore this Iesuit Becane without all truth and good manners sets the Asses eares vpon so many learned English Preachers but they will nothing lesse then fit them hee must resume the eares to himselfe and carie them about with him as his owne Touching his assertion I did not say that he distinguished the Head and Primat of the Church as two things diuerse but that he confounded them as one Hcere as one that is at daggers drawing against himselfe hee confesseth hee did not nor doth distinguish them and yet heere with two disiunctiue particles hee separateth them Indeed with the Papists what is the Papall Primat of the Church but the Supreame Head of the Church Therefore iustly I found fault with the Iesuit for making two questions of one viz. I. Whether the King bee Primat of the Church 2. Whether the King be Supreme Head of the Church and not thus rather according to his words and meaning Whether the king be Head or Primate of the Church or Head that is Primate c. But in this his Examen the Iesuite doth increase and not lessen the Iarre with himselfe BECAN Exam. Page 121 I Do not inquire what Tooker and Burhill haue professed or sworne of the kings Supreme Gouernment but what they haue written of the Primate of the Church Both of them deny that the king may be called Primate of the Church Hainric saith be may be so called There is the Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply TRue it is in our English tongue as we doe not call the kings Supreme gouernment of this Church Primacy but Supremacy so doe we not cell the king Primate Ecclesiasticall or Primate at all But in respect that the English word Supremacy is translated into the Latine word Primatus as we in Latine ascribe vnto the king Primatum Ecclesiasticum or Primatum in omnibus causis et supra omnes personas Ecclesiasticas Primacy Ecclesiasticall or Primacy in and ouer all Causes and persons Ecclestasticall so wee in Latine call the king Primatem Ecclesiasticum Primate Ecclesiasticall to weet of his foresaid Regall not Episcopall Primacy or Supremacy Ecclesiasticall that is in and ouer all Ecclesiasticalls which Mr. Burhill is so far off to deny that hee hath expressely allowed them who assert it So that here is nothing but empty striuing about words which the Apostle condemneth I will therefore leaue this Iesuite snatching at syllables and catching of flics I say I will leaue him so striuing and with are him thus reasoning BECAN Exam. Page 121 〈…〉 Doctor Tooker and M. Burhill disputing against me who denied the King to be Primate of the Church doe denie it in that sense wherein I said the King vsurped the Primacy of the Church But I did not meane that the King vsurped the Primacy of the Church Sacerdorall for I elsewhere confesse that the King disclaimeth it Therefore they denying the King to haue Primacy Ecclesiasticall doe not meane that hee hath not Primacie Sacerdotall Dr. HARRIS Reply WHo taught this vnlearned Iesuite to dispute from all particulars Concerning the general do all disputers at all times reason according to the meaning of the Aduersarie which often times they vnderstand not Touching the Minor or later proposition or Assumption of Becane who would not thinke his meaning to be that the king by his confession disclaimeth all Primacy sacerdotall that is Episcopall Archiepiscopall or Patriarchall for all Bishops Archbishops and Patriarkes are Priests and therefore their Primacy Episcopall c. is Sacerdotall but this Iesuite meaneth nothing lesse For by Primacy Sacerdotall he meaneth here onely the power of inferiour Priests or Presbyters in Court internall onelie who haue no iurisdiction in Court externall as though all our dispute were not of Primates and Primacy As though any inferiour Priests who were not Bishops haue at any time bin called Primates feeling that by the Canon law Primates Patriarks are all one as though Primacy with the Papists doth not respect the externall Court only These are as plaine as the nose on Becanes face Therefore his face is hard who abuseth his Reader so grosly But I 'le returne this his argument vpon his owne head thus If Dr. Tooker and Mr. Burbill deny the King to be Primate or to haue Primacy in that dense than Becane saith The King vsurpeth Primacy and Becane saith The King vsurpeth Primacy Sacerdotall that is to say Episcopall Then it followeth that they deny the King to be Primate or
King and farre greater too English Concord Pag. 32. THe Head Regall Primate and th'alone Supreme gouernour in all things and ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall in the Church of England signifie one and the selfe same thing wherein all our English Protestant Writers doe vniformally accord and so do openly and publikely profess the Kings royall Title of Supreme Head vnder Christin England Here therefore the Iesuite contends for nifles And this hee might haue learned of the R. Bishop of Ely Tott Tort. pag. 338. et 339 who doth not only admit that Title but also foundlie proueth the same by Scriptures and Fathers in these words Now to bring this name of Head vnto the King from Gregory or any other needs no wondrous Art The Holy-ghost in this word was our guide The Prophet Samuel speaks thus to his King 1. Sa. 19.17 When thou wast little in thy own eyes wast thou not made the Head of the Tribes of Israel of wth tribes the Tribe of Leny was one Theriore the K. is head of the leuitical tribe in the which Tribe was the high Priest Abimelech vnder the king his head Wondrous ignorance it is to deny this not wondrous Art to prooue this Moreouer Chrysostom a Bishop of the. Catholike Church no lesse godly and learned then Gregory called Theodosius not onely the Head but also the Toppe or Crowne of the head euen of all men vpon the earth I thinke there was then a man vpon earth who was called the Bishop of Rome Agreeable hereunto writeth Dr. Tooker Duel pag. 4 thus The Bishop of Ely doth with vs and with Chrysostom so acknowledge the king to be Head and toppe of the Head that he vnder standeth him to be gouernour of the Church vnder the Primary head Christ See you not hereby Iesuite how impudently you lyed when you wrote thus But now this Title of Head is indangered vnder King Iames c. Dr. Tooker and Mr. Burhill will not haue the King to be called such a Head of the Church as you Papists dreame the Pope to be viz. Vnto whose motion as say the Clementines all are subiect From whom as from an Head taken vp into the fellowship of the indiuiduall vnity God doth poure out his gifts in the whole body b De Elect. et Elect. potest ca. Fundamenta From whom all Bishoppes descend as members from the Head c De Minist et ordin li. 2 who can doe all things that Christ can doe d Hoftiens de Transl Epi. ca. Quinto who hath the same Tribunall and Consistory that Christ hath e Abbat de Elect. c Venerabilem But is the Iesuite amongst the Prophets It may be among the false Prophets What doth hee measure our Writers who had rather lose their heads then in the Papists sense to ascribe vnto their King the Title of Supreme Head with the met-wand of Papall parasites In that Iarre of Cardinalls about the Popes Primacy to vveet whether it consist in the Temporalties of Kings Directly or Indirectly what will Pope Paul 5. doe If he admit that Primacy Direct Bellarmine will murnur if hee refuse it what will Baromus and the Canonists say If the Cardinalls would bestow the Popedome vpon Bellarmine he would grant vnto the Pope this and a farre greater Title Directly But haue the Papists any greater Title then this papall to weet of the Head bf the Church It seemes so because according to his Parasits these following are Catholick Axioms First The Pope can dispense aboue right or law and can make iustice of iniustice and can make no sentence a sentence and can create some-what of nothing a De Trans Epi. Quanto in glosla Secondly The Pope is the true Soueraigne Lord of Temporalties so that hee can take away frō one that which is his owne and that act of his holds for good though hee sinne Princes are not Lords but Tutors Procurators and Stewards b Ioh. de patis de porest Pap. et Reg. Thirdly It is hereticall to beliene that Our Lord God the Pope the maker of this and that decree can not decree as hee hath done c Extrau loan 22. ca. Cum inter nonnullos in Gloss Is there any thing more Yes aboue God and power diuine They haue perswaded the Popes that Fourthly The Popes may doe all things euen what they list euen things vnlawfull and that they are More than God d Francis Zibarell Which made e In Polycratico Camotensis long since vvrite thus The Popes commaund the Angels They haue power ouer the dead They offer violence to the Scriptures thereby to gaine fulnesse of Power The Pope is become intolerable no Tyrant did euer equall him in pride pompe Behold heere the Roman Head how glorious pompous and if hee had rather haue it so how tyrannous it is BECAN Exam. Pag. 128. IF the name Head of the Church Primat of the Church signisit the same thing then Tooker and Burhill who deny the King to be Primat not onely Ecclesiasticall and Sacerdotall but also in any other sense what soeuer deny also in the same sort the King to be Head Dr. HARRIS Reply DOctor Tooker as in my Concord and in this 4. Question out of his expresse words vvas shewed did together with the R Bishop of Ely acknowledge the King to be Supreme Head of this Church Pag. 284. M. Burhill in his Appendix writeth thus If any of vs call the King Head of the Church in his kingdom that manner of speech hath good reason and sense orthodoxall I did not reprehend any man as audacious because according to our meaning hee calls the King Caput Pastorem et Primatem Head Pastour and Primat The Iesuit told vs before Exam. pag. 321. that hee regarded not what they haue sworne and professed publiquely but what they haue written let him therefore read this which they haue written to make him ashamed of his shamelcsse vntruths BECAN Exam. Pag. 128 WHat will you say to the Bishop of Ely who in his Tortur Toni pag. 331. saud It is a monstrous body that hath moe Heads then one And pag. 389. The Church is one body and there is but one Head of one body That one Head is Christ not the Pope Whence it followeth that your English Church is more monstrous then ours For you haue two Heads of diuerse kinds .i. Sacerdotall and Regall Wee but of one kind that is Sacerdotall You make as many Heads as there bee Christian Kings ouer their Dominions but wee two oncly in all Dominions Coristian viz. Christ and the Pope Dr. HARRIS Reply THe vnlearned Iesuit presumptuously heere entreth the combat with the most learned Bishop a Pigmey with a Giant but it seemeth he vnder standeth neither the R Bishop nor himselfe The R Bishop is so farre off from denying our King to be Head of this Church that hee hath not onely asserted it but also proued
qui EcclesiasticaÌ„ temporaleÌ„ iurisdictioneÌ„ habet quideÌ„ Supremá The king is a person mixt to wit that hath both Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall and Temporall that in the highest degree c. And yet more p. 144. Perleges Ecclesiasticas in hoc Regno approbatas vnus Sacerdos duo beneficia habere non potest nec Bastardus Sactis initiari Verùm Rex Ecclesiastica potestate iurisdictione quam habet in vtroque dispensate potest By the Ecclesiasticall Lawes approned in this Kingdom of England one Priest may not have two Benefices nor a Bastard be made a Priest But the King by the Iurisdiction And Power Ecclesiasticall which hee hath can dispense in both c. 3. M. Tompson and M. Burhill doe absolutely deny it M. Thomson pag. 80. of his booke writing thus Primatus Ecclesiae non est definiendus per iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam sed per gubernationem supremam The Primacie of the Church is not to be defined by Iurisdiction Ecclesisstical but by supreme GouernmeÌ„t c. And againe pag 95. Diximus Regem gubernare quidem Ecclesiastica sed non Ecclesiasticè Wee haue said before that the King indeed doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically And why I pray you Because for sooth be hath not Iurisdiction Ecclesiatically but onoly Temporall And heerounto agreath Must Buchill pag. 234. granting this negatine proposition Rex saith he nullam habet Iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam nec in foro interiori nec inexteriori The King hath no Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall neither in the interiour nor exteriour Court c. 4. Now my Lord of Ely hee distinguisheth in this case as may be seene in M. Tookers Booke pag. 305. in these vvords Habet Rex omnem iurisdictionem spiritualem in foro exterioti exceptis quibusdam Censuris The King hath all inrisaction spirituall in the extoriour Court except is certain Consures c. So as now to this question to weet vvhether the King as hee is Primate and Head of the Church haue any Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall or spirituall in the exteriour Court we must anâ—were thus First with M. Tooker and M. Salclebridge That he hath most ample most full and supreme Iurisdiction Secondly with my Lord of Ely That he hath indeed some but notall And lastly with M. Burhill and M. Thomson That hee hath none no not any one iote at all English Concord Pag. 38 THese are the very expresse words of the law of England which is now in force Star 1. Elzab That Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction vvhich was exercised heeretofore or lawfully might be exercised by any spiritual or Ecclesiasticall power to visit the Ecclesiasticall state order also to reforme to bring into order and to correct Ecclesiasticall persons all errours heresies schismes c. is for euer vnited and annexed to the imperiall Crowne of this kingdome vvhereby the King of England through his full power by his Letters Patents may assigne authorise such persons being naturall borne subiects as he shall think meet to exercise execute vnder his Highnes all manner of Iurisdictions priuiledges and preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction within his Highnesse Dominions Now all Protestant English Writers in the Oath of Supremacy which they haue takeÌ„ Lorament Primat in Apol. Reg. pag. 56. haue openly testified in their conscience declared that they will with all their power ayde defend all Iurisdictions Priuiledges and prehemiâ—eâ—ces vnited and annexed to the Crowne of this kingdom Wherefore all plainly agree in the thing it self But that which the Iawes of Engl. call Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction define to be the supreme Gouernmet in all Ecclesiasticall things ouer all Ecclesiasticall persons M. Thomson would rather call Supreme Gouernment The R Tortur Tort. p. 151 Bishop touching this matter writeth thus This I vrge that the IurisdictioÌ„ which Abbesses haue with you is ordinary spirituall IurisdictioÌ„ For the Abbat hath ordinary in her administration the Abbess is equalled with the Abbat And what should let it Because they cannot exercise censures excoÌ„municate But excoÌ„munication doth not directly belong to the key of order In 4. SenteÌ„ Dist 18. q. 2. art 2. Aquinas asserteth this Excommunication is no act of the key directly but rather of the externall court And it is a common opinion with you that he that hath not the key of order may excommunicate Those things which are of order and the inner court are denied to women but things belonging to the outward court are coÌ„municated to Layiks of those things there is no reason but that women may be capable As Stepha d'Aluin doth stiffly argue for his Abbesses and therein takes our part the Sorbon approuing his opinion therein Although we ascribe not to our King power of Censure and therein you giue much more to your Abbesses then we to our Prince Ma. Burhill demes the King to haue any Iurisdiction in the outward court to weet Sacerdotall So the King of England hath all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction that is Supreme and Regall wherof onely our controuersie is but no Sacerdotall no none at all and yet without any Iarre whatsoeuer But oh Becane can you without blushing if there be but a graine of pudency in you obstinatly detract froÌ„ most religious Kings all supreme Iurisdiction properly Regall when women of whom St. Paul 1. Tim. 2. v. 12. I permit not a woman to vse authority ouer the man with you are capable Fran. Steph. D' Aluin de Potestat Episc Abbatú Abbatiss ca. 2.3 4.11 c. and partakers of Spirituall Iurisdiction Sacerdotall or Episcopall viz. Of power to excoÌ„municate Clerks to absolue to visit to institute to present to Benefices Prelatures dignities Ecclesiasticall yea of hauing all administration as wel spirituall as temporall but only of those things of order wherof a woman is incapable Lastly al those things which Salobrigiensis doth heer recite touching Kings anointed with sacred oyle c. Mixt persons c. which may dispense against lawes Ecclesiasticall are transcribed out of the expresse words of the common lawes of England which in this kind of argument might haue satisfied to the full BECAN Exam. Pag. 139 THomson saith expresly that The Primacy of the Church is not to be defined by Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but the law of England doth so define it Thomson saith that The King doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically therefore his Iurisdiction is not Ecclesiasticall Burhill detracteth from the King all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in the outward Court that is as you say Sacerdotall but Tooker faith that All iurisdiction of Priests is in the inward Court The Bishop of Ely saith The King hath no Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the outward Court but onely power of Censure And saith againe The King hath not power of censure But Hainric and Tooker say The King hath all supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction The English law saith The King hath all manner
large That an Abbesse may haue a Praelature and dignity with administration and a right to visit euen without the Monastery which right she may also commit to others And the Bishop Bitontine very lately holdeth and proueth the same in his works dedicated to Pope Clement 8. See the very Text. Sext. de Elect ca. Indemnitatibus prouing the same Barthol in l. 1. cod de dign lib. 12. n. 4. saith that Abbesses haue dignity with administration not onely ouer their Nunnes but also without for that they haue Castles c. as Abbats haue dignity with administration Sext. de Priuilegijs ca. Apostolicae And therefore by a ruled case among the Doctors grounded vpon ca. Attendentes in Clemētin de stat Monachor they ought to visit or to commit the visitation to others Extra con ca Vas electionis Out of these the like Steph. d' Aluin ca. 2. sect 12. of the power of Abbesses concludeth that Abbesses Prioresses claustrall by a certaine right constitutions and rule of S. Benedict from whence all the rest in a manner are drawne as also by custome haue authority and power ordinary spirituall and Ecclesiasticall ouer those that are vnder them And cap. 3. sect 8. That Abbesses Prioresses ex cardin concil 17. cal 4. bj cap. Dilecta and the Gloss adioyned haue all administration as well spirituall as temperall of those monasteriall Nuns saue only of those things whereof a woman is vneapable to weet of Order Now touching the power which Abbesses haue to excommunicate Because Tho. Aqui. in 4. sent dist 18. q. 2. art 2. in corpore writeth thus Excōmunicatio non est actus clanis directe sed magis exterior is iudicij Excommunication is not an act of the key directly but rather of external court Nauarre lib. quinto consil 1. de sentent Excom concludeth that a vvoman by priuiledge may also excommunicate Tabiena and Arnilla verbo Abbatissae nu 3. besides Panormitan Astensis and others That an Abbess may cōmand the Priests her subiects to excōmunicate their rebellious obstinat Nunnes or to absolue them Whereupon Steph. d'Aluin cap. 3. sect 12. concludeth thos Proinde omnis habens Iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam et si non habeat clauem ordinis potest excommunicare ex D. Thoma Therefore all hauing Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction may excommunicate according to Tho. Aquin. Now that they haue Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction witnes Panormitun in ca. De stat Monachor Iason consil l 40. lib. 2. Flaminius deresig lib. 3. q. 12. n. 12. saying Dispositum iur is in Abbate habere locum in Abbatissis What right Abbats haue Abbesses haue the same And againe Panormitan Arnilla Flaminius write That Abbesses exempt haue right or iurisdiction to visit the places and persons subiect to them and that they haue Clerks subiect vnto them Pleno iure that is vnder their gouernment as well Ecclesiasticall as Temporall Now say Card. Parisius and Flaminius Out of the right to visit or from visiting by her selfe or her deputie followeth her Iurisdiction to depriue depose correct punish and chastise And to haue them subiect to her Pleno iure by full right doth plainely import Iurisdiction Depriuation Visitation and Correction To conclude this point If priuat men and vvomen be capable of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction If Abbesses haue and execute the same in collating Benefices instituting suspending depriuing visiting iudging crimes and imposing and receiuing purgations of Bishops lastly excommunicating and absoluing according to Popish Canons Canonists Custome and practise among them with what face doth this Iesuit or any other Papist scandalize our Kings or Queenes for taking or vs for ascribing vnto them Supreme Ecclesi Iurisdiction yet not that wherby our Kings or Queens may institute Clerks excōmunicate or absolue them oras King Iames and late Queen Elizabeth haue in their writings published to the whole world Therefore most impudently false is the Iesuit heere asserting that Queen Elizabeth had power to excommunicate Touching Suarez let this Iesuit know that Steph. D' Aluin hath refuted in this point a farre greater better learned man then Suarez is to weet Franciscus a Victoria in his Relect. 2. de potest Ecclesiae and shewed the practise of the Church to be as heere hath beene declared Christian Reader I haue beene much heere in this point because it is of that moment and so remarkable for recompence in replying to the remainder of Becanes Examivation I promise to bee short the rather because in truth it is but froth not deseruing any other answere at all but that which is already set down in my English Concord ⧠Becans Iarre VI. Question Whether the King of his owne Authority can assemble or call together Councells 1. NOvv follow the Iarres and debates of our Aduersaries concerning the Offices and Functions of the Kings Primacy and they are sixe in number which may be disputed of The first is of assembling or calling together of Synods The second of enacting of Ecclesiasticall lawes The third of conferring or bestowing of Benefices The fourth of creating and deposing of Bishops The fift is about Excommunication The sixt and last is about the decision and determining of Controuersies The question then is vvhether these offices belong to the Kings Primacy I will speake a vvord of each in order 2. First it may bee demaunded vvhether the King by vertue of his Primacy may of his owne authority call or assemble together Synods therein sit as chiefe head This was certainly perswaded that it might be done in the time of King Henry K. Edward and Queene Elizabeth but now vnder King Iames the matter is called into question M. Salclebridge pag. 121. affirmeth that be can dot it in these vvords Christiani Principes in Regnis suis cum laude propria auctoritate Synodos conuocarunt Constitutiones condiderunt causas audierunt cognouerunt Christian Princes haue with great praise assembled Synods by their owne authority in their Kingdoms haue made Constitutions heard and examined causes c. And again pag. 146. Rex Angliae potest Synodos indicere omnium Ordinum Oecumenicas et in ijsdem praesidere The King of England saith he may assemble Generall Councells of all Orders or degrees and therein sit as President or Chiefe c. And pag. 155. hee saith in like manner Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate deiure Synodos conuocarunt The Kings of England haue by their owne supreme authority and by right assembled Synods c. 3. Now Ma Tooker in this point is very variable one vvhile contradicting himselfe another while others And this is manifest out of the diuerse testimonies he produceth The first is pag. 37. where hee hath these words A quibus magis aequum est indici Concilia quà mabillis penes quos semper fuit authoritas ea congregandi Cùm autem communiter triplex ponisoleat Concilium Generale Prouinclale Dioecesanū Concilium Generale solius Papae iussu celebrari vultis sed nequeillud nisi ab
vvhether Bishopâ—ickes or Archbishoprickes throughout the whole circuits of their Kingdomes For this truely belongeth vnto those whose office it is to dispose there of to wit to the Compreninciall Bishops who haue power to consecrate the saide persons on vvhome they bestowe them Indeede the Kings Maiesty notwithstanding hath this right with vs in England which an inferiour and subordinate power also hath to wit right so nominate and present vnto benefices c. 3. Behotde here a triple Iarre or discord betweene these two Authors and this in a daily and vulges watter The first is that M. Henry Salclebridge saith that the collasion of benefices belongeth to the Kings of England in that they he the Primates of the Church of England M. Tooker saith to the contrary that it belongeth not to Kings at all but to Bishops The second Iarre is that M. Salclebridge saith that Kings by their owne authority haue conferred benefices M. Tooker saith that they neuer do nor haue done The third is that M. Salclebridge saith that Kings by vertuâ— of their supreme Ecclesiasticall Iâ—risdiction may present 〈◊〉 benefices M. Tooker â—â—â—rrâ—th that in this point Kings hauene more right then their subiects and other inferiour persons for so he saith Hoc habet iuris Regia Maiestas quod minor subordinata potestas habet The Kings Maiesty hath in this point of conferring beneficer the same right that an inferiour and subordinate power bath c. Whether of these two then should King Iames belieue if he had a fat benefice or an Archbishopricke now to bestow English Concord HEere is also a Iesuiticall trifling altercation about words Hainric by collation of Benefices vnderstandeth Presentation Nominations to Benefices the very Donation of Benefices Doctor Tooker thereby concclueth the Institution of Presbyters and the consecration of Bishops Dr Tooker acknowledgeth the Kings Presentation Nomination Donation Hainric by no meanes attributeth to the king either Institution or Consecration as both of them being proper go the Bishops The Kings presenthig of his Clearks to the Bishoppe for institution of them into such Benefices with Cure as respect the Kings hereditary right of Patronage is nor much different from the presentations made by his subiects who haue the like right of Patronage vnlesse it be herein viz that the King by his writ may and doth compell the Bishoppe especially after recoucry by Quare Impedie opposing himselfe therein to institute fitte Clarks presented by his Maiesty or by other Patrons to the said Bishoppe But the presentation of certaine Benefices with Cure after they haue continued void of any Incumbent for the space of 18 Monethes appertaines vnto the King by way of lapse as vnto the Supreme Ordinarie in his Dominions or the only Supreme Gouernour of the Church therein and that by the common lawes of England as is expresly shewed in Becano-Baculus Page 142. 150. Moreouer there are certaine Benefices with Cure called Donatiues which admit no Institution at all of these the King by his owne Donation onely without any either Episcopall Institution or Archidiaconall Induction makes the Clearks rightfull possessours Doctor Tooker knoweth well these triuial and vulgar matters as Becane here calleth them and beares in minde our most learned Soueraigne his words in his Monitory Preface touching the Collation of Benefices Page 33. How often haue the Kings of France withstood the Pope in such sort that they would not yeeld vnto him the very Collation of Benefices And those other words concerning Bishoprickes receiued from Kings and Emperours Page 29. Euen the Pope also with all obedience and submission did acknowledge himself to hold his Popedom of the Emperour And Page 31. He that peaceably is desirous to know in what sort the Bishops of Spaine Scotland England Hungary by ancient Institution euen vntill moderne innouation came in and were inuested by Kings with quiet possession of their temporals purely and intirely he shall finde the same by searching the liues of the Fathers and by reading Histories Walthram Naumburg lib. de Inuestit Episc Behold then how a threefold Concord ariseth out of that threefold Iarre which the Iesuit faineth The first Concord Hainric saith that the conferring of certain Benefices belongs to the Kings of England by way of lapse as they are the chief Gouernours of the Church of England Doctor Tooker affirmeth that the Collation of Benefices lying void of any Incumbents aboue 18. Monethes appertaineth to the King onely by way of lapse and not to the Bishops or Archbishops or to any other subiect The second Hainric saith that Kings by their own authority haue oftentimes giuen Benefices to weet Donatiues Tooker auerreth that the King may giue 40. 50. or moe within the compasse of one yeare if so many fall void The third Hainric saith that by the lawes of England Kings because of their Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction present to free Chappels and that none of their subiects to weet Bishoppes or Archbishops haue authority to visit the said Chappels Dr. Tooker instructed by the same lawes auoucheth that Kings onely haue that authority and no subiects but by the Kings grant Finally if the hungry Iesuite who mindeth onely his meat that is far Benefices or Archbishoprickes can produce but one little either word of Scripture or sentence in Ancient Father whereby it may appeare that the Collation of Benefices belonged to the Primate of the Christian Church as Primate let him haue the victory But if he cannot vnlesse hee be more then impudent let him seale vp his lips and recognize those words of the Parisian Aduocate Arg. 11. Page 25. That of Luk. 9. The Sonne of man hath not vvhere to rest his head is Equiualent with this The Church by Diuine right hath no Territory BECAN Exam. Page 173 SMall Benefices without Cure may be conferred vpon Clearks which are neither Priests nor Bishops Therefore Tooker by Collation doth not meane Institution or Sacration Againe hee saith that the King of England hath no other right then to name or present but to giue or conferre is more then to name and present you faine Tooker by Collation to vnder stand Instuntion or Consecration Therefore you dissent from Tooker Hainric saith the Collation of Benefices belongeth to the King of England as Primate of the Church of England but this you deny for you bid mee shew out of Scripture or Ancient Father that the Collation of Benefices belongeth to the Primate of the Church Not I but Hainric who affirmed it must shew that It is my part only to shew that English Writers dissent in this point This I haue done let me therefore haue the victory Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere the Iesuit is as a chased timorous Hart which hauing his deadly wound giuen him flyeth out a while straggling from his fellowes but feeling decay of his vitall spirits and lifes bloud runs into the brakes to hide his head and there to perish Becane in his verball but in no sort reall confutation of his
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
his Clearks by lapse of time to weet after 18. Monethes Vacancy 3. The King onely or they only vnto whom that is granted by the King presents his Clearkes to his free Chappell 's exempted by him from Episcopall Visitation by his Regall Donation onely without any Institution or Induction of Bishop or Arch-deacon giuing his Clearks reall and lawfull possession of such Donatiues All these three particulars are vulgarly knowen and ingenuously confessed by Dr. Tooker which if hee would vouchsafe this Iesuit an answere would expreslie appeare in his after-writings as the like hath beene done in Mr. Burhill his after-writings But all these three instances of Regall Supremacy aboue all his Subiects Cleargie or Lay this vnlearned Iesuite silently passeth ouer Only as the dogge turneth to his vomit so hee in his Examen returneth to his loathsome froath and scumme of idle repetition of the selfe same things matter sentences words and syllables which in his Iarre he had ser forth in print and which said froath by the very blast of my English Concord was vtterly dissolued and scattered long before this his Examen peeped out ⧠Becans Iarre IX Question Whether the King can create and depose Bishoppes or no 1. MAister Salclebridge saith that bee can For thus he writeth pag. 121. Christiani Principes in suis Regnis cum laude propria authoritate Episcopos crearunt deposuerunt Christian Princes have in their Kingdomes by their owne proper authority created and deposed Bishops and that with praise c. And then againe pag. 144. Rex Angliae Archidiacono Richmundiae Episcopalem concessit Iurisdictionem The King of England granted Episcopall Iurisdiction to the Archdeacon of Richmond c. And yet further pag. 155. Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate deiure atquecum laude omnium Ordinum Episcopos elegerunt ac proinde deponere potuerunt The Kings of England of their owne supreme authority by right and with praise of all manner Estates have elected Bishops and therefore they might depose them also c. And then lastly Constat Christianos Principes cum laude Episcopos elegisse deposuisse etiam Romanos It is manifest that Christian Princes haue elected and deposed Bishops yea Popes also and that with their praise c. 2. Now M. Tooker hee denies in the place bifore cited that the King can create or depose Bishoppes For there hee assiâ—ning 〈◊〉 things necessary for the ordaining or creating of a Bishop to wit Consecration of the person and a Bishopricke addeth that the King can performe neither of these two For neithere 〈◊〉 be confer any benefice and much lesse a Bishopricke or Archbishopricke neither hath hee any power to consecrate persons In so much that in another place he confesseth that it is so farre off from King Iames to haue power to create or depose Bishops that he would rather acknowledge himselfe for one of their schollers and Disciples For thus he writeth pag. 311. Serenissimus ac pientissimus Rex noster Iacobus non habet quicquam antiquius honorificentius quà m vt cum Valentiniano filium se Ecclesiae profiteatur cum Theodorico Italiae Rege se alumnum Ecclesiae ciscipulum Archiepiscoporum fuorum Episcoporum libenter recognoscat Our most Gratious and most pious King Iames doth esteeme or accompt nothing more noble and more honorable then with Valentinian the Emperour to professe himselfe a son of the Church and with Theoâ—â—oricus King of Italy most willingly to acknowledge himselfe a foster-childe of the Church and a disciple of his Archbishops and Bishops c. 3. This Iarre now as you see is of great moment For if the King cannot create or ordaine Bishops as M. Tooker saith hee cannot then it followeth euidently that Thomas Cranmer who was made Archbishop of Canterbury by the King Henry the 8. was no true but a false Bishop no pastour but a robber one that entred not into the sheep fold by the doore but climbed up some other way Whereof againe ensue three other markeable points First that all other Bishops who were afterward either created by Cranmer or by the King were lake vnto Cranmer himselfe Secondly whatsoeuer was done of them by Episcopall authority or Iuresdiction was of no validity or force Thirdly that they so ordaixed are bound to restitution of all reue newes and prosies which they haue reaped by their Bishopricks What counsell now is there to be taken in this point Let your Academicks I pray you consider English Concord Concord Pag. 58 THat Christian Princes haue with commendation created and deposed Bishops yea Bishops of Rome not only Hainric but also our most drad Soueraigne Lord Iames the most learned King vpon the face of the earth hath manifested in his monitory Preface out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories in these very words Page 28. Inperatores arque Reges c. All these Emperours and Kings which liued religiously and Christianly were so farre from thinking the Pope to haue any power ouer them that they themselues haue created Popes and when they grew irregular reformed them and somtimes also deposed them And Page 291. Sed et per aetates complurimas c. But for many Ages together the most assured and inuiolable right of creating the Romane Bishops remained with the Emperors Wherin my principall witnesse shall be the Bishop of Rome who decreed in a Councel a Sigeb An. 734 Wathr de Epis Inuessat Mart Polon An. 780. of 153. Bishop and Abbats that right and power of choosing the Pope and ordaining the Sea Apostolike should remain to the Emperour Charles the great and moreouer definitiuely ordained that all Archbishops and Bishops throughout all Prouinces should take their inuestiture from him Niem de Pnuil et Jur. Dist 63 ca. Adrian that no Bishop should be consecrated vnlesse he were first commended and inuested by the King And whosoeuer shall offend against this decree hew rapped him vp in the bands of Anathema Mat Paris in H. Act. 1100. sdem An. 1112 et An. 1119 Page 34. King Henry the first of that name after the conquest gaue the Bishopricke of Winchester vnto William Gifford and presently inuested him into all the possessions appertaining to that Sea against the decrees of the late Councell The same King Henry gaue the Archbishopricke of Canterbury to Raphe Bishop of London and inuested him by a Ring and a Staffe Plat. vit Pela 2. et Gregory Besides not only Plaina but other Popish Writers do witnesse that the Emperours consent for many Ages was to be obtained for the choise of the Bishoppe of Rome which thing Bellarmine wich all his skill Declericis could not handsomely auoid Moreouer also the Romane Bishops were enioyned to pay vnto the Emperours Exchequer a certaine summe of current money for the obtaining of their confirmation which custome endured for the space of seauen hundred yeares An. 680. in vita Agatho Anastas An. 678 Dist 63. 1. Agatho after
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
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.
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
may haue the materiall sword indirectly and yet haue no power by himselfe to vse the same so may a King haue supreame Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall indirectlie and yet not haue power by himselfe to execute the functions of Iurisdiction Ecelesiasticall and so not to excommunicate True it is No man can giue that vnto another which himselfe hath not to giue yet the King may giue authoritie to another to doe that which pertaines not to himselfe to doe as formerly was shewed This is a decided case amongst the Canonists Decis 2. Tit. de Praebend Quia licet Abbatissae aut Monialibus cur a committi non possit quoad exercitium actuale tamenius potest ipsis competere vtexercitium faciant per virum illius potestatis capacem Vide notatum per Innocent de Praeb c Lateran et per gloss in ca. Cum et plantare Though vvomen be vncapable of the cure of soules as touching the actuall exercising thereof themselues yet Abbasses and Monials may haue right and power to exercise the same by a man capable of that power But it is not amiss to obserue some conclusions from the Iesuits Positions heere First that the Popes supreme power Ecclesiasticall is dependant vpon another that is vpon Peter For he asserteth out of Bernard That not Christ but Peter gaue vnto the Pope the cure of the vvhole Church Secondly that the Pope as Peters successor neither hath nor can giue any temporall possessions For so he makes Bernard concluding thus Peter had no temporall possessions himselfe therefore he could give no temporall possessions to his successor the Pope Thirdly That a man may giue that to another which hee hath not himselfe For the Pope as Peters successor giues temporall Kingdoms Empires and yet the Pope as Peters successor hath no temporall posselsions much lesse Kingdoms and least of all Empires Out of these conclusions growe these two Quaeres following 1. Whether the Pope in giuing Kingdoms distributing the vastest parts of the earth the Indians East West viz. among the Kings of Spaine and Portugall and in translating Empires from one Nation to another because heerein hee succeedeth not Peter succeed not the God of this world who said vnto our Sauiour Christ Math. 4. All these Kingdoms vvith the glory thereof I vvill giue vnto thee 2 How the Popes Kingdom in Italy is Peters Patrimony if no temporall possessions belong to Peter BECAN Exam. Pag. 198. MY third Argument was this Hee that is subiect to another in Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of exteriour Court hath not supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of exteriour Court But the King is subiect to another that is the Bishop vvho by Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of exteriour Court may excommunicate him and throwe him out of the Church Therfore he hath not supreme power Ecclesiasticall of exteriour Court Your answere vvas That so the Pope is not Primat of the Church for hee is subiect to the Priest to whom bee confesseth and vvho may binde and loose his sinnes The Primacy doth not consist in Iurisdiction of the interiour but exteriour Court The power of absoluing from sinnes or the inward Iurisdiction is giuen by Christ immediatly to all Priests equally by force of Order vvhich Iurisdiction is not greater in the Pope then in any other Priest The Pope may be subiect to the Priest in Iurisdiction interiour Richard you erre greatly not distinguishing between these Iurisdictions of the internall and externall Court Dr. HARRIS Reply IT seemeth the wits of this Iesuit are much wasted for he knowes not the way wherein or the place whereto hee intendeth to goe Amongst vs Writers who all deny the King hath power to excommunicate hee said there was a great Iarre because vvee also held the King to be supreame Ecclesiasticall Gouernour in his dominions By which Medium viz. The Kings supremacie supposed to be true the Iesuit endeuoured to inferre necessarily that therefore the King might excommunicate But in this his third Syllogisme the Iesuit goeth about to ouerthrowe the supposed truth of the said Medium namely to proue that the King is not supreme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall And what is this to the matter in hand viz. to proue a Iarre VVhich answere is more sufficient then his fondnesse deserueth Yet because hee imagineth this Syllogisme to be invincible I will answere directly vnto it shiuer it all to naught I deny both the Maior and Minor Proposition thereof I say The Maior is false shew it thus The Pope is subiect to other Bishops who in exteriour Court that is in Councells haue not onely excommunicated whereof see Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. Nicephor lib. 17. cap. 26. Concil Constantinopol 6. Act. 13. but also anathematized him Yet saith this Iesuit The Pope in Court exteriour is supreame Gouernour ouer all Bishoppes to vvhom hee giueth and from vvhom hee taketh away at his pleasure power to excommunicate Againe The Pope is subiect to a Priest his Confessor vvho hath power to exercise the keyes against the Pope viz. to open vnto him heauen gates and to shut them against him To binde his sinnes and to loose them To throwe him out of that communion of Saints whereof wee read in the Creede To deliuer him to Sathan and therfore to excommunicate him The Iesuits starting hole heere is That the Priest may binde the Popes sinnes in the internall Court but not in the externall As though the Court of Conscience were not the highest Court vnder Heauen As though that Communion which stands onelie of Saints indeede and all those Gods Elect vvere not aboue that Communion which consisteth of holy ones and vnholie of the Elected and Reprobated For as by popish Canons The Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction is aboue the Temporall so the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction internall is aboue the externall If therefore the Priest Confessour bee aboue the Pope vvhose sinnes hee bindeth vvhom hee deliuereth to Sathan vvhom hee excommunicateth from that inward Communion of Saints Elect by vertue of his invvard Iurisdiction vvhy may hee not much more excommunicate him from the Communion of the righteous and vnrighteous the Elect and Reprobate by externall Iurisdiction vvhich is farre inferiour to the other But because the Iesuit heere taxeth mee for not distinguishing betweene Iurisdiction internall and externall between the binding of sinnes in Court exteriour and interiour I answere him as Tertullian did to another Heretick Ostendat Hermogenes scriptum aut vae illi Let Becan shevv vvhere this distinction is vvritten or vvoebe vnto him If he cannot then let him heare what the Church of England in her Apologie the second part chap. 7. Diuis 5. hath orthodoxally and iudiciously determined heerein viz. Seeing one manner of vvord is giuen to all and one onely key belongeth vnto all we say there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerning opening and shutting So that if the Priest by this one key shutte out the Pope that is binde his sinnes then he excommunicateth the Pope or if with that selfe-same
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
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
Niniuch serued by compelling the vvhole Citie to pacifie the Lord. Euen as King Darius serued by breaking the Idol in pecces Euen as King Nabuchodonosor serued by making a godly and laudable lawe that vvhosoeuer blasphemed the God of Sydrach hee should be destroyed and his house razed In this therefore Kings serue the Lord in that they are Kings vvhen they doe those things for his seruice which they cannot doe but as they are Kings If therefore the Iesuit had seriously knowen how to distinguish these things hee might haue acknowledged that Maister Burhill and Maister Thomson agreed with the reuerend Bishop in this point Especially when Maister Thomson in pag. 78. writeth thus expresly and distinctly Omnes principes etiam pagani c. All Kings yea very Pagan Kings objectiuely haue supreme power ouer all the persons of their subiects both in sacred and ciuill things especially to attemper their measure and permit their exercise vvhich thing is witnessed by the Chronicles of all Nations Although the Pagans vsed that their power against the Lord yet vvas it a fault of the men abusing their power giuen them of God to a good end and not any fault of the power at all But yet by a farre more speciall regard did this power in Ecclesiasticall matters of old belong to the good Kings of Israell and now also to Christian Princes For they as bceing of the lewish Synagogue and these as beeing of the Church haue a greater and more speciall right in all causes of the Church then if they were meerely and onely Kings Wherefore in one respect it was said to Cyrus Pastor incusestu Thou art my Shepheard and in another respect to Dauid Tu pasces populum meum Israel Thou shalt feed my people Israel Which thing Iremember our reuerend Bishop hath admonished in another place And speaking to Becan himselfe pag. 94. hee concludeth with these words Haec facilia sunt intellectu miror te tantum Theologum hic haesisse These things saith hee are easie to be vnderstood and I cannot but vvonder that Becane vvho is magnified by the Papists for so great a Diuine should faile in a point of such facilitie Heere you may perceiue Readers that there is a constant English concord and no Iarre among vs at all wherein these two things offer themselues to bee considered First the Logick and secondly the plainnesse or rather ignorance of this Iesuit or at the least a Iesuiticall iarre or the Primacy of Kings established by the Iesuits themselues 1. Thus he reasoneth out of Maister Thomsons and Maister Burhills opinion All Kings yea popish and pagan haue a primacy in their Kingdoms Ergo saith the Iesuit it must needs follow that all persons liuing in those Kingdoms are bound to doe all things though neuer so vvicked which are by them commaunded Is this the Diuinitie of the Iesuits Math. 23. 2. Our Sauiour speaketh thus to his Disciples The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire all things therefore vvhich they commaund you to doe that obserue and doe Acts 4.18 There the same Pharisees out of the same chaire forbid the Apostles that they speake and preach any more in the Name of Iesus Therefore may not the Iesuit as Logically conclude that the Apostles are bound to obey them and then no more teaching in the Name of Iesus But Peter and Iohn answered them other wise Whether it be more iust vvee obey GOD or man iudge yee And after this manner writeth Isidore in the Canon law Si is qui praeest 11. q. 3. out of Basil St is qui praeest prohibet vobis quod a Domino est proeceptum c. If hee that sitteth chiefe forbid you that vvhich is commaunded of the Lord or on the contrary commaund that vvhich is forbidden of the Lord let him bee accursed of all them that loue God and reckoned a false vvitnesse and sacrilegious person The Romane Catholiques of Venice of Sorbona many other Noble-menan France acknowledge the Popes supremacy in the church but if the Pope should commaund them to become his subiects in temporall things etiam in ordine ad spiritualia in behalfe of spirituall causes or if hee should authorise the Alcoran and commaund them to follow it would they thinke you obey his vvill Then must they doe against their conscience If they doe not obey him then what shall become of the Popes Primacie I will beate you with the scourge of your owne tongue Perhaps they vvill aunswere They vvill obey vvhen they thinke good Shall therefore the papislicall Catholiques in France and in Venice take vp this saying Heere O Pope wee thinke good to obey your Holinesse commaund in this point and not in that and then farewell the Popes supremacy Thus much of the Logicke of Becane Now for his plainenesse or plaine ignorance these are the words of the Bishoppe of Ely in Tortura Torti pag. 39. Dominia non fundantur in fide sic infidelitate non euertuntur Quin rex quinis cum de Ethnice Christianus fit non perdit ius terrenum sed acquirit nouum Gouernments and principalities are not founded vpon belieuing and therefore are not ouerthrowne by infidelitie But vvhen any King is made a Christian of a Pagan hee loseth not the earthly right he had before but acquireth a new right Thus farre our vvorthy Bishoppe Now saith the Iefait in these words The Chaplaine teacheth that Pagan Kings haue no Primacie in the Church but they receiue it by their conuersion to Christianitie But I say that these are not the words of the Bishop of Ely onely but before him of Cardinall Bellarmine De Roman Pont Lib 5. cap. 2. et 3. Dominium non fundatur in gratia aut fide Christus non abstulit regna ijs quorum erant c. Lordshippe and principalitie is not grounded on grace or belieuing Christ tooke not away Kingdoms frons them to vvhom they belonged for hee came not to destroy things vvell established but to perfect them Therefore vvhen a King is made a Christian which vvas a Pagan hee loseth not his earthly Kingdome which hee had obtayned by right but acquireth nouum ius a nevv right Which nevv right if Becane may be belieued as an Interpreter or Concluder or Iudge is the Primacie in the Church And so we haue him crying guiltie confessing the question let vs sound the victory For if there be no iarre heere betwixt the Iesuits about this Primacie then haue wee plainly confirmed and euicted them that Christian Princes haue a Primacie in the Church For so Bellarmine expresly and dogmatically affirmeth That Ethnick Kings becomming Christians acquire a nevv right Which new right by confession of Becane is the Primacy in the Church Therefore Christian Kings haue a Primacie in the Church But vvhat is the Primacie of Pagan Kings as Pagans I leaue it to the Papists themselues to consider BECAN Exam. Pag. 212 I Doe not take away the Supposition out of mine ovvne opinion
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
amplexi idem sibi aut non multo secus asseruerunt c. The Oath of Primacy vvas first brought in vnder K. Henry the 8. vnder whom Sir Thomas More and the Bishop of Rochester vvere beheaded and that partly because they refused that Oath From him all my Predecessors dow neward as many as haue imbraced this Religion did retaine the same Oath or not much different vnto themselnes c. Novv the later Oath vvas inuented by King Iames himselfe The second poynt 6. The Question then is Whether all the Kings subiects in England are bound in conscience to tabe both these Oathes as often as the King shall exact the same Or vvhether they should suffâ—rimprisonments torments and death it selfe rather then sweare Concerning the former point the Catholiques doubt nothing for that they haue certainly and firmly determined rather to lese their lines together with the glorious Martyrs Sir Thomas More and the Bishop of Rochester then to admit the Kings Primacy and abiure the Popes Now coucerning the later Oath there hath been some doubt made these yeares past For that some Catholicks who perceiâ—ed not the force scope of that Oath did a little stagger at the beginning vvhether they might with a safe coÌ„science sâ—earâ— thereto or no. Which doubt of theirs notwithstanding did not last long but vvas soone taken away by Pope Paul the fist and Cardinall Bellarmine For the Pope forthwith directed two Apostolicall Breues to the Catholiques of England and the said Card vvrote a letter to Ma. Blackwell then Archpriest of this affaire Both Pope and Cardinall dec deny that the said Oath may be taken with a safe conscience and their reason is this Because no man with a safe conscience can deny the Catholicke faith But hee now who should take this Oath proposed by the King should deny the Catholicke faith though not generally yet in part so farre foorth as belongeth to some one article there of Ergo no man vvith a safe conscience can take this Oath 7. This reason beeing very sound all good Catholicks admit but our Adversaries doe not I in fauour and consolation of the Catholicks haue determined to adioyne heere vnto two other reasons especially against the Oath of Supremacy which by the Aduersaries cannot be reiected The first is this No man is bound in conscience to sweare that which is either apparantlie false or at leastwise doubt full But that the King is Primate supreme head of the Church and for such to be obeyed not onely in temporall but also in Ecclesiasticall matters is either apparantly false or at leastwise doubt full Ergo no man is bound in Conscience to sweare the same The Maior is cuident of it selfe for that it is not lawfull to affirme any thing which is either false er doubtfull and much lesse to sweare the same The Minor is prooned thus For that it is iudged apparantly false aswell amongst the Caluinists as amongst the Catholicks that the King is Primate supreme head of the Church But now amongst the Caluinists of England who adhere vnto the King the same is called into doubt For that some of theÌ„ affirme others deny these points following 1. That the King is Primate of the Church 2. That he is supreme head of the Church 3. That he hath Ecclesiasticall Primasy oner the Church 4. That hee hath power and Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall 5. That the King by his owne proper Autheritie may assemble Councelis or Synods and sit as chiefe Head or President therein 6. That hee can confer benefices or Ecclesiasticall liuings 7. That he can creats and depose Bishops 8. That hee is ludge in Controucrsies of faith c. So as truly if these and the like points be doubtfull and vncertaine amongst those who adhere vnto and fanour the King seeing that some deny them some assirme them it followeth necessarily that the Kings vvhole Primacy is an vncertaine thing What rashnes then impudencie is it to goe about to binde Catholicks in their Consciences to sweare that which they themselues doe affirme some of them to be false some others to be doubt full 8. I vvill explicate more distinctly that which I haue said The Oath of the Kings Primacy doth containe so many parts as there be or are thought to be Offices and functions of the Kings Primacy The Offices then either are or are thought to bee dinerse as we haue seen before towit to assemble Synods to exact and decree Ecclesiasticall lawes to confer benefices to create Bishops to determine controuer sies of faith and the like Therefore diuerse are the parts of the Oath of the Kings Supremacie Of these parts then let vs take one of them by it selfe to wit this I A. B. doe sweare in my conscience that I will be faithfull obedientvnto the King as often or whensoeuer he shall by his owne proper authority create Bishops whom he will againe depose from theis office or dignity whom hee will c. If this part onely of the Kings Offices shoulâ— be exacted of all his Maiesties subiects in England what do you thinke would be done Would all trow you yea they vvho most adhere now vnto the King sweare this Let them swear that would M. Tooker I am sure if hee be a constant man would not For that he denyeth the creation and deposition of Bishops to belong any way vnto the King And if so be that heâ— who otherwise acknowledgeth the Kings Primacie at least in words would not sweare there unto how then should Catholicks be compelled to doe the same who doe in no wise acknow ledge it And what I haue said concerning this point the same may be also said of therest 9. My other reason is this King Iames doth often protest that he claimeth no more right or Inrisdiction oner the Church then did the Kings in the olà Tistament in ancient times and therfore that this his Primacy must be coutained within the same lymits termes that theirs was in the old Testament But the Kings in the old Testament could not compell their subiects to sweare such an Oath as this I A. B. doe openly testifie and in my conscience declare that Ieroboam is the onely supreme Gonernour of this Kingdome of Israel as well in spirituall as temporall matters And that no forrayner hath any iurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority in this Kingdom c. Ergo neither King Iames can inforce his subiects to take such a like Oath The Maior is manifest out of his Maiesties owne words in his Apologie The Minor I thus explicate After the death of King Salomon his kingdome God so disposing was diuided into two parts vvhereof one contained ten Tribes the other two So as by this meanes they became two distinct kingdoms afterwards and therein raigned two distinct Kings one whereof had no depeÌ„dance of the other in temporall gonernment One was called King of Israel the other King of Iuda and both of them had
successors in their kingdoms The first Kings that ruled after the dinision of the kingdome made were Ieroboam King of Israel Roboam King of Iuda In either Kingdom were Priests and Leuits But the high or Chiefe Priest could not resid-in both kingdoms but onely in one and that ordinarily in Iuda yet not withstanding hee was Head of all the Prusts and Leuites that remained in both Kindoms Neither could Ieroboam lawfully say vnto his Priests and Leuites You shall not obey the High Priest that resideth in the Kingdom of Iuda but you shall obey me onely for you are exempted from his iurisdiction and power c. And though he shold haue so said yet no doubt but he had offended If now King Ieroboam could not exempt the Priests and Leuites of his ovvnâ— Kingdome from the Iurisdiction and Power of a sorraine High Priest by vvhat right then doth now King Iames of England doe the same especially seeing hee anerroth that hee claimeth no more right or inrisdiction vnto himselfe oner the Church then the Kings of the old Testament did The Conclusion 1. ALL then that hath beene hither to said may be reduced into three heads The first is that the Kings Primacie in the Church is a nevv thing and first brought in by King Henty the eight nor hitherto hath beene beard of or vsurped in any other place then onely in the Kingdome of England The second is that there be so manie Iarres and disagrements of the English Ministry among them selues concerning this Primacy that it is not manifest nor certaine what the said Primacy is nor what sorce and authority the same hath The third that the Oath of this Primacy can neither be exacted by the King nor may the subtects take the same 2. Heerehence three other questions which might bee made concerning the Subiects will easily be solued There be 3. sorts of Subiects in England The sirst as some call them are Henricians vvho both acknowledge and sweare vnto this Kingly Supremacy The second sort are Puritans orpure Calumists who indeed doe not acknowledge the said Supremacy but yet doe sweare thervnto The third are Catholicks which neither acknowledge it nor will sweare it 3. The first question then is What may bee said of these Henricians vvhich both acknowledge and swear to the Kings Supremacy I aunswer that they doe vnwisely and inconsideratly The reason is Because it is folly and rashâ—es as before I haue said to sweare a thing that is doubt full vncertaine But the Primacy of the King is a thing altogether doubtfull and vncertaine amongst the Henricians as is manifest by their iarres and dissentions which hither to we haue shexed Ergo to sweare to such a Supremacy is both folly and rashnes 4. The second question is What may be said of the Puritans or pure Caluinists who doe not indeed acknowledge the Kings Primacy and yet if they be commaunded doe sweare thereto I answer that they are periured persons and Politicians The reason is Because they belieâ—c one thing and sweare another They beliene with Caluin that neither Kings nor secular Princes haue any Primacy in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters but onely in temporall yet neuerthelesse they sweare Allegiance vnto the King together with the foresaid Henricians as to the Primate and supreme Head of the Church and this they doe to make an externall and politicall peace vvhich is more esteemed by them then their faith and Religion and therefore they are rather to be called Politicks then Christians Of whom his Maiestie gaue a most vvorthy testimonie in his Preface Monitory to wit That hee had found more truth and honesâ—ie in the high-land and bordering theenes then in that sort of people 5. The third question is what may bee said of Catholicks vvho neither acknowledge the Kings Primacy nor swcar thereto I answere that they be inst vpright men vvho walke before God in truth veritie They be sincere who professe with their month that vvhich they thinke in their bart They are wise indeed who with good Eleazarus had rather die then consent to any vnlaw full thing no not so much as in outward shew They be like vnto the Apostles vvho endeauour to obey God rather then men They be like vnto the Martyrs of the Primitine Church vvho freely professe themselues before the persecutors to be such as indeed they are 6. But you vvill say they be miserable For if they refuse the Oath they are forced to vndergoe impresonments torments punishments Truely they are not therefore miserable but most happy For so dâ—d our Sauiour teach vs in the Gospell Math. 5. 10. Blessed are they who suffer persecution for â—ustice for theirs is the kingdome of heanen But then you will say It is a hard thing to suffer How is that hard which is done with â—oy and delight Heare what is said of the Apostles Act. 5. 41. And they went from the sight of the Councell reioycing because they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the Name of Iesus Heare what the Apostle saith of himselfe 2. Cor. 4. Superabundo gaudio in omâ—i tribulatione nostra I exceedingly reioyce in all our tribulations 7. And from vvhence commeth this ioy Truly froÌ„ a twofold gift of the holy Ghost to wit Hope and Charity Hope of future glory that maketh vs ioâ— full and full of comfort in all adnersities Rom. 8. 18. The sufferings of these times are not condigne to the foture glory that shall bee renealed in vs. And againe Rom. 12. 12. Reioycing in hope and patient in tribulation And Heb. 10. 34. The spoyle of your owne goods you tooke with ioy knowing that you haue a better and a permanent substance Do not ther fore leese your confidence which hath a great reward For patience is necessary for you that dooing the will of God you may receiue the promise c. 8. Nor is the force of Charitie lesse Rom. 8. 35. VVho then shall separate vs from the Charitie of Christ Tribulation or distresse or famine or nakednes or danger or persecution or the sword c. But in all these things we onercome because of him that hath loâ—ed vs. For I am sure that neither death nor life nor Angells nor Principalities nor Powers neither things present nor things to come neither might nor height nor depth nor other creature shall be able to separate vs from the Charitie of God which is in Christ Iesus our Lord c. 9. Heereto belong the examples of Christ of other Saints vvhich haue great force and efficacy to stirre vp and streng then the harts of Catholicks to suffer patiently in this life prisons fetters torments yea death it selfe 1. Pet. 2. 20. If dooing well you sustaine patiently this is thanke before God For vnto this are you called because Christ also suffered for vs leaning you an example that you may follow his steppes who did not sin neither was guile found in his mouth who when he was reâ—â—led did
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