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
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.
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
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
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
Imperatoribus Regibus simul consentientibus hodie indici debet Prouinciale à Metropolitano cum suis Suffraganein Dioecesanum ab Episcopo cum Curatis Rectoribus Clericia Dioeceseos c. By whō is it more fit that Councells should be assembled then by those in whose power hath alwaies authority beene to call them together For wheras commonly there be three sorts of Councells Generall Prouinciall and of a particular Diocesse the Generall Councell you vvill haue to be celebrated onely by commandement of the Pope but yet not so neither now adayes vnlesse Emperours and Kings doe agree therevnto also A Prouinciall Councell is to bee assembled by the Metropolitan and his Suffragans that of the Diocesse by the Bishoppe thereof together vvith the Curats Rectors and Clerks of the same Bishopricke c. Out of vvhich testimonie vves may gather that the King of England cannot assemble a Councell of kis ovvne authoritie Not a Generall because that belongeth to the common consent of Kings and Emperours Not a Prouinciall because that pertaineth to the Metropolitan Not of the Diccesse because that belongeth to the Bishopot thereof What then I pray you is left vnto the King 4. Another testimonie heereof is out of the same Ma. Tooker pag. 41. in these vvords Abundè liquetex Concilijs ipsis historia Ecclesiastica Prouincialia Concilia Nationalia ab Imperatoribus ac Regibus fuisse congregata It is aboundantly manifest out of the Councells themselues and the Ecclesiasticall Histories that Prouinciall and Nationall Councells haue beene assembled by Emperours and Kings c. This now is plainely repugnant to his former testimony For there hee affirmeth that Prouinciall Councells are tobe assembled by the Metropolitans thereof heere bee saith that they must be assembled by Kings and Emperours There is distinguished onelie a threefold Councell to weet Generall Prouinciall and that of the Diocesse heere now is added a fourth to weet Nationall 5. His third testimony is set downs pag. 42. vvhere he proposeth this question Quoigitur iure tantam sibi porestatem arrogat Pontifex solus Num diuino By what nighe then I pray you doth the Popechallenge vnto himselfe alone so great power Doth hee doe it by diuine right c. And a little after hee addeth Erat Apostolorum omnium non vnius tantummodo indicere Concilium statuere cum verborum solennitate Visumest Spiritui sancto Nobis c. It belonged to all the Apostles not to one alone to assemble a Councell and vvith solemnitie of vvords to ordaine It seemes good vnto the Holy Ghost and vs c. As if hee vvould say That as by diuine right not S. Peter alone but all the Apostles together with equall power did assemble the first Councell at Ierusalem and therein decreed that law about eating of bloud and strangled meates so in like manner by diuine right not the Pope alone but all Bishops with equall power must assemble Councells and decree Ecclesiasticall lawes Surely if it be so then without doubt it follovves that the power to call or assemble Councells doth not belong by the law of God to secular Kings and Princes but to the Apostles and their successors c. 6. His fourth testimony is pag. 63. vvhere hee saith Mixtum autem ius resultans ex vtroque iure Regio Episcopali est Legum sanctio Synodorum indictio praesidendi in ijs praerogatiua controuersiatum decisio aliorumque actuum qui his finitimi sunt exercitium quae ferè ab origine Primatus Regij descendunt communicantur Sacerdotibus c. The decreeing or enacting of lawes the assembling of Synodes and Prerogatiue of sitting therein as chiefe or head as also the exercise of all other offices in this kind is a certaine mixt Right proceeding from both Kingly and Episcopall power vvhich things doe in a manner come downe or descend from the origen of the Kings Primacy and are communicated or imparted vnto Priests c. This now againe as you see is contrary to that vvhich hee said next before For there bee vvill needes haue the assembly of Synodes or Coūcells to belong by diuine right to the Apostles beer for sooth hee vvill haue the same chiefely to belong to Kings and from them to be deriued vnto Bishops These things doe not agree one with another English Concord HItherto the contention hath been Grammaticall about words and names 1. Whether that supreme gouernment of the King in the Church of England which all our Writers doe professe ought to bee called Primatus or Suprematus Primacy or Supremacy 2. Whether he that holdeth that supreme gouernment in the Church of that his Primacy may be called Primate of the Church or Head of the Church or the onely Supreme Gouernour of the Church 3. Whether that Supreme gouernment or Iurisdiction which is in all Ecclesiasticall matters and aboue all Ecclesiasticall persons ought to be called the Supreme gouernment of the Church or the Supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall These foolish and vnlearned questions 2. Tim. 2.23 Saint Paul forbiddeth vnworthy of Diuines but as it should seeme not of a Iesuit Let Becane tell me ingenuously whether these six offices only appertaine to the Papall Primacy Or whether there be not sixtie times six which may be called into question Let him tell me whether these offices doe properly pertaine to the Primacy of Peter and so to the Bishop of Rome Let him shew mee where it is written or that Peter had any Primacy at all or that this his Primacy is contained or defined within the bounds and limits of these duties or that euer Peter did exercise such offices as Primats of the Church That is to say let him manifest out of the Scriptures what Councell Peter summoned as Primate of the Church what Ecclesiasticall lawes he made what benefices hee collated what Bishops he created or deposed of what controuersies hee was supreme iudge These things if the Iesuite cannot shew he is a pratler and no disputer for all yea the meanest of Bishops in the kingdome doe excommunicate are therefore all those Bishops Primates and Supreme gouernours in the vniuersall Church throughout the whole kingdome our question is of one only Supreme gouernour of the whole Church in the kingdom Make exception but of Excommunication alone and Hainricus by many expresse authentike writings hath demonstrated that Christian Princes haue with singuler commendation 1. Called Councells 2. Made Ecclesiasticall lawes 3. Conferred benefices although this seemeth too grosse and greasie whereof to make a part of Primacy 4. Created and deposed Bishops 5. Taken vp and ended controuersies But so granted that no mortall man can be iudge of all controuersies especially of faith That Christian Princes of their owne authoritie and with commendation haue summoned Councells both Hainric and Dr. Tooker do expresly write in plain words Neither is Dr. Tooker in this point either against him self or against Hainric When that first councell was assembled
peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take the same oath The like interpretation of the oath of Supremacy holdeth now vnder our K. Iames was of force vnder King Edward 6. and King Henry 8 whereby it appeareth that to imprison or execute any here for not taking the oath of Supremacy is all one as to imprison execute Traytors for not acknowledging their Kings Soueraigntie and for acknowledging the Popes Soueraignetie ouer their King in his prerogatiues Royall Crownes Kingdoms and life it selfe BECAN Exam. Page 154 YOu aske whether those 6. offices viz. to call Councels make Ecclesiasticall lawes confer Benefices create depose Bishops excommunicate the stubborne iudge controuersies Ecclesiasticall did properly belong to Peters Primacy or which of whose offices hoe exercised as Primate But this is not to the matter The Question is here whether your Writers agree that your king as supreme Gouernor may do those offices I say they Iarre therein Do you help them Touching the power total Councels D. Tooker iarres with himselfe with Hainric For Tooker saith that the calling of Councels doth primarily belong to Kings and from them is deriued to Bishops And yet he saith That the Apostles called Councels by Diuine right Therefore not from Kings right Therfore by Diuine right the Apostles successors that is Bishops and not Kings haue power to call Councels And this is against Hainric and Tooker himselfe Dr. HARRIS Reply OVR gratious King Iames in his booke of Apology c. vindicated and proued his rightfull Supreme Power or Gouernment in all Causes and ouer all Persons Ecclesiasticall within his Dominions Vpon that this Iesuite Becane inferred That then our King had power to call Councells To make Ecclesiasticall lawes To create and depose Bishops To conferre benefices To iudge Ecclesiasticall controuersies otherwise that he neither was nor could be Primate or Head of the Church because all those were offices properly belonging to the primacy Hainric in his Becano-Baculus denied that his consequent as Dr. Harris in his English Concord here doth because their chiefe Primate and Head Pope Peter did neuer as Primate challenge to himselfe or execute any of those offices and for that neither in Scripture nor any Ancient Father is found any of those offices properlie to belong to Peter as Primate or Head of the Church The Iesuits forces being too weake to grapple with Hainric therein Hainric tooke vp Becane his owne description And thence irrefragably concluded our King to bee Primate and Head that is Supreme Gouernour of this Church Which is all one as if he had taken from Becane his owne cudgell and beaten him soundly black and blew therewith as became Becano-Baculus to do Yet Christian Reader consider what iust cause Hainric had and I haue here to vrge the Iesuite to shew especially in this particular what generall Councell cell Peter did call as Primate or what Scripture or Ancient Father did attribute to Peter as Primate any power to call generall Councells All the Iesuites in the world with all the learning and reading they haue can not shew it Whence necessarily by Popish rule it will follow that Peter was not Supreme Primate of the whole Church and consequently that the Pope is not Supreme Primate of the said Church On the other side our Writers haue out of the Scriptures and Ecclesiastical Histories demonstrated that the most religious both Kings vnder the Law and Emperours vnder the Gospell haue called general Councels for which they are generally greatly and worthily commended The Iesuite knowing this to be most true and not able to answere it runnes into his starting hole and saith that it is not to the matter when inceed it sticks in the very bowels of the matter and hangs so fixedly in the Popes liuer as no Iesuiticall Dictamne can draw it forth In this one point of Regall Supremacy the Iesuite can not produce any two of our Writers who doe not fully agree As for Hainric and Dr. Tooker they both write vniformally that it belongeth to orthodoxall Kings and Emperors when any such are to call Councells Here therefore the Iesuite being at a non-plus and brought to his shifts faineth a Iarre betweene Dr. Tooker and himselfe Well then belike when Bellarmine in his writings differeth from himselfe that is at least an hundred times those discords must be stiled Popish Iarres but how doth Becane proue that Dr. Tooker is in this point against himselfe Forsooth because he faith that the Apostles viz. when there was no Christian Emperour by diuine right called a Councell Then the argument runneth thus All the Apostles ioyntly in time of Persecution lawfullie called one Councell onely of some few persons within one Citie Therfore in time of Peace not Christian Emperours but onely and all Bishops in the Christian vvorld ioyntly must call all generall Councells throughout the vvhole Christian vvorld What cable strong enough and long enough can the Iesuit get from all the Iesuiticall crue so to tye these together that the consequence may hold for good For heere is a manifold Non sequitur 1. From one particular act of Apostles to a generall rule of all Bishops 2. From times of Persecution to times of Peace 3. From times when there were no Christian Emperours to call Councells vnto times when there were some to call and indeed did call all euery one of the most renowned generall and orthodoxal Councells to weet the first six of them Becane dare not say that the 4. first generall Councells which Pope Gregory the great esteemed as the 4. Euangelists were vnlawfully or against diuine right indicted or called yet were they all called by Emperours and not by Popes viz. The first Nicen Councell by Constantine the great The first Councell of Constantinople by Theodosius the first The first Coūcell of Ephesus by the Emperor Theodosius the second The first Councell of Chalcedon by the Emperour Martian Vnto which Councells the Emperours by their Letters called as well the Popes of Rome as other Patriarchs If Pope Leo the first had knowne any such diuine right of calling generall Councells to be in him and not in the Emperour hee would neeuer have stooped so basely as suppliant vpon his knees to entreat the Emperour and the Empresse by himselfe and by others to call a generall Coūcell for what else had this beene but treacherously to request the Emperour to bereaue him of his Diuine right as Becane heere calls it and by usurped power to be practised by the call of generall Councells to extinguish that Diuine right Popish Primacy That is to extinguish their Catholick faith For now the Papall Supremacie is the very capitall and maine point of their Catholick faith To shut vp this chapter question Becane sitting vpon his Cathedrall Tripos should heere determine these two Questions following First whether Bishops onely or Archbishops onelie or onely Patriarches for these may not bee confounded as one and the same be the Apostles successors
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
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
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
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
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