Councell of Ariminum which stood for Arius against the God-head of Christ there were eight hundred Bishops Which made Augustine contra Maximinum lib. 3. cap. 14. write thus Noc ego Nicenam Synodum tibi nec tu mihi Ariminensem c. Neither may I by way of preiudice obiect the Councell of Nice to thee nor you to me the Councell of Ariminum out of the authorities of Scripture let matter with matter cause with cause and reason encounter vvith reason The spirit of truth had so forsaken and the lying spirit of heresic had so possessed in a manner all the Bishoppes in the Christian world that as Hierom against the Luciferans saith Ingemuit totus orbis et Arianum se esse miratus est The whole Christian vvorld groaned and maruailed that it vvas become Arian or holding with that Arch-heretike Arian If any Councells surely the former and generall with their Canons were of Diuine inspiration But saith Augustine against the Donatists lib. 2. ca. 3. Ipsa plenaria Concilia saepe priora a posterioribus emendantur The former and generall Councells are often times corrected by later and prouinciall If the Acts and lawes of Popes be of Diuine inspiration why doe later Popes dissannul the former Popes Decrees For so writeth Platina de Stephano et Romano Acta priorum Pontificum sequentes Pontifices aut infringunt aut omnino tollunt The later Popes vtterlierepeale their predecessours Decrees For further answere to the Iesuite here first I say that the aforesaid immediate Diuine inspiration was personall and proper to the Apostles and not transitiue or deriuatiue from the Apostles to Bishops as in my English Concord by foure seuerall testimonies out of Augustine the most learned Bishop that euer wrote I proued directly and expressely whereunto this empty prattling Iesuite answereth not one word To stop his mouth euer hereafter touching this point I will adde this fift out of his hundred eleuenth Epistle ad Fortunatianum Nequequorumnuis disputationes quantumu is Catholicorum et landatorum hominum velut Scriptur as Canonicas habere debemus c. We ought not to receiue the disputations of any be they neuer so Catholike or praise-worthy as we doe the Canonicall scriptures so that it should not be lawfull for vs sauing the reuerence to them due to reproue or reiect somwhat in their writings if vve sinde it dissonant from truth Secondly I say that those words of our Saniour Ioh. 14. v. 16. The Spirit of truth shall remaine with you for euer are meant as well of Pastors and Teachers as of Bishops for Christ when he ascended gaue not onely Apostles Prophets Euangelists and Bishops but also Pastors and Doctours for the worke of the ministerie Ephes 4. v. 11. c1 14 and the edifisation of his body that his Church should not be carried about with enery winde of doctrine and deceits of men So that Presbyter preaching Pastours and Doctors as well as preaching Bishops stand in need of the Spirit to guide them into the heauenly truth That in Math. 28.20 I am with you to the end of the world is meant of the Church and euery member of the Church For so else-where saith our Sauiour Where two or three are gathered in my name there am I in the midst among them And so saith the Lord by Esaie Chap. 59 v. 21 My spirit that is vpon thee and my words which I haue put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of the seed of thy seed from henceforth euen for euer 2. Epist 2. v. 27. And so saith Iohn That anointing teacheth you of all things and it is true and is not lying and as it taught you ye shall abide in him Which made Panormitan De Elect et Elect. potest ca. Significasti write boldly thus Plus credendum vni priuato fideli quam toti Concilio et Papae si meliorem habeat authoritatem vel rationem There is more credit to be giuen to one Priuate lay man then to the whole Councell and to the Pope if he bring better authority and more reason Concerning that law of King Henry 8. about validitie of mariages not forbidden in the Leuiticall law the Iesuit may be abashed to misspend the time with such fooleries considering that Becane partly hath it but by relation of Sanders a lying Writer malitious aduersary to this State but especially because he confesseth the said law to be abrogated Belike Iesuitical dispute is transcendent Entium et non entium Of things which are and are not But hath not the Pope greater cause to be ashamed by whose Decree as by a law of Medes and Persians which chaungeth not it was lawfull for King Henry the 8. to marrie his owne Brother Arthurs wife Queene Maries mother that after Arthur was solemnly married vnto her and had knowne her carnally contrary to the a Leuit. 18 v. 16. et 20 v. 21 Law and the Gospell b Matth. 14 v. 4 and contrary to the iudgement of all the famous Vniuersities in Christendome who condemned the same as an incestuous marriage Did King Henry the 8. euer decree that marriages incestuous should holde as lawful Further before this Iesuite be hence dismissed hee should answere directlie breuiter et rotunde whether he and his Pope be not ashamed of that Canon 2. q. 7. Nos si incompet where the Pope with his breeches let downe to his heeles stands readie to receiue that correction which according to his demerites the Emperour should be pleased to impose vpon him Lastly I am in great feare least the Pope vnderstanding that Becane matcheth enery Bishop with his holines as being alike inspired with the spirit of Truth so that they can erre no more then the Pope can and consequently should make Canonicall lawes be Supreme Iudges of all controuersies as the Pope is will vtterly renounce Becane and abandon him as being one of a bastard and degenerate brood BECAN Exam. Pag. 167 You say it is fond to thinke that the lawes of Bishops haue as great force authoritie as the Apostles lawes bad Because the Apostles lawes are set downe in holy writte So was the Ordinance of Assuerus Heare me speake as the thing is Humane lawes such as the Apostles were receiue not greater force to binde because they are written in this or that book but because the law maker vseth greater power will haue it binde more According to these two rules one of Vipian Eth. lib. 10 cap. 9 Quod Principi placuit legis habet vigorem That which pleaseth the Prince hath vigour of law The other of Aristotle It mattereth not whether lawes be written or not written Dr. HARRIS Reply MY reason to prooue the Apostles lawes and Canons to be of greater force and authority to binde the conscience was not simply because they are found written in the Scripture as the Ordinance of Assuerus is
HARRIS Reply WHata malicious scoffing Sycophant is this who being perswaded in his coÌ„science that I euen in this straine ascribe too much to our Primate the King saith I detract too much from the King heerein First this rude and ignorant Iesuit must be taught that according to the lawes and customs of this kingdome though the King be heere immediatly next vnder Christ the supreme Gouernor Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill yet it pertaineth not to his Maiestie alone without consent of the Orders of the kingdom in Parlament to make any law euen ciuill thereby absolutely to binde all the subiects of his Kingdom which all Statutes made by the vniform consent of the said Orders in the Parliament with the approbation of the Kings Maiestie doe manifest Touching the supposed Iarre betweene Hainric mee Hainric writing generally of the power of all Christian Kings and Emperours to make Ecclesiasticall lawes asserted that the said Kings and Emperours laudably by their owne power made such lawes which I also auerre And I heere writing of the power of his Maiestie therein as it is vsed and limited by the lawes and customes of this Land assert that his Maiestie by consent of the Orders or States of the Kingdome in Parliament may make Ecclesiasticall lawes by force whereof such and such should be excommunicated which Hainric will averre to be very true So this seeming Iarte in the view of the goggle eyed Iesuit is in very deed a sound concord Further I reply that Queene Elizabeth of blessed memory by her own authority set forth Iniunctions as Ecclesiasticall lawes And our gracious King Iames by his owne authority confirmed the last Ecclesiasticall law-Canons made in the Conuocation house Lastly I say That by the lawes of this kingdom his Maiestie by his owne authoritie and letters Patents may authorize any persons beeing naturall borne subiects to his Highnes whom he shall thinke meet to exercise vse occupy and execute vnder him all manner of Iurisdictions priuiledges preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdictions within his Reasmes to visit reforme redresse order correct and amend all such errors heresies schismes abuses offences contempts and enormities whatsoeuer which by any manner sprituall or Ecclesiasticall power authority or Iurisdiction can or may lawfully be reformed ordered redressed corrected restrained or amended to the pleasure of Almightie GOD for increase of vertue c. Will the vile Iesuite call this vilifying of our Ecclesiasticall Gouernour Questionlesse it grindeth his hart that our Church the true visible Church of Christ Iesus ascribeth so much vnto his Maiestie BECAN Exam. Pag. THat which you adde is a new Paradox viz. That Ecclesiastic all lawes made by the King haue force to excommunicate and yet that the King cannot excommunicate It is the most certaine rule of Lawyers that vvhoseuer hath power to make apenall law hath also power to punish This common rule holds in matters Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall vvhy exempt you your King from the common rule confine him into such straights Dr. HARRIS Reply TO an vnlearned Iesuit plaine vulgar things seeme Paradoxes Date the Iesuit deny that Clergie men haue power to make lawes for putting to death of Hereticks and against such such erroncous obstinate persons as hereticks and dare he affirme that Clergy men may giue the sentence of death or shed the bloud of any heretick sith by their triuiall and vulgarly known popish Canon they may not sit vpon the bench when the sentence of death is pronouÌ„ced by the ciuil Iudges That most certain rule of his Lawyers is most plainly false viz. That whosoeuer hath power to make a penall law hath power to punish vnlesse the meaning be of power to punish by commaunding such Officers to punish vnto whom the inflicting of such punishment appertaineth In which sense our King also may be said to excommunicate or absolue that is to coÌ„mand Bishops to excoÌ„municate or absolue men according to the lawes prouided in that behalfe Yea further the Kings writ of prohibition absolueth that subiect of his which is wrongfully excommunicated by Ecclesiasticall censure And this is not to straighten but to enlarge much more then the Iesuit would haue it his Maiesties supreme power heerein Who knowes not that Christian Kings and Empeperours haue made Ecclesiasticall lawes by vertue whereof such and such Priests should be suspended depriued degraded and others chosen and instituted into their Benefices and yet it pertained not to those Emperours to suspend depriue degrade choose or institute the same in their own persons And that this rule holdeth not in ciuil matters was shewed before BECAN Exam. Pag. 196 MY second Argument was this The King giues vnto another power to excommunicate therefore himselfe hath power to excommunicate or if he haue not that power he cannot giue it to another You deny the Argument alleaging Bernard to shew the invalidity thereof But Bernard rather hindereth then helpeth your cause for he reasâ—noth as I doe thus Peter had no temporall possessions therefore he could not giue them to another Hee had care of the vvhole Church therefore he gaue it to his successor Bernard saith nothing of this consequent but of a double power of the Pope the one temporall indirectly all offices of which power Bernard denieth that the Pope by himselfe way execute the other his power spirituall directly vvhich hee granteth may be executed by the Pope himselfe This Position viz. No man can giue to another that which hee hath not himselfe Bernard and I assert to which you answere nothing Dr. HARRIS Reply THe Iesuit is heere ensnarled by the testimony of Bernard as one fallen into a quagmire who the more hee struggleth to get out plungeth himselfe deeper into it Bernard asserteth the right and power of both swords equally to be in the Pope for that of Directly and Indirectly is not Bernards distinction but the Iesuits vaine and new found fiction and therefore be may giue power to others ad nutum ipsius to execute the Materiall sword yet by himselfe cannot vse or draw out the same What is this else but that one may giue power to another to doe that which hee cannot doe himselfe The Iesuit is intolerably ignorant if he know not that by their Canon law the Pope is made Lord of the whole vvorld in temporalibus by vvhom Kings raigne and of vvhom they hold their Scepters In popish books printed and allowed They who hold the materiall sword to be in the Pope not directlie but indirectlie are censured for Politilian Hereticks these times-seruers But what if I should vse the same distinction heere and say that supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall were it the King indirectly to weet in or dine ad custodiam vtriusque tabulae to pronide and procure that all Ecclesiasticks performe their duties according to the prescript of Gods law Were not this Iesuits Argument according to his owne dispute heere dasht in peeces For as the Pope
thing there neither yet in Platina vvho is vvell knowne to have written the life of Boniface accurately Peraduenture you found some such thing in the English fables but they out of that Iland carry no credit Dr. HARRIS Reply YEs I finde it in the Paralipom Vrspergensis page 365. thus Papa Bonifacius 8. ipso apparatu in Iubilaeo qui tunc Romae agebatur se solenniter ostentauit Primo quidem solenni die in Pontificalibus apparens populo Apostolicam ill is benedictionem impartitur postero die Imperiali habitu infula Caesarea insignis gladium ante se nudatum iussit deferri et sedens alta voce testatur Ecce duo gladij hic Boniface 8. in time of Iubile shewed himselfe the first day in his Pontificall robes the second day in his Robes Imperiall to witte the imperiall Crowne on his head c. and a naked sword borne before him vvith proclamation thus Beholde here two swords And there I reade also this exclamation Vides O Petre successorem tuum Et tu Salutifer Christe cerne tuum vicarium vide quò ascendit superbia Serui Seruorum tuorum Oh Peter thou seest vvhat manner of successour thou hast And oh Saniour Christ beholde thy vicar and see vvhither the pride of the Seruant of thy sernants hath ascended Further in Auentine vt ex concilio Vangionum I finde this written viz. The Pope vsurpeth both the Empire and high Priesthood as Decius and other vvorshippers of false Gods vvere vvont to doe The Iesuite mistooke my purpose in that marginall note Vita Bonif. 8. in Serto which was not to shew where it is written viz. that Boniface went in processioÌ„ Emperor-like apparelled but that the Christian Reader might be directed to a writing authenticall where he might see Pope Boniface 8. pictured out in far worse more odious colours namely at the end of the sixt book of the Decretals thus In the yeare 1294 Boniface got the Popedome but not without the crime of ambition and of other ill feats He pretermitted nothing vvhich either fraudor ambition could compasse Hee vvas so proud that hee contemned all men There are some vvho vvrite that hee suborned and priuily sent certaine men vvho in the night by a voyce sent downe as it vvere from heauen entering the Chamber of Pope Caelestine a simple man should perswade him to relinquish his Popedome if hee vvould be saued This is notorious that vvhen Prochetes the Archbishop of Geneua vvas before him on his knees vpon Ashwednesday vvhereas according to the manner the Pope should throwe ashes vpon his head say Remember man thou art but ashes and to ashes thou shalt returne Boniface cast ashes into Prochetes eyes and said Remember man thou art a Gibelline and vvith the Gibellines to ashes thou shalt returne The same Boniface sent his letter to Philip King of France first to exhort him and if that vvould not serue to threaten him to undertake the Hiernsalem expedition Philip commits that Legate to prison vvhereupon the Pope sends the Archdeacon of Marbon to command the King in the Popes name to dismisse his Legat and if he refused to tell him in the hearing of all men That because of his contumacy and violating the law of nations The kingdo â— of France was deuolued to the Church of Rome But Sarra sent by King Philip tooke the Pope prisoner and so brought him to Rome vvhere vvithin 35. dayes after for very griese of minde he perished In this sort dyed Boniface vvho indeauoured to cast terrour into the hearts of Emperours Kings Princes Nations and People rather then to sowe religion among them who also endeanoured to giue kingdomes and to take them awaie to put in and to put out vvhom hee vvould Learne all Princes both Secular and Ecclesiasticall learne by his example to rule the Cleary and people not proudly and contumcliously as hee did Behold here gentle Reader First how great the ignorance of this Iesuite is who knew not that the Treatise of the life of Boniface set down in the sixt of the Decretals was made by Platina Secondly how vnluckily the ignorance of this Iesuite here is which hath ministred vnto mee so iust an occasion to publish afresh vnto the world what a most shamelesse and odious Tyrant Pope their most renowmed Pope Boniface the eight was English Concord Becane in his Iarre and fourth Question demaunded Whether by reason of his Supremacy the King may be called the Supreame head of the Church And I in my Concord and 4. Question demanded Whether the Popeby reason of his Primacy may be called the supreme head of the Church considering that Gregory the great writeth thus What vvilt thou answere to Christ the head of the vniuersall Church Lib. 4. Epist. 38 at the tryall of the last iudgement vvho endeuorest by the name of Vniuersall Bishop much more by the name of the Supreme head of the vninersall Church to bring into subiection all his members vnto thee Vnto this though it touch the Pope necre the Iesuite in his Examen answereth not one word English Concord BEcane in his fift Question demanded Whether the kings Primacy consist in any power or iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall And I im my fift Question demanded Whether the Primacy of the Pope consist in any power or iurisdiction Temporall That is in a dominion temporall and coactiue considering that Christ saide thus The Kings of the nations beare rule ouer them but ye shall not be so and that Bernard writeth thus peremptorily Luke 22.25 Consider ad Eugâ—n lib. 2. It is plaine that dominion is forbidden the Apostles Therefore presume thou to vsurp to thy selfe either as a Soneraigne the Apostleshippe or as an Apostle the Soueraigntie Thou art plainely forbidden one of them If thou vvilt haue both together thou stalt lose both Otherwise thinke not thy selfe to be excepted out of the number of those of vvhome the Lord complaineth saying They ruled but not by mee And yet Martin Polon Boniface the 8 giueth the King of France to vnderstand that hee is chiefe Lord in matters Spirituall and Temporall through the vvhole vvorld and commands the saide King to acknowledge that he holds the Kingdome of France of him because it is hereticall to thinke and holde the conâ—rarie In like manner saide Pope Adrian The Emperour raigneth by vs Auentin 1.6 vvhence hath hee the Empire but from vs Beholde it is in our power to giue it to vvhom vvee vvill And according to their Canon law Kings and Emperours by the command and vvill of Christ receiue their power from the Pope as * Extran Joan. 22 Cum inter nonnullos in Gloss from their Lord God Hereunto the Iesuite makes answere as followeth BECAN Exam. Page 94. In the 7. Page you cite ex cap. Cum inter nonnullos Extrau Page 22. these vvordes Kings and Emperours c. I knowe not vvhether more falsly or ridiculouslie Indeede falsely because in that Chapter there is no such
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
* Deu. 13 10 Leurt 24.23 matter of religion and by Regall authoritie to punish the transgressors of them To call Councells of Synods by his authoritie f 1. Câ—ton 13.3 for reducing of the people to Gods worship h 2. Chr. 19.4 and purifying of the Templepolluted Touching persons To administer iustice vnto all of all sorts i 2. Chr. 29.5 who should be To speake as the Scripture doth The head of the Tribe of Leuie k 1. Sa. 15.17 no lesse then of the other Tribes The king no lesse of Clerkes then of Laikes To depriue the high Priest if he do deserue of his high Priesthood l 1. Reg. 2.27 In matters of Religion To breake down the high places To abolish strange worship m Exo. 32.10 to breake in peeces the brasen Serpent which Moses erected n 2. Reg. 18.4 In matters of Order To ordaine such things as pertaine to the comlinesse o 2. Chro. 24 12 Socrat. lib. 2 ca. 17 of GODs house and to suppressefriuolous and vnprofitable questions These by Dinine right are the rights of Regall Primacie To weet wherby the king may 1. Be called p Tort. Tort. p. 339 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Supreme head of the Church 2. Call Councells and presede in them 3. Make Lawes Ecclesiasticall 4. Constitute and depose the High Priests 5. Binde his subiects by oath to keep the lawes by him made To conclude hereby may the Aduersaries see that Regall Primacy is founded in the Scriptures and propagated from the first religious kings vnder the olde to the first religious Emperours and kings and so to our Soueraigne Lord King Iames vnder the new Testament and in that long distance of time nothing impaired or diminished What then neuer to decay I doubt it not What 's the reason Heare it out of Gods booke not out of triuials Iesuiticall q If it be of God Acts 5.39 you can not dissolue it Goe now Icsuite and play with your sooleries and very childish questions In the meane time let mee aske and answere in your owne words The Primacy Iesuiticall hath it lesse power in France for in Venice it hath none at all than it hath had there or else where So it appeareth Is it then in so short a time abated and diminished in France So men say Is it therefore neere his end I doe not doubt it What 's the reason Heare it from the Iesuites triuiall That which suddainly came for we know wel the swaddling clouts of Loyola the Iesuits Syre is soone gone BECAN Exam. Page 112 THE Primacie or Supremacie vnder King Henry King Edward and Qucene Elizabeth was Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall but vnder King Iames it is not so and what it will be is vncertaine Here is a Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply IN my Concord booke I shewed in generall and in particular the Regall Primacy vnder K. Iames to be the selfe same which was vnder K. Henry K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth adding that it so would continue as certainely it will during this orthodoxall Religion among vs which I hope shall continue so long as the sunne and moone endure though the Iesuiticall and all other Papisticall bowels burst thereat I shewod it in general for that the Supremacie then was and now no lesse is The kings Supreme power in and ouer all causes and all persons within his kingdom Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall and therefore in the selfe same lawes of this kingdome then and now in force called The kings supreme Power Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall In particular I demonstrated the same by setting downe the most materiall points out of the expresse words of Scirpture wherein the kings saide Supreme power Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall consisteth in which saide both generall and particular points as there they are set downe all English Protestant Writers with full consent agree without any Iarre or difference whatsoeuer If this shallow Iesuite had had any sound matter in him in this his ExameÌ„ he would haue answered to the matter especially to those materiall points founded vpon the Scriptures and haue proued that either those particular points belong not to the office of Regall Supremacy or else that wee Protestant Writers iarre in some one or moe of those said materiall points gathered by the R. Bishop of Ely and there set downe as not warranted by holy writte to belong to kings but this Iesuite passeth them ouer with Noli metangere and onely sets before the Reader his twise sodden Ioathsome Colewoorts viz. That Mr. Burhill writeth thus We doe not giue vnto the king Primacy Spirituall or Ecclesîasticall but rather Primacy in and ouer causes and persons Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall whereas Mr. Burhil in his Appendix to the confutation of Eudaemon Page 283. cuts this Iarre all in sunder writing thus In the 21. chapter of my booke against Becane I purposely and plainly taught how the said Regall Primacy may be called both waies to weet Primacy Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall or Primacy in matters and ouer persons spirituall or Ecclesiasticall and that they who call it spiritual Primacy meane nothing else then wee vvho in regard of the cauillations and calumnies of the Aduersarie by Spirituall power vnder standing nothing else but power Sacerdotall or Episcopall call it Primacy in ouer causes and persons spirituall or Ecclesiasticall And that in the very thing there is no dissent at all among vs. What could be spoken more fully and plainly to put to silence the lying and iarring lips of this Iesuit BECAN Exam. Pag. 114. IT is your priuat fansy none but you will say that the King hath or that himselfe challengeth power to appoint or depose summos Pontifices the highest or chiefest Bishoppes vvho should rule ouer all the Christian vvorld and vvho dwell out of his kingdome as hee hath in his Preface monitorie protested Dr. HARRIS Reply BElike the Iesuit hath not read this Question in Saint Augustine and the answere vnto it Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Presbyter hocest Summus Sacerdos What is a Bishop but the chiefe Priest And accordingly Lactantius lib. 4. ca. 30. calleth euery Bishoprick Supremum Sacerdotium the highest Priesthood If the Iesuit could vnderstand Greeke I would produce Ignatius ad Trallianos putting the question and making answere vnto it as Augustine did thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What other thing is a Bishoppe but one hauing principality and power ouer all men Belike the Iesuit will be bold with Ruffin and tax him for calling Athanasius who was no Pope Pontificem maximum the highest Bishop But then comes in Hierom speaking of euery Bishoppe and dogmatizing thus Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet The safety of the Church dependeth vpon the dignity of the highest Priest With vs in England are not only Bishops but Archbishops also euen Primats that is Patriarks ouer whoÌ„ the King in his Supremacy is Supreme Gouernour whom as he may nominat and appoint so vpon
qui EcclesiasticaÌ„ temporaleÌ„ iurisdictioneÌ„ habet quideÌ„ Supremá The king is a person mixt to wit that hath both Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall and Temporall that in the highest degree c. And yet more p. 144. Perleges Ecclesiasticas in hoc Regno approbatas vnus Sacerdos duo beneficia habere non potest nec Bastardus Sactis initiari Verùm Rex Ecclesiastica potestate iurisdictione quam habet in vtroque dispensate potest By the Ecclesiasticall Lawes approned in this Kingdom of England one Priest may not have two Benefices nor a Bastard be made a Priest But the King by the Iurisdiction And Power Ecclesiasticall which hee hath can dispense in both c. 3. M. Tompson and M. Burhill doe absolutely deny it M. Thomson pag. 80. of his booke writing thus Primatus Ecclesiae non est definiendus per iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam sed per gubernationem supremam The Primacie of the Church is not to be defined by Iurisdiction Ecclesisstical but by supreme GouernmeÌ„t c. And againe pag 95. Diximus Regem gubernare quidem Ecclesiastica sed non Ecclesiasticè Wee haue said before that the King indeed doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically And why I pray you Because for sooth be hath not Iurisdiction Ecclesiatically but onoly Temporall And heerounto agreath Must Buchill pag. 234. granting this negatine proposition Rex saith he nullam habet Iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam nec in foro interiori nec inexteriori The King hath no Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall neither in the interiour nor exteriour Court c. 4. Now my Lord of Ely hee distinguisheth in this case as may be seene in M. Tookers Booke pag. 305. in these vvords Habet Rex omnem iurisdictionem spiritualem in foro exterioti exceptis quibusdam Censuris The King hath all inrisaction spirituall in the extoriour Court except is certain Consures c. So as now to this question to weet vvhether the King as hee is Primate and Head of the Church haue any Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall or spirituall in the exteriour Court we must anâ—were thus First with M. Tooker and M. Salclebridge That he hath most ample most full and supreme Iurisdiction Secondly with my Lord of Ely That he hath indeed some but notall And lastly with M. Burhill and M. Thomson That hee hath none no not any one iote at all English Concord Pag. 38 THese are the very expresse words of the law of England which is now in force Star 1. Elzab That Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction vvhich was exercised heeretofore or lawfully might be exercised by any spiritual or Ecclesiasticall power to visit the Ecclesiasticall state order also to reforme to bring into order and to correct Ecclesiasticall persons all errours heresies schismes c. is for euer vnited and annexed to the imperiall Crowne of this kingdome vvhereby the King of England through his full power by his Letters Patents may assigne authorise such persons being naturall borne subiects as he shall think meet to exercise execute vnder his Highnes all manner of Iurisdictions priuiledges and preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction within his Highnesse Dominions Now all Protestant English Writers in the Oath of Supremacy which they haue takeÌ„ Lorament Primat in Apol. Reg. pag. 56. haue openly testified in their conscience declared that they will with all their power ayde defend all Iurisdictions Priuiledges and prehemiâ—eâ—ces vnited and annexed to the Crowne of this kingdom Wherefore all plainly agree in the thing it self But that which the Iawes of Engl. call Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction define to be the supreme Gouernmet in all Ecclesiasticall things ouer all Ecclesiasticall persons M. Thomson would rather call Supreme Gouernment The R Tortur Tort. p. 151 Bishop touching this matter writeth thus This I vrge that the IurisdictioÌ„ which Abbesses haue with you is ordinary spirituall IurisdictioÌ„ For the Abbat hath ordinary in her administration the Abbess is equalled with the Abbat And what should let it Because they cannot exercise censures excoÌ„municate But excoÌ„munication doth not directly belong to the key of order In 4. SenteÌ„ Dist 18. q. 2. art 2. Aquinas asserteth this Excommunication is no act of the key directly but rather of the externall court And it is a common opinion with you that he that hath not the key of order may excommunicate Those things which are of order and the inner court are denied to women but things belonging to the outward court are coÌ„municated to Layiks of those things there is no reason but that women may be capable As Stepha d'Aluin doth stiffly argue for his Abbesses and therein takes our part the Sorbon approuing his opinion therein Although we ascribe not to our King power of Censure and therein you giue much more to your Abbesses then we to our Prince Ma. Burhill demes the King to haue any Iurisdiction in the outward court to weet Sacerdotall So the King of England hath all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction that is Supreme and Regall wherof onely our controuersie is but no Sacerdotall no none at all and yet without any Iarre whatsoeuer But oh Becane can you without blushing if there be but a graine of pudency in you obstinatly detract froÌ„ most religious Kings all supreme Iurisdiction properly Regall when women of whom St. Paul 1. Tim. 2. v. 12. I permit not a woman to vse authority ouer the man with you are capable Fran. Steph. D' Aluin de Potestat Episc Abbatú Abbatiss ca. 2.3 4.11 c. and partakers of Spirituall Iurisdiction Sacerdotall or Episcopall viz. Of power to excoÌ„municate Clerks to absolue to visit to institute to present to Benefices Prelatures dignities Ecclesiasticall yea of hauing all administration as wel spirituall as temporall but only of those things of order wherof a woman is incapable Lastly al those things which Salobrigiensis doth heer recite touching Kings anointed with sacred oyle c. Mixt persons c. which may dispense against lawes Ecclesiasticall are transcribed out of the expresse words of the common lawes of England which in this kind of argument might haue satisfied to the full BECAN Exam. Pag. 139 THomson saith expresly that The Primacy of the Church is not to be defined by Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but the law of England doth so define it Thomson saith that The King doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically therefore his Iurisdiction is not Ecclesiasticall Burhill detracteth from the King all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in the outward Court that is as you say Sacerdotall but Tooker faith that All iurisdiction of Priests is in the inward Court The Bishop of Ely saith The King hath no Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the outward Court but onely power of Censure And saith againe The King hath not power of censure But Hainric and Tooker say The King hath all supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction The English law saith The King hath all manner
nothing hindred but that they might excommunicate because according to Tho. Aquinas Excommunication is not an act of Order or inward Court but of the outward And I in my English Concord set downe the particulars of that ordinary spitituall Iurisdiction of Abbesses viz. To excommunicate absolue visit institute conferre benefices present to Benefices Prelatures and Dignities Ecclesiasticall and to haue all Administration of the Monesteriall Monialls or Nunnes as well Spirituall as Temporall but onely those things of order vvhereof a vvoman is incapeable ex Tractatu doctissimo out of the most learned Treatise of Father Stephen Dr. Aluin entituled thus A Treatise of the Power of the Abbats and Abbesses printed at Parise 1607. authorized solemnly to be printed and in very singular manner allowed with high commendation by the Diuines of Parise deputed for examination of all bookes to be printed there In my margine notes I directed the Iesuite to the particular chapters of that Treatise where the said Stephen doth not onely assert those particulars but also solidly and indiciously proue the same by the Canon law and best Canonists writing comment vpon that law Notwithstanding this Iesuite as though his nose bled turneth aside from all these so many words so many pressures of him and saith but this It is false Abbesses with vs haue no power to excommunicate Did euer any Iesuite so vnlearned as this Becane is and here shewes himselfe to be vvrite with penne Stephen D'Aluin doth not only say it but from sound premisses conclude it The Iesuit leauing the premisses vnanswered or vntouched denieth the conclusion and sinking vnder the burden of the respondent will rather play the opponents part and so obiecteth these two emptie Canons nothing to the purpose 23. q 5. cap Multerem The former is of priuate women that they should be subiect to their husbands and not vsurpe authoritie ouer other men as to teach them publikely to iudge them to rule or raigne ouer them to weet as the Glosse expounds it in temporalls If this Canon should be vnderstood generally of all women for Abbesses are not there once mentioned then Mathilda Countess of whom the Gloss in L. vlt. cod de Arbit maketh such honorable mention could not command or iudge them who were her subiects as Countess nor Q. Mary so much commended by al Papists might raigne as Queen ouer her English subiects By what right or law then did shee shed innocent bloud of so many Martyrs Archbishops Bishops Priests Laiks of all sorts Sexes and Ages exceeding much till she replenished England from corner to corner as Manasses did Ierusalem Angel in rep quā cod de fidei com et in L. Foeminae F. de reg iur is et in L. cum praetor F. de iudic saith that He saw a certaine Queen named Ioan sitting in the Regall seate and giuing sentence of death against them of Balso The latter Canon saith that Monialls or Nunnes De senten Excoman ca. De Monialibus laying violent hands vpon Clerks should or might be absolued by the Bishop which is true when either the Abbess is not exempted from Iurisdiction Episcopal as many of them are not or when the Pope doth not giue or deriue from himselfe as Head ordinary Spirituall Iurisdiction to the said Abbesses as to many of them hee doth for then it is a ruled case especially amongst the Canonists though peraduenture this seely Iesuit be ignorant therof that they may by vertue of that ordinary Spirituall Iurisdiction excōmunicate absolue institute visite c. those Ecclesiasticall things onely excepted which pertaine to the key of order Indeed the Schoolmen as Thomas Aquinas in 4. dist 19. q. 1. art 1. et 2. q. 3. ad 4. also dist 25. q. 2. art 2. q. 1. ad 2. And Paladanus Durand in 4. dist 19. q. 1. art 1. Syluester verb. Abbatissa and Dominicus Soto in 4. Dist 20. q. 1. art 4. deny to Abbesses Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction or dinary yet they acknowledge the same as delegated vnto them from the Pope But the Canonists proceede further for they hold that the very dignitie of the Prelature and excellencie of the offices of Abbesses dooth giue vnto those Ecclesiasticall women to weet Abbesses Spirituall Iurisdiction not only delegated but euen ordinarie ouer their Monialls or Nunnes and this they gather out of the Canon law De Maior et Obed. cap. Dilecta where Pope Honorius 3. commands obedience to the Abbesse of Brubigen who had suspended Clericos suae Iurisdictioni subiectos ab officio et beneficio The Clarkes vnder her from their office and benefice This is a more plentifull and sound answere vnto these two Canons so fondly objected then the Iesuite deserueth and so we may leaue him here But because this point now in hand doth so neerely touch the Kings Supremacy or his Supreme Iurisdiction Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall to stifle this Iesuite herein once for all and euer hereafter I will proceede to the further declaration and demonstration hereof wherein I will obserue this course following viz. to proue out of the Canon law or Canonists ancient and moderne or both First in generall that all Laicks Males or Females are capeable of Iurisdiction Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall in the outward Court euen to Excommunicate Dist. 32. ca. Praeter hoc verb. Ducibus in Glossa Laicus de mandato superior is potest suspendere clericos et excomunicare quia Excommunicatio est potius Iurisdictionis quam or dinis Ext. de Elect. Transmissam Dist. 63. c. Adrianus etc. In Synodo D. 96. c. Bene quidem et c. Nos ad sidem et causis matrimonialibus 35. q. 5. Ad sedem 2. q. 5. c. Mennam Io. Hoc tamen videtur alienum a laico cum de rebus spiritualibus se non intromittat vt Extra de Indi Decernimus imo vt ibt dicitur prohibetur praelatis vt talia Laicis non committant tamen Dominus Papa qui habet plenitudinem Potestatis posset committere vt Excommunicarent Bar. A laick to weet male or female for some of the Canons here cited by the Glosse concerne the males but others especially the last concerne the females directly as that 2. q. 5. Mennam may suspend and excommunicate clarkes by command or commission from the superior especiallie of the Pope viz. by Spirituall power delegated because excommunication is not of Order but of Iurisdiction in the outward Court Dist. 96. c. bene quidem in the Glosse § Praeter Romanum Papa quamlibet causam Ecclesiasticam committere potest laico The Pope may delegate to a Laick spirituall Iurisdiction of Externall Court whereby to heare and determine any cause Ecclesiasticall More distinctly thus 1. Of Laik males Dist. 96. Bene quidem in gloss verb. Laico Non licuit Laico homini sacer doti anathema dicere vel excommunicare iure suo sed ex delegatione Papae bene A Laik man could not lawfully by his owne right or power excommunicate
Or whether Patriarchs be successors of some of the Apostles and Archbishops of other-some and Bishops successors of the lowest or third rank And whether one kind onely of these successors or all three kinds may call generall Councells Secondly whether all the Bishops in the Christian world as the Apostles successors must ioyntly as all the Apostles did call generall Councells or because that would now proue too-too troublesome how many of them may serue that turne ⧠Becans Iarre VII Question Whether the King can enact Ecclesiasticall lawes or no 1. It is cleere that K. Henry the 8. did as well by himselfe as by his Vicar Generall Cromwell enact Ecclesiasticall Lawes For so saith Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England His diebus vigilantissimus hic Ecclesiae Pastor Henricus quo in posterum sciretur quae cui rite nupta eâ—â—et legem ediderat perpetuam de Nupt. js Comitiorum etiam auctoritate confirmatam qua statuebatur vt si quae personae in Leuitico non prohibitae solo consensu perverba de praesenti matrimonium nulla carnis copula subsecuta contraxerint eae verò ambae postea vel earum altera nuptijs cum altera persona in Leuitico non prohibita contractis carnali copula easdom consummauerint hae posteriores quas firmasset copula non priores illae quas solus consensus statuisset ratae atque legitimae haberentur adco vt cùm olim iuris Gentium fuisset Regula Nuptias non concubitw sed consensus facit iam deinceps Henrici regula effe coeperit Nupttas non consensus sed concubitus facit Ettamen ipse Legis-lator contra suam ipsius regulam vxorem Annam Cliuensem cuius nuptias non solo consensu sed septem etiam mensium concubitu firmauerat eo solùm praetextu reiecit ipsaque viuente aliam superinduxit quòd alteri nescio cui consensum antea praebuisse fingeretur Huius ergo legis tantopere postea puduit ipsos Potestantes vt mortuo Henrico eam ipsi reuocaucrint atque irritam fecerint c. In these daies the most vigilant Pastor of the Church K. Henry that it might be knowne to posterity what woman vvere lawfully maried to another enacted aperpetuall law concerning Marriage authorizing the same by publick Decree of Parliament vvherin it vvas ordained that if any persons not prohibited in the Leuiticall law should contract martage by only consent and by vvords de praesenti no carnaell copulation following the same and that the said persons or either of them should after vvard contract vvith another person not prohibited in the Leuiticall law and consummate the same by carnall copulation that then these later contracts vvhich vvere consummated by carnall copulation not the former that were agreed vpon by onely consent should be accounted for good and lawfull In so much that vvhereas the rule of the law of Nations in old time vvas That consent not carnall copulation did make the marriage lawfull now heere after by the law of K. Henrie it began to be arule That carnall copulation not consent did make mariage lawfull And yet for all this the law-maker himsolfe K. Henry did against his owne proper rule and law reiect Anne of Cleeue his vvife vvhose mariage vvas not onely contracted by consent adone but consummated also by seauen moneths carnall copulation vpon this onely pretence that shee had giues her consent to another before I know not vvhom and vpon this fiction he maried another shee yet remaining aliue And of this law afterward the Protestants themselues vvere so much ashamed that after K. Henries death they recalled and disannulled the same 2. Concerning his Vicar generall Cromwell thus writcth also the said Doctor Sanders in the same booke Septembri meÌ„se authoritatesua Vicaria Canones quosdam Ecclesiasticos quos Iniunctiones vocabat sigillo Vicariatus sui munitos Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus reliquo Clero praescripsit in quibus praeter caetera iubebantur Parochi sub grauissimis poenis vt OrationeÌ„ DominicaÌ„ cum salutatione Angelica Symbolum item fidei decem Decalogi praecepta aliaque huiusmodi Anglicè in posterum in Ecclesijs docerent In the moneth of Septemb. K. Henries Vicar Generall by the authoritie of his Office prescribedcertain Ecclesiastical Canons which he called Iniunctions signed vvith the seale of his Office of Vicar Generall to the Archbishops Bishoppes Abbots and the rest of the Clergie vvher in among other things the Pastors of Churches vvere commaundâ—d vnder most setere punishment hereafter to readin their Churches the Lords prayer the Aue Mary the Creed ten Commandements in English c. 3. Now our English Aduersaries that vvite in these dates of the Kings Supremacy doc not agree in this poynt For that some of them say that the enacting or decreeing of Ecclesiasticall lawes doth by diuine Right belong vnto Bishops others say that it belongeth to Kings and Emperours The first apinion holdeth Marster Tooker pag. 42. of his booke where be saith that the Apostles in the first Councell at Ierusalem did enact this Ecclesiasticall law Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis nihil vltra imponere vobis oneris nisi haec necessaria vt abstineatis vos ab immolatis simulachroruÌ„ sanguine sussocato It hath seemed good vnto the holy Ghost and to vs to lay no further burthen vpon you then these necessary things that you abstaine from the things immolated to Idols and from bloud and that vvhich is strangled c. And this saith hee the Apopostles did by diuineright The other opinion holdeth Maâ—ster Thomson pag. 80. where he affirmeth that Bishops and Councells cannot enact or decree any Ecclesiasticall law which hath the force of lavv vnlesse Kings and Emperours consent therevnto His vvords are these Decreta Conciliorum Patrum Ecclesiasticis Censuris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantùm stetliIent nisi legum vim Caesarea auraipsis afflasser The Decrees of the Councells of the Fathers had been held but onely for ecclesiasticall censures and penalties vnlesse the Emperours fauour had imparted the force of lawes vnto the said Decrees c. 4. Heere now the Iarre is euident For without doubt that ecclesiasticall law vvhich the Apostles decreed had the force of a law for that so mush is gathered out of these vvords Visum est nihil vltra imponere vobis oneris nisi haec necessaria It hath seemed good to lay no further burtheÌ„ vpon you then these necessary things c. But this Ecclesiasticall law had not it force froÌ„ any fauor of the Emperor seeing that neither Tyberius nor Pilate nor Herod nor any other secular Prince which theÌ„ liued did by his fauour authorize the force of the law but that it came from the Apostles themselues For that they by their Apostolicall authoritie and power which they had reciued from Christ did decree and promulgate that lavv And the same power and authoritie haue Bishops now adaies not Kings nor Emperours English Concord
exteriour Court and the second that the King hath not all Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court 6. The third Aâ—gument is That whosoeuer is subiect to another in Ecclesiasticall inrisdiction of the exteriour Court hath not supreme most ample and full lurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the exteriour Court But the King is subiect to some other body in Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court to wit to the Bishop because he may by him be excommunicated by sentence and cast out of the Church as Maister Burhill doth confesse Ergo hee hath not supreme most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the exteriour Court c. Or if your will contrariwise thus Hee that is subiect to no other in Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction cannot by any man be excommunicated by sentence But the King now if he haue supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction is subiect to no other in Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall Ergo he cannot by any other be excommunicated c. I doube not but you marke well that these things doe not agree English Concord Pag. 68 IN good sooth by this precedent chapter I obserue my Aduerlary a bad Disputer by the good leaue of his fellow Iesuits For manifesting hereof let vs first handle the question You enquire whether the King may excommunicate his subiects The worthy Bishop of Ely pag. 151. Doctor Tooker pag. 15. Maister Thomson pag. 83. 84. affirme of all our Writers in these words Omnes fatemur regem excommunicandipotestatem nullam habere Wee all confesse that the King cannot excommunicate I pray tell me in so full a concord is heere any difference Surely no English Iarre except a fained Becanicall Iarre for the Iesuite followeth not the question Whether the King can excommunicate but whether the King may be excommunicated and so proceedeth as you see to discourse of the offices of supremacy that is to say Whether this be not numbred among the residue That a Primate may be excommunicated of his subiects But here like an idle Sophister he fighteth without the lists and first it is worth our labour to marke his admirable skill in Logick wherby he goeth about out of our most vniforme consent to wrest an English discord This is therefore his first reason The King cannot execute all the inferiour actions of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction that is to say He cannot excommunicate therefore he hath no supreame Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction I am ashamed of such childish Iesuiticall fancies Is the Iesuit become ignorant or forgetfull of the question Is not our controuersie about one supreame Gouernour of the Church in all matters Ecclesiastical and aboue all Ecclesiasticall persons Yes wee reason about the office of that one onely supreme Gouernor as supreme Gouernour according to Saint Augustine ad Bonifac Epist 50. Inhoc ergo seruiunt domino reges in quantum sunt reges cum eafaciunt ad seruiendum illi quae non possunt facere nisi reges In this Kings serue the Lord respecting onely their kingly office that is vvhen they doe those things to serue him which they cannot doe except they vvere Kings Now sir if excommunication belong onely to the primate or supreame Gouernour for in our question they are both one then it should follow that all Bishops and euery meane Archdeacon for both these haue power to excommunicate are also supreme Gouernours of the Church and so there must needs bee by this Iesuits Logick as many onely supreme Gouernours as there bee Bishoppes and Archdeacons Is any thing more absurd See you not in what a brake the Iesuit is caught But for the power of excommunication vnderstand thus much The King of himselfe can excommunicate no man yet notwithstanding by the consent of all the estates assembled in the Parliament he can make Ecclesiasticall lawes by force and vertue wherof this or that obstinate subiect ought to be excommunicated And besides it is in the Kings absolute power to commaund any Bishoppe within his dominion to absolue any man whom by appeale hee shall finde to be vniustly excommunicated Secondly the Iesuit reasoneth thus The King giueth to other power to excommunicate therefore he he himselfe may excommunicate The Iesuit might haue learned out of Bernard whò they take for a brother of their owne the vanitie and weakenesse of this argument who though his doctrine heerein be not orthodoxall yet to infringe this consequent doth very accuratly distinguish thus writing to Eugenius Conuerie gladium tuum in vaginam Tuus ergo et ipse two forsitan nuiu etsi non tua manu cuaginandus c. Put vp thy sword into thy sheath saith Christ to Peter Then saith Bernard to the Pope Yea that sword is thine yet not to be drawn by thy hand but at thy direction Both swords are the Churches that is to say the spirituall sword and the materiall sword but the materiall sword is drawn for the Church the spirituall sword by the Church one of them by the hand of a Priest the other by the hand of a Souldier but yet at the pleasure of a Priest and the commaund of the Emperour Thirdly hee argueth on this manner The King is subiect to the Bishop excommunicating the King as vvas Theodosius to Ambrose therefore hee is not the onelie supreme Gouernour in his dominion ouer all persons and causes Ecclesiasticall I aunswere that if this be a strong argument then shall not the Pope be Primate of the Church for the Pope is subiect to a Priest in his act of Confession So writeth Panormitan Papatenetur confiteri Extra de poenit etremiss et in illo actu Sacerdos est maior illo Sacerdos potest illum ligare et absoluere The Pope himselfe is bound to confesse to a Priest and in that action the Priest is greater then the Pope for he hath power tobinde and loose him It also appeareth by a Councellat Constance See the Councels of Coustance and Basil and another at Basil that many Popes haue beene subiect to Bishops and by them conuented iudged excommunicated and deposed from their Papacie according to that of your Canon law Cum again de fide Dist 19. Anastasius in glossa tum Synodus maior est quam Papa When a controuersie is concerning faith then a Councell is aboue the Pope Therefore the Iesuit deceiueth by Elench a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Wee teach that our Kings are not Primats but priuate men in respect of Sacerdotall functions and by that meanes not onelie are â—â—feriour to Bishops but also to euery other Minister According to that vvorthy saying of Valentinian the Emperour Egosemin sonil Plebis EtenÌ„ collocato in Pontisicale solio cui nos quoque maderatores imperij nostracapita submittamusâ—â— also an Emperor Sozome lib. 6. â—â— 7 The doâ—eâ— lib. 4. cap. 5. am like one of the common people Place such a man in the Bishops throne to whom we that are managers of the Empire may submitour necks The Popes excommunications of any the meanest subiects of
intestine Iarres and differences of Romane Writers about the Popes Supremacie and our full agreement in the Kings Supremacie What shall I neede to speake of the iniquity of his Cause For it fights against the Church of Christ in the behalfe of the honour and Soueraignetie of Antichrist after the manner and biasse of Icsuits And in this case what one of the forenamed hath he not iust cause to feare Againe your indifferent equitie wherein with the Venetians and the Parisian Sorbonists you detest the Iesuites who seeke to iustifie their Cause by the imprisonments bonds and deaths of Traitors suffered for their rebellions against their natiue Kings whose hands vnlesse they were the hands of this Becane would it not shake and cause to let fall the penne whose spirits though neuer so lofty would it not depresse infringe and dissipate saue onely of Becane But very impiously and impudently doth he apply to the Gun-powder Traitors that which Saint Paul 1. Cor. 4. wrote of the persecuted Saints viz. You are made a gazing stock to God to Angels and to Men. Let them be so since the Iesuite will haue it so 1. Agazing stock to God who beholding their trecherous and couert conspiracies against their most gracious Soueraigne his Anointed as the Iesuite here confesseth laugheth them to scorne enfeebling their forces for our victory and preparing hell fire for their eternall punishment 2. A spectacle to Angels who wondring there be any so much as stiled with the name of Christians that tremble not to call the royall Supremacies of Kings in the Church ordained by God himselfe grounded vpon Scriptures practised with commendation by the best both Kings of Israell and Emperors Christian Potentissimos Inferorum Principatus The most potent principalities of hell reioyce to beholde such infamous and execrable Traitors committed to the safe custody and torture of spirituall wickednesses Lastly A spectacle to men who being dispersed through the whole world and but hearing of these most inhumane and bloudie Iesuiticall conspiracies more sauage then cruelty it selfe are inflamed for the Lords Anointed to vndergo perpetuall combats with all these pestilent Emissaries of Antichrist Moreouer if you know not with what great varietie inconstancy and vanitie of opinions the popish Writers trauell and with what vniforme consent of all our Writers the Kings Supremacie is maintained listen and read-ouer but cursorily this little Booke which here I present to you and in it you shall finde particularly expressed before your eyes wherein and in what heads they differ among themselues about the Popes Supremacie and how we accord in the Supremacie of our King And heere it much concernes your desire of peace and tranquillitie to obscrue how gallantly this Becane presenteth himselfe to you with his counterfaite and childish wiles to entrappe you wherein he playeth his prizes so skilfully and subtilly to circumuent you that by his onely cunning hopeth to gaine no small praises But seeing he is ready for the combat I will so prouide that he shall not finde me vnprepared not only to meete with his blowes but also to repell them and to turne them backe againe vpon his owne head Of which our conflict I desire you to be Spectators In the meane time I beseech the most mercifull heauenly Father to grant you zeale according to knowledge c. The most desirous of your saluation Richard Harris Becan Exam. By the way of a lie and calumnie you write that I did vse that of the Apostle You are made a gazing stock to God Angels and Men of Traitors I did not vse it of Traitors but of those Catholikes who are with you imprisoned banished spoyled of their goods and fortunes or also put to death You knowe who they are Dr. HARRIS Reply I Knowe the Iesuite heerein belyeth this State most impudently by which none but traiterous or at least seditious obstinate Cacolikes not any one meerly for faith or religion haue been or are imprisoned exiled dispoyled or executed 2. The Iesuit here confesseth that those said traitors were Catholikes and themselues euen the Gun-powder-traitors confessed that their treason was vndertaken for their faith and religion So traiterous and dangerous to Christian States is the Iesuited Popery 3. This Becane in his cōscience thinketh that these words You are made gazing stocks were and are most fitly and truely to bee applyed to Garnett that cunning but arch-traitour viz. when hee was dismembred and his head and quarters fixed on high to be gazed on 4. The present Iesuited Romish faith is impious heresie and Idolatrous blasphemy the religion is grosse superstition and open rebellion against God and the King or rather an open profession of the lawfull killing of Kings Gods Anointed by the meanest vassals of the said Kings authorized by the Pope to kill them As it is plainely set downe by Suarez in his late booke against our King Lib. 6. chap. 4. imprinted by publike authoritie with priuiledge Therefore by all lawes diuine and humane why may not all such Iesuited Cacolikes be most iustly imprisoned dispoyled exiled or executed as guiltie of high treason for this their traiterous and rebellious faith and religion so stiffely maintained by them especially when as by their owne popish doctrine Hereticall obstinate Schismatikes such as indeede all those Cacolikes are may be imprisoned and dispoyled of goods lands and life it self and when as so many thousand deare Saints of the Lord meerely for their orthodoxall faith and pure religion haue beene in their bloudy Inquisition and other popish persecutions most sauagely tortured euen to death Therefore with great impudency doth he charge vs with shedding the bloud of Martyrs for faith and religion from which wee are as free as they therein are guilty 5. No small number of popish Martyrs so canonized and enrowled amongst them were in truth haynous and diabolicall Traitors against the King Queen and State heere and accordingly were here executed therefore indeede these words You are made agazing stock c. the Iesuite applied to Traitors to wit such popish Martyrs 6. Lastly the exceeding clemency of our King towards the now imprisoned seditious and treacherous Cacolikes is such that they fare more deliciously and liue more sportfully I might well haue said riotouslie then millions of his Maiesties good subiects doe who enioy their libertie This is too too well knowne And this forsooth is that hard-hard vsage and hot persecution which hath bred this Iesuiticall exclamation BECANVS Iarre THE Kings Supremacy in the Church of England is a new thing It began vnder King Henry the 8. continued vnder King Edward the 6 and Queene Elizabeth and now vnder King Iames the same is rent and torne in peeces with so many domesticall iarres and diuisions that long it cannot stand So as Christ in the Gospell said full well Omne regnum in se diuisum desolabitur Euery Kingdome diuided in it selfe shall be destroyed But what and how great these discords be I will shew in these
few Questions following I. Whether the King of England haue any Primacy in the Church or no II. Whether the Primacy of the King bee Ecclesiasticall and spirituall III. Whether the King by this Primacy may be called the Primate of the Church IIII. Whether by vertue of the same Primacy the King may be called Supreme Head of the Church V. Whether this Primacy consist in any Power or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall VI. Whether the King by reason of his Primacy can assemble or call together Councels and sit as President therein VII Whether he can make Ecclesiasticall Lawes VIII Whether he can dispose of Ecclesiastical liuings or Benefices IX Whether he can create and depose Bishops X. Whether he can excommunicate the obstinate XI Whether hee can be Iudge and determine of Controuersies XII From whence hath the King this his Primacy XIII Whether he can force his Subiects to take the Oath of Supremacy In these Questions doe our Aduersaries extreamely differ and disagree but especially these M. Doctor Andrewes in his Tortura Torti M. William Tooker Deane of Lichefield in his Combat or single Fight with Martin Bucane M. Richard Tomson in his Reproofe of the Refutation of Tortura Torti M. Robert Burhill in his Defence of Tortura Torti and M. Henry Salclebridge in his Refutation of Becane his Examen Besides these as opposite vnto them I will also cite Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England Genebard in his Chronology Polydor Virgil in his History of England Iacobus Thuanus of Aust in the History of his time Iohn Caluin in his Commentary vpon the Prophet Amos and others English Concord THe Regall Primacy in the Church of England is much more ancient then the Popish Primacy in the Romane Church The Regall Primacy had his beginning from the * Daniel chap. 7. v. 6 Ancient of Dayes vnder the most ancient Patriarchs It flourished magnifically vnder the Orthodoxall Kings Israeliticall and Euangelicall and now in England it flourisheth most of all vnder King Iames soundly sounded vpon the rock and built vpon the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets permanent for euer so that by the fall of raines the comming of flouds and the wine-blasts of any Iesuits whatsoeuer it cannot be so much as moued much lesse remooued and least of all rent and torne in peeces But of the Popish Primacy rightly saide Christ in the Gospell Euery Kingdome diuided in it selfe shall be desolate Now what and how great their Iarres and discords are I am to shew in handling these few Questions following English Concord BEcane in his booke of English discord and in his first Question demanded Whether the King of England haue any Primacy or Supremacy in the Church And I in my book of English Concord demaunded Whether the Pope haue anie Primacy in the Church considering that Saint Cyprian asserteth that Peter did neuer challenge or assume any such thing Epist ad Quintum 71. sect 3 as to say that he held the Primacy and that Chrysostome dogmatically writeth thus Whosoeuer desireth or affecteth the Primacy in earth as all Popes doe shall finde confusion in heauen Homil. 35 in Matth. Whereunto the Iesuite in his late book entituled Examen Concordiae Anglicanae The examination of the English Concord answereth or obiecteth thus BECAN Exam. THat they are not the words of Chrysostome Pag. 92 but of some other author ioyned with him 2. That these words are against our King desiring Supremacie in earth 3. That the Author speaketh promiscuously of both the Primaces Secular and Ecclesiasticall 4. but distinguisheth betweene the desiring and obtaining of the Primacy referring the one to vanitie and the other to the iudgement of God Dr. HARRIS Reply 1 I Doe commiserate the seely ignorance of this Iesuite Becane who knoweth not that these very words aforesaide are not onely canonized but also expresly fathered vpon Chrysostome in the Popes Canon law which the Iesuite dare not affront Dist 40. ca. Multi The wordes of the Canon are these Also Iohn Chrysostome Not euery one is a true Priest which is named a Priest Many Priests and few Priests Many in name but few in work Take heede therefore brethren how you sit vpon the Chayre because the Chayre doth not make the Priest but the Priest the Chayre c. The same Chrysostome Whosoeuer shall desire Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heauen neither shall he be numbred among the seruants of Christ Qui de Primatu tractauerit Who handleth or ambitiously speakes of or challengeth Primacy De Scriptor Ecclesiasticis And according to that Canon the most profound and famously renowmed Canonist euen by Bellarmine in his late booke to witte Henry Cardinall Hostiensis vpon the 15. Chapter of Penitency and Remission Cap. Cui Papa ascribeth these words vnto Chrysostome as to the Author of them thus And so in the Penitentiall Court the Pope is made lesse and his Confessor greater and this Chrysostome insinuateth Dist 40. Multi Wherefore the Iesuite may take from mee thus cleared this falsity vnto himselfe or else hee must returne it ouer To the Authoritie of their Apostaticall Church To their authentike and ordinary glosses and explanations of the Gospell To the decrees of the Romane Bishops To their chiefest Canonists and Diuines for in the writings of all those he may finde sentences written in that Worke called the Imperfect Worke alleaged as out of Chrysostom 2. By the expresse words of the foresaid Canon it is manifest that the words of Chrysostō are by their Canon law referred vnto Priests and Priests onely who sit vpon the Chayre in expresse tearmes often repeated Whereby it appeareth what a seely and vnmannerly Sophister this Iesuite is who thence frameth his Argument against our King drawne thus into form syllogisticall as indeed from thence it can be drawne no otherwise What Priest soeuer desireth Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in Heauen The King of England is a Priest desiring Primacie in earth Therefore he shall finde confusion in heauen Were this Iesuite in our Vniuersitie Schooles he wold be hist out as an absurd Dunse for arguing Our gratious King is no Priest but detesteth their Priests and Priesthood as Antichristian Hee is by the grace of God the high and potent Monarch of Great Britanne France and Ireland and vnder Christ made of God without any ambitious desire of his Primate or Supreme Gouernour ouer all persons and in all causes Ecclesiasticallor Temporall within his Dominions maugre the beard of the Pope and all his Shauelings But if the Iesuite will rightly assume out of the Maior proposition set down in the said Canon law he must take the triple crowne of Primacy from the Popes head and wrap it vp in the dust of Confusion thus What Priest soeuer though it were Peter himselfe doth challenge or ambitiously desire Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heauen But the Popes of Rome haue and now most of all doe challenge
matter Ridiculously because vvhen as in the sixt of the Decretalls are found these vvordes Extrauag Cum inter de verborum significatione you out of meere ignorance and sluggishnesse sette downe these vvords Extrauag Cum inter Page 22. What is Iohn and Page all one with you Truelie children cannot be more foolish in citing then thus Vnlesse you profit better the Doctours of the Canon law vvill neuer admit you to the degree of a Batchelour Dr. HARRIS Reply EXcuse mee Christian Reader vttering the truth of this scornefull Iesuite in more tart manner here and there than otherwise is vsuall with me or fits my disposition If euer there were or be an ignorant slug trifling lie friuolous boyish lie scurrilous a lying forsooth Father Iesuite this Becane is one among such may bear the bell as I wil make it appeare before I dismisse him His boyish scurrilities are two In the former hee asketh whether Iohn and Page be all one with mee A question fitter to be made by a Petite school-boy to his fellow then by a Father Iesuite to an ancient Diuine In the second hee would cut-off all my hope to attaine the degree of Batchelour The Iesuite may knowe that I am a Doctour in Diuinity of 19. yeares standing it may bee as ancient Doctour as himselfe Howsoeuer that I dare boldly auerre this that Becane in comparison of Doctour Harris is in manner but an Abecedary scholler in the varietie of all good literature diuine and humane in all the liberall sciences and in all the learned tongues as he shal find to his shame if therein hee dare grapple with mee I must confesse and say with Saint Paul I vvas a foole to boast my selfe But the scurrilous disgracings of this seelie Iesuite haue enforced mee As his scurrilities so his lies are also two The former That I cited out of the Chapter Cuminter nonnullos Pag. 22. whereas in my paper book it was cited thus in short Extrauag 22. ca. Cum inter nonnullos But the transcriber corrector or compositor put-in Page And is not this a boyish feather for the boyish father-Iesuite to play withall As though such ouersights in printing are not vsuall This Iesuite himselfe Exam. pag. 98. will haue an escape of farre greater moment to passe in the printed books of Tertullian against Praxeas His second vntruth is That I cited it so falsly not of ouersight but of meere ignorance and dulnesse Alas for this feely ignorant and here impudently lying Iesuite vnto whom vpon pawne of all my books I will vndertake and performe it to read Lectures out of the Canon law in the studie whereof I haue spent more weeks yea moneths then this Iesuite hath bestowed houres His extreame ignorance in the Canon law is made Here apparant in these 3 points following First in that he confoundeth the 6. book of the Decretals with the Extrauagants whereas they are distinct parts of the Canon law which law is diuided into these 6. generall parts 1. The Decrees gathered by Gratian. 2. The Decretals compiled by Gregory 9. 3. The Sixt of the Decretals made by Boniface 8. 4. The Clementines by Pope Clement the fist 5. The Extrauagants of Iohn 22. 6. The Extrauagants common made by diuers Romane Bishops after the Sixt of the Decretals The second point of his ignorance is in confounding cap. Cum inter with cap. Cum inter nonnullos viz. as like as an apple is to an oyster The third point who in his ignorance is apparant is in citing thus Extrauag Cum inter Ioan. 22. Deverborum significatione When as the Canon or chapt Cum inter is to be found neither in that Title Deverborum significatione nor in all the Extrauagants of Ioan. 22. Now therfore the Iesuit is to answere mee to those fine questions touching the three points of his verie grosle ignorance in the Canon law heere manifested 1 Whether the Decretalls Extrauagants be all one with him 2 Whether Boniface and Iohn be all one with him 3 Whether 8. and 22. be all one 4 Whether cap. Inter. and cap. Inter nonnullos be all one 5 Whether a chapter of a Title extant and a chapter of the same Title not extant be all one with him And then let the indifferent Readr iudge whether any child could be more foolish in citing than he and how vndeseruedly he obtained his degree of Doctorship The truth is that place viz. Extrauag Ioan. 22. cap. Inter nonnullos in gloss was cited by mee to shew that Kings receiue their power non simply of the Pope but more then so viz. of the Romish Bishop as of Their Lord God the Pope The Iesuit Eudaemon Ioannes writing in defence of the Iesuit-traytor Garnet saith he could not find in any printed booke of Extra Ioan. 22. those words Our Lord God the Pope Yet afterwards finding those verie words he ingenuously confessed the same I knowe not neither doe I much care whether Becane haue like ingenuitie in him but sure I am these verie words are in that Gloss Printed in folio at Paris Auno 1513. Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam conditorem dicti decreti non potuisse statuere proat statuit hareticum censeretur To belieue that our Lord God the Popo c. Is not this pretie heathenish blaspnemie The heathen called their Emperour Our Lord God Domitian The Papists call their Primar Our Lord God the Pope English Concord BEcane in his Iarre and sixt Question demaunded Whether the King by his Primacie may call CouÌ„cells and presede in them And I in my sixt Question demaund Whether the Pope by his Primacie may call Councells and prese de in them I instanced in two generall Councells the one of Constance wherein three Popes Iohn 24. Gregory 12. and Benedict 13. were deposed The other of Basil in which Pope Eugen. 4. was depriued of his Popedom and another chosen in his roome But this the Iesuit silently passeth ouer though it may happely rend the Popes hart-strings in-sunder English Concord Becane in his Iarre and 7 Question demanded Whether the King can make Ecclesiasticall lawes And I in my Concord 7 Question demand Whether the Pope can make lawes Ecclesiasticall disannull lawes Temporall Heerein I produced 4 Ecclesiasticall lawes against the Pope and his Primacy The first Dist 99. ca. Primae That the Bishop of the first Sea or Seat be not called Prince of Priests or high Priest or any such like but onely The Bishoppe of the first Sea neither let the Bishop of Rome himselfe be called Vniuers all Bishop The second Cyprian in Concâ—lio Carthagi Concil CoÌ„stantin 6. cap. 36. Concil Afric ca â—2 That no Bishop should make himselfe Bishop of Bishops or Papa that is Pater Patrum The third That the Bishop of Constantinople should haue equall authority with the Bishop of Rome The fourth That they should not be receiued to the CoÌ„munion of any within Africk who held Appeales lawful to any Iudgements beyond
the Sea Especially to Rome for this Canon was made purposely against Appeales to the Bishop of Rome Concerning the Popes power ouer lawes Secular I produced a currant generall Axiome of theirs viz. The fulnesse of the Popes power surpasseth all positiue lavves And it sufficeth that in the Pope his will stand for reason And therein I did instance by this sentence of Panormitane De Constitut. ca. Ecclesia Sanctae Mariae nu 9. which also agreeth wholly with the Rubrike of that chapter Thus The law of the Prince preiudiciall to the Church or the law of any Inferiors behoueful to the Church doth not extend vnto the Church vnlesse it be expresly approued by the Pope Then I added thus The reasons heereof collected out of the Canon law by Iewell in his Defence of the Apologie are these Part. 4. c. 21. Di. 7. Though the whole vvorld should sentence against the Pope yet the Popâ—s sentence should preuaile because he seemes to haue all lawes 9. q. 3. Neque ab Augusto or rights in the closet of his breast And againe Therefore that which the Pope allowes or disallowes Dist 19. cap. Sâ— Roman in Glossa wee ought to allow or disallow Whosoeuer then doth not obey the statutes of the Romane Church is to bee accounted an heretick Further Dist 40. Si Papa in Gloss That it is a kind of Sacriledge to dispute of that vvhich the Pope doth Morcouer That the Pope hath a coelestiall arbitriment vvhence it followeth Extrâ— de trâ—psâ— Epi. ca. Quinto in Glossa that in those things which bee willeth His will to him for Reason is Neither is there any vvho should say to him Sir or Lord vvhy doe you so Lastly That as the Pope by his owne will onely can create a law Felin de Relcâ—pt so by his owne will onely hee can disperâ—â— vvith the lavv The Iesuit in his Examen answereth nothing vnto the lawes Ecclesiasticall either of the vniuersall Bishop or of the Equality bet weene the Bishop of Canstantinople and the Bishoppe of Rome and yet those said two lawes expell the Pope with his Primacy out of the Church and shut vp the Church doores against him as they of Eden were against Adam to preuent his future re-entrie But because the Iesuite doth make particular answers vnto most of the remainder I will set them downe seuerally and my Reply vnto them as followeth BECAN Exam. YOu cite out of the Councell of African Page 94. cap. 92. these words Ad Transmatina indicia c. Where vpon you gather that it is not lawfull to appeale to the Bishop of Rome But I vnto this day neuer saw any Councell of Aftick cap. 92. vvhich hath any such words And it is manifest by the best Authors that Appcales to the Sea Apesrolicait were alwates laâ— full and vsuall See the Councell of Sardica cap. 3. 4. 7. and Henorius Emperour in his Epistle to Arcadius which is set downe in the first Tome of the Councell among the Episties of Innocent the first Dr. HARRIS Reply WHereas he saith he cannot find that 92. chap. or the words heere specified wee haue the Iesuit confessing himselfe guiltic of his most palpable ignorance in the Canon law Councells Their owne Binnius whose Edition as they will haue it is the last largest and best Edition of the Councells in his first Tome pag. 643. citeth the 92. ca. Concil African sub Coelestino et Bonifac. in these very words Ite placuit vt Presbyteri Diaconi c. in causis quas habuerint si de iudicijs Episcoporum suorum questi fuerint vicini Episcopi cos audiant et inter eos quicquid est finiant adhibiti ab eis ex consensu Episcoporum suoruÌ„ Quod siab eis prouocandum putaucrint non prouocent nisi ad Africana Concilia vel ad Primates prouinciarum suarum Ad transmarina autem quiputauerit appellandum à nullo infra Africam in Communionem suscipiatur If Priests Deacons c. complaine of the iudgement of their Bishops let the next Bishops heare their causes c. If they shall thinke meete to appeale from them let them not appeale but onely to the Councells of Africk or to the Primats of their owne Prouinces But let not him bee receiued of any within Africk to the Communion who thinks hee should appeale to iudgement beyond the Sea These words the Iesuit might haue found in the Epitome of Councells written by their Carranza Yea in their owne Canon law 2. q. 6. cap. Placuit vt Presbyteri 11. q. 3. ca. Presbyteri Therefore the Iesuit heere makes himselfe together with his ignorance very ludibrious Touching the Decretall Epistles and others mustred among them they haue beene long since vpon iust demerit branded as bastards As for the Councell of Sardica Cardinall Cusanus De Concord lib. 2. ca. 25. saith That S. Augustine held not the Councell of Sardica for a Catholick Councell but rather for a Councell of Arrian hereticks And further That the Fathers in the Councell of Africa in which Councell Saint Augustine was present in their letters to Pope Coelestin wrote that they neuer found this Constitution decreed in the Councells of any Bishops Wherefore it may well be doubted whether this be a Constitution of the Councell of Sardica or not This answere may suffice the emptie citing of an Epistle and Canons of a Councell Wherout when the Iesuit expresseth other matter he shal receiue a further answere BECAN Exam. YOu cite these words of Cyprian Nemo nostrum c. out of the Councell of Constantinople Page 95. 2. cap. 36. But neither are those words found there neither was Cyprian present at any Councell of Constantinople Enery where you are rude and a stranger You haue no knowledge of times or places and yet suddainly you would be a Maister Dr. HARRIS Reply INdeed if I were so rude and such a stranger in the Fathers and Councells as hee sheweth himselfe heere to be I might rightly be termed rude and ignorant The very misplacing and the twice setting downe of the same Canon and of the same Councell for words so diuerse might easily haue informed the Iesuit that it was the Compositors or Transcribers and not the Authors ouersight There is none that knoweth Becane and my self but presume that I know as well as hee the times and places of all the Councells put forth in print and that I could not be ignorant of this viz. that S. Cyprian was dead a glorious Martyr more then 50 yeeres before any of the foure generall Councells much more before this sixt of Constantinople was celebrated or called But silly Iesuit can not hee find these words of Cyprian vttered by him in any Councell where hee was present Can hee cite any Councell but that of Carthage where Cyprian was present Or is hee ignorant that Cyprian was present at the Councell of Carthage and there vttered these words Nemo nostrum Episcopum
Sedsi quis In the Extrauagants of Ioan. 22. De verborum significatione cap. Quia quorundam the Glosse citeth thus 56. Dist § his omnibus And thus 14. q. 1. § Quia ergo Whereas the first word of the Canon is Episcopus By these lectures as I suppose I haue schooled this Becane heerein suficiently but now falleth the Iesuit into a desperat case for he hauing found out the Canon he cannot find out these words Sitotus mundus c. I see I must take him to schooling once again and teach him where he shall find those very words syllables viz. in the Glosse verb. or § Neque ab omni clero The words of the Glosse are these Argumentum quod concilium non potest Papam iudicare vt extra de Elect significasti vnde sitotus mundus sententiaret in aliquo negotio contra Papam videtur quod sententiae Papae standumesset vt 24. q. 1. Hac est fides This argueth that the Councell cannot iudge the Pope Therefore if the whole vvorld should giue sentence in any matter against the Pope the Popes sentence must stand Now may the Iesuit run cry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I haue found it and withall thanke the learned Bishop Iewell for his citing of the Canon viz. not by the first words of the Canon but by the words following whereby hee pointed as with his finger the Iesuit to the Glosse where those words are written BECAN Exam. Pag. 96. YOu cite out of the Glosse Dist 19 cap. Si Romanorum these vvords That which the Pope alloweth c. Therefore whosoeuer will not obey the stetutes of the Romane Church is to bee accounted an heretick But the Glosse hath not these later vvords they are added by you the new Glossator I know not of what account these new Glossators are in England I am sure out of England they are of none Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere againe this vnluckie Iesuit shewes naked his great ignorance when hee saith that those later words or the substance of them are not in the Canon law or Glosse but are of my Gloss hee would haue said Bishop Iewells Glosse Had not the Iesuit beene a very vnlearned man indeed the learned Bishop directing him to the Glosse verb. Reprobantur might haue taught him presently to haue found those later words or the very matter viz. That it is heresie wilfully to disobey or oppose the statutes of the Romane Church For in that very place the Glosse citeth 24. q. 1. cap. Haec est fides where S. Hierom is produced asserting That if any shall blame that quod Papae iudicio comprobatur vvhich the Pope alloweth se non atholicum sed haereticum comprobabit hee shall proue himselfe no Catholick but an haeretick The reason wherof the Iesuit may read Dist 22. cap. Omnes in these words Fidem violat qui aduersus Romanam Ecclesiam agit quae est mater fidei For he violates the faith vvho doth against the Romane Church the mother of saith It may be the simple Iesuit knoweth not that by their Canon law the Pope may make new Articles of faith through his statutes Let him therfore read Extra Ioan. 22. De verborum significatione cap. Cum inter nonnullos in Gloss and these words there Papa princeps Ecclesiae Christique Vicarius potest articulum fidei facere The Pope Prince of the vvorld and Christes Vicar can make new Articles of faith and there shall the Iesuit find this case put The Pope did newly in that Canon statuere ser it downe That Christ and his Apostles had some-what proper or in speciall After which it is there thus resolued That to assert obstinatly that Christ his Apostles had nothing in speciall in proprietie haereticuÌ„ fore censendum was to be accounted hereticall cum Decretalis exiâ—t after the Decretall had gone forth and not before I will put a few more cases to the Iesuit to make him vnderstand it better Admit the Pope as Nabuchodonoser did by his Image set vp at the lifting vp of his Idol the wafer cake which hath no moe eyes to see nor eares to hear nor hart to vnderstand then Nabuchodonosers Image had but wil sooner putrefie then his should commaund all Nations kindreds and people to fall downe and worship it and three were found as those three children who would not fall downe worship it should they not all three be reputed hereticks Admit that the Pope should statuere establish that Doctrine of Diuels 1. Timo. 4. verse 2. that is should forbid eating of flesh in the Lent as vnholie and one should as one did eate wilfully a pigge in Lent should not that one be as indeed he was burnt for an heretick Admit where Christ commaunded euen the lay people to read and search the Scriptures the Pope Iob. 5.39 contrary to Christ that is in one word Antichrist should forbid all laytie to read and search the Scripture and one layick should be found either reading the Scripture or carrying about him the Bible translated into his mother tongue should not such a one be estloones carried into the house of slaughter I meane the house of Inquisition whence commonly such neuer returne aliue Admit that the Pope contrary to the lawes of God and man the lawes of nature of Nations should statuere set it downe in his Briefes that what subiect soeuer should take the Oath of Allegiance but euen so far as to swear to maintaine and defend to his power the life of his Soueraigne against all forraine power should sweare against the Catholick faith and any one vvilfullie opposing that stature made by the Pope should take the Oath as law full should not hee goe for an heretick vnlesse the Pope dispensed with him to take it By these palpable instructions the Iesuit may learn that those later words afore-said were not my Glosse as hee saith of no value but the capitall Popish doctrine most pernicious to Kings and States Antichristian disloyall diabolicall By force vvhereof if the Pope as I said before should statuere set it downe that Becanus the Iesuit should goe into England to raise there sedition and rebellion to contriue and act a new GVNNE-POWDERTREASON wherin to fold vp in one suddaine destruction the King Queene Prince Nobility CoÌ„munalty Bishops Iudges c. as a thing meritorious and the Ieluite should wilfully refuse to doe it as a thing vnlawfull hee would be reputed and punished as an heretick although he should haue lost his life on earth and hangd his soule in hell by dooing it So farre extendeth their blind obedience Iesuiticall to the Statutes and authoritie Papall BECAN Exam. Pag. 97. OVt of another Glosse Dist 40. cap. Si Papa you cite these vvords It is a kind of sacriledge to dispute of the Popes fact But as vnfaith fully as before For the Glosse hath no such word or rather the contrary for thus it speaketh expresly If the Popes crime bee notorious and he
beincorrigible I belieue that he may be thereof accused It easily appeareth that you neuer saw the Canons or Glosses You are better seene in fables Dr. HARRIS Reply BY this it is manifest that this Iesuit neuer saw or ranne ouer cursorily the Canons Glosses but is better seene in scurrilities Otherwise hauing the 40. Dist ca. Si Papa before him in the verie next page of the next leafe to the Canon Si Papa and there in the Glosse cap. Non nos verb. quis enim with the same view hee might haue read these words Semper praesumitur pro Papa vt 93. Dist. cap. 1. Vnde sacrilegij instar esset disputare de facto suo Vel die quod facta Papae excusantur vt homicidia Samsonis furta Haebraeorum et adulterium Iacob Vt extra de diuortijs Gaudemus The Pope is presumed alwaies to be good Therefore it were a kinde of sacriledge to dispute of his fact vvhose fact viz. murder is excused as those of Samson and his thefts as the thefts of the Hebrewes and his adulteries as the adultery of Iacob This stuffe is plaine enough but it is too too filthy Therefore with what face or shew of any little skillin the Canons or Glosses could the Iesuite deny the Gloss to haue any such vvords since the very words are there in the Glosse to be found Againe considering it was the Bishop Iewell and not I as my printed booke of Concord pag. 8. shewed who cited Dist. 40 cap. Si Papa hee sheweth himselfe to be of proiected impudencie who durst so basely thinke and write of that most learned Bishop viz. That hee neuer saw the Canons or Glosses If the Glosse write contrary it writeth contrary to it selfe and to the expresse words of the Canon it selfe Si papa which are these Papae culp as redarguere praesumit mortalium nullus quod cunetos ipse iudicaturus a nemine est iudicandus nisi deprehendatur a fide deuius No mortall man presumeth to reprehend the Popes faults because he is to iudge all and to be iudged of none vnlesse he be found Apostat from the faith The Gloss in 22. q. 2. ca. Non liceat saith plainely and not as here Credo I belieue or thinke Nullus mortalium papam possit iudicare Extra de Elect. ca. Innotuit Dist 40. Si Papa No man liuing may iudge the Pope Heresie as the Gloss Dist. 40. Si Papa saith well makes the Pope no Head of the Church But other Crimes cannot make him no head and so long as hee is Head of the Church by the Canon law he is the Church and aboue generall Councels Emperours and all mortall men liuing Therefore saith Innocent the Pope Dist. 96. ca. Satis euidenter It is shewed euidently enough that the Secular power can neither binde nor loose the Pope plainely called God by the godly Emperour Constantine now it is manifest that God can not be iudged of men And in 9. q. 3. Aliorum he concludeth thus God vvould haue the causes of other men to be determined by men but he hath questionlesse reserued the Bishop of this Sea to his owne iudgement He vvould haue the successors of blessed Peter to owe their innocencie to heauen only and to keepe a conscience inuiolate to the triall of the most subtile Discussor It is manifest that the faithfull euery where are subiect to the Pope vvhen as he is designed Head of the whole Body This being the maine and cleare doctrine of the Romish Catholike faith it is much to be feared least that the Pope reading what Becane hath here written viz. That the Pope may be iudged and if he be incorrigible deposed not for Heresie alone but also for other notorious crimes will not onely be much ashamed of him as of an vnlearned Iesuite and casheer him as a miserable defendour of him but also excommunicate him as an Heretike and an Impugner of his Maiesticall Primacy whose honour will soone bee buried in the dung-hill If hee may be iudged for his crimes notorious English Concord BEcane in his eightth Question demaunded Whether the King may conferre Ecclesiasticall Benefices And I in my eightth Question demaunded Whether the Pope may conferre Ecclesiasticall Benefices Here I did instance in the Collations of Ecclesiasticall Benefices in France made by the King of France and not by the Pope for proofe whereof I produced the Epistle of King Philip the faire to Pope Boniface the eightth thus Philip by the Grace of GOD the french King to Boniface bearing himselfe for highest Bishoppe c. Let your greatest fooleshippe knowe that the collation or bestowing of the Church-liuings doe pertaine to vs by our right Regall and that the fruites of them during the vacancie are ours That the Collations made alreadie by vs or heereafter to bee made are of force and validitie and vvee repute them fooles and mad men vvho thinke othervvise Vnto this the Iesuite in his Examen answereth not one word English Concord BEcane in his Iarre and ninth Question demanded Whether the King can create and depose Bishoppes And I in my Concord and ninth Question demaunded Whether the Pope may create and depose Bishoppes Heerein I shewed how blasphemously against Christ the sole head of the Church these Popes parasites write of Papall Primacy touching this point Durand De Minist et ordin li. 2 All Bishops descend from the Pope as members from the head and of his fulnes they all receiue Petrus de Palude The Church hath not any power of Iurisdiction but from Peter From Peter after Christ all spirituall power is deriued Bellarmine The Pope alone is Iure diuino by Gods word or right diuine but Bishops by the Popes law or by Papall ordinance Hereunto the Iesuite in his Examen maketh no answere as though such blasphemies were currant among them for good Popish-catholike doctrines English Concord BEcane in his tenth Question demanded Whether the King may excommunicate stubborn and disobedient persons And I in my tenth Question demanded Whether the Pope may excommunicate and depose stubborne Emperours who vvill not obey the Popes vvill as it vvere * De Translat Epist ca. Quanto in Glosla reason it selfe And here I mentioned the Treatise of Bellarmine against William Barclay published Anno 16 11 with this inscription Of the power of the Pope in matters Temporall Which said Treatise by publike edict in France was first adiudged to be burnt and so it had beene but for the restlesse importunitie of the Iesuits yet afterward by publike edict was it vnder a great penaltie forbidden to be bought solde or read as a Trentise erronious seditious schismaticall and pestilent This also the Iesuite in his Examen is content to passe by for that belike he would not stir vp againe that ill sauour of Bellarmines exceeding great disgrace therein English Concord BEcane in his Iarre and eleuenth Question demaunded Whether the King may be Iudge of Controuersies And I in my Concord and 11. Question demanded
and so procuring great peace to those Churches Whereupon Rhenanus marginall note was The Bishop of Rome doth Montanize But Tertullian saith againe that he afterward by the means of Praxeas reuoked his said letters and reiected Montanus Whereupon euen on the text word reuocare Beatus Rhenanus his annotation is this Rectissime ergo Ro Pontifex egit c. Therefore right well did the Bishoppe of Rome to condemne Montanus Doth not this shew apparantly that the Bishop of Rome was once a Montanist but after recanted And doth not the Iesuit feele this his owne weapon retorted into his owne hart BECAN Exam. Pag. OVt of the Councell of Constantinople you cite these words Anathematizari curauimus Honorium c. You follow the fraud of the Grecians who vpon enny inserted the name of Honorius when as it is plaine or certaine constat that Honorius vvas not there condemned as Bellarmin de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap. 11. proueth out of the Library â—â—eper Athanasius and others Dr. HARRIS Reply IN asserting Honorius to be a Monothelit heretick I doe follow three generall Councells viz. the 6. act 13. the 7. act the last and the eight act 7. And two Popes Agatho in his Epistle to Constantine the Emperour to be seene in the Synod 6. act 4. and Pope Lco 2. in his Epistle at the end of the 6. Synod And further I follow then owne Pontificall of the Popes liues in Leo 2. besides many as learned Writers as Bellarmine by whom it appearech manifestly that Honorius was an Heretick Our English man Harding in his booke against Bishoppe Iewell page 131. of Pope Honorius writeth thus Now at length Ma. Iewell you say that which hath some face of truth for Honorius indeed fel into the heresie of the Monothelits And this is the only Pope who may iastly be burdened with heresie Pope Leo 2. in his Epistle to the Emperour at the end of that 6. generall Councell hath these words We accurse Honorius who hath not lightened this Apostolick Church with Apostolick doctrine but by wicked treachery hath laboured to subuert the vndefiled faith In this my citation I sollow not as this fulse Iesuit saith the Greeke fraude but the edition of Councells by their owne Binnius Tom. 3. thus Concilium Constantinopolitanum tertium sextum vniuersale in quo ducenti octoginta et nouem Episcopi sub Agarhone Papa Constantino Pogouato Imperatore An. 680. et 631. Pag. Binnij 67. act 13. Impia execramur dogmata Sergij Cyri Pyrrhi et Theodori quos Agatho Papa abijcit vtpote contraria rectae fidei sentientes quos Anathemati submitti definiuimus Cum his verò simul proijci à sancta Dei Catholica Ecclesia simulque anathematizari praeuidimus Honorium qui fuerat Papa antiquae Romae eo quod inuenimus per scripta quae ab eo facta sunt ad Sergium quia in omnibus eius mentem secutus est et impia dogmata confirmauit We detest the impious doctrines of Sergius Cyrus c. whom we haue accursed vvith these we haue also cast out of Gods holy Catholick Church and accursed Honorius who was Pope of old Rome because vve found by those things vvhich he wrote to Sergius that he was vvholly of Sergius opinion and confirmed his impious doctrines Heere if I would hunt after Butterflies as this tryfling Iesuit doth I could tax him for his ouer-sight or ignorance in putting downe Athanasius for Anastasius But leauing this vnlearned Iesuit to correct his errors vnto Bellarmine hcere obiected against mee I say that Anastasius writing of the Popes liues in the life of Pope Leo 2 setteth downe Honorius among the hereticks who were condemned by the sixt generall Councell And for further answere I referre Bellarmine vnto Mr. Dr Whitaker Controuers 4. cap. 6. and to Mr. Dr. Reynolds his Conference against Hart ca. 7. Diuis 2. who both very largely and learnedly haue refuted all which Bellarmine hath written materiall for the cleering of Honorius By these Pope Hereticks the Christian Reader may learne what a dangerous thing it is to make the Pope Iudge of all Controuersies And further hee may heere obscrue with what deep silence the Iesuit letteth passe The Pepes Liberius and Leo for Arrian hereticks and Pope Anastasius for a Nestorian heretick So worthy a champion defender is Becane of the Popes Primacy English Concord BEcane in his Iarre and 12. Question demanded Whence the King hath his Primacy And I in my Concord Quest 12. demaunded Whence the Pope hath his Primacy Whether of Christ who said Ioh. 18. v. 36.1 Pet. 5. v. 3. Ro. 13. v. 1. My kingdome is not of this vvorld or of Peter Who forbade his fellow Presbyters to dominere ouer the Clergie much more ouer Kings Or rather of the Diuell Mat. 4. v. 9. Luk. 4. v. 6 who said I will giue vnto thee all the kingdoms of the vvorld and the glory of them for that is giuen to mee and I giue it to vvhom I will And euen so said the Diuels heire Pope Adrian Whence hath the Emperour his Empire but from vs Behold it is in our power to giue it to whom we will By these sayings it is demonstrated that the Pope hath his Primacie not from Christ but from the Diuell Yet heere the Iesuit hath not one word to answere for his Popes Primacy English Concord BEcane in his Iarre and 13. Quest demaunded Whether the King may compell his subiects to the oath of Primacy And I in my Concord and 13. Quest demaunded Whether the Pope may compell his subiects that is all Christians to the oath of Primacy Because according to their Canon law Dist 81. ca. Siquis What Christian soeuer will not obey the Popes precept euen to kill his Soueraigne and natiue King runnes into the sinne of Idolatry Heathenisme Especially the Bishops who 〈◊〉 etyed to the Pope by oath Aenae Sylnaus ad Mogunt That if they gaine-say the Pope though they speake the truth yet they sin against their oath made to the Pope Lastly De Rom. Pont. l. 4. cap. 5. because Bellarmine saith If the Pope should commaund vice or forbid vertue the Church were bound to belieue vertue to be euill and vice to be good BECAN Exam. Page 99 YOu cite out of Gratian Dist 81. cap. Si quis these vvords of the Pope If any will not obey our precept c. You have not read this chapter neither is the beginning of it Si quis but Si qui. Neither doth the Pope there decree that hee incurres the sinne of Idolatry who vvill not obey him in killing his nature King as you calumniate but the Priests and Deacons who after admonition will not abstaine from fornication and also they vvho will presume to heare those Priests and Deacons in their publique Ministery beeing interdicted to enter the Church Consult with the Canon and you shall find it Dr HARRIS Reply IHaue read that Canon ouer diligently more often
then Becan hath fingers on both his hands wherein I find that if vnrepentant fornicators Priests or Deacons forbidden entrance into the Church wil yet presume to vse their Ministery in the Church the people are inhibited to heare them And whosoeuer will not obey that precept incurres the sinne of Idolatry according to that of Samuell It is the sinne of vvitcherast not to obey and the vvickednes of Idolatry not to listen or assent So farre reacheth that rule particular Then followeth in that Canon the generall rule in these vvords Peccatumigitur Paganitat is incurrit c. Therefore whosoeuer saith hee is a Christian and contemneth to obey the Sea Apostolicall incurreth the sinne of Paganisme So that by this Canon what Christian soeuer disobeyeth the Sea of Rome cōmaunding any thing good or euill as Bellarmine hath it incurres the sinne of Paganity he must be reputed an heathē If the Iesuit knew not that the Canon riseth ab Hypothesi ad thesin from the particular to the generall he shewed himselfe to be a very vnlearned man if he knew it in writing thus he sheweth himselfe to be a brasen-fac't abuser of his Reader That the Reader may see the truth of this generality a matter so neerly concerning the crownes and liues of Princes I wil produce for proofe thereof two other places of the Canon law wherin that foresaid generall rule is thus set down The former Clementis de haereticis ca. Adnostrum in Glossa Peccatū paganitatis incurrit quicum Christianū se asserat sedi Apostolicae obedire contemnit What Christian soeuer disobeyeth the Sea Apostolick incurres the sinne of Paganisme Where that Glosse to proue that generall citeth Dist 10. ca. Nulli fas Nulli fas est velle velposse transgredi Apostolicae sedis praecepta It is not lawfull for any to be either willing or able to transgresse the precepts of the Aposlolick Sea The second place is Extrauag Ioan. 22. de verborum significa cap. Cuminter nonnullos in Gloss Haereticus est ille qui animo superbienti dispositionem sedis Apostolicae Articulos fidei non infringentis seruare et ei obedire contemnit cum peccatum ariolandi sit non obedire scelus Idololatriae non acquiescere et vitium Paganitatis contemnere obedire 81. Dist Si qui sunt 8. q. 1. Sciendum Hee is an Heretick who with a proud mind contemneth to keepe and obey the disposition or order of the Apostolike Sea not infringing the Articles of faith sith it is the sin of witchcraft not to obey and the wickednes of Idolatry not to harken and the voice of Paganisme to contemne to obey Thus by the expresse words of the Canon the generality of this is apparant viz. To disobey the Sea of Rome commaunding any thing which is not hereticall for in matter of manners saith Bellarmine the Pope can not erre is withchraft Idolatry Heresie Therefore if the Pope should commaund a Iesuit or the vilest slaue in a kingdome to kill the King who retaineth his crowne after the Pope hath excommunicated him depriued him of his crowne it is vvitchcraft idolatry and heresie in that iesuit or slaue who vvilfully refuseth to kill that King The Mysterie of Antichristian iniquitie as it is now reuealed proceedeth yet further euē to the lawfull killing of Kings by the vilest vassall without any commaund of the Pope or of any Superior not onely after such a King be solemnly depriued of his dominions by the Pope but without that after sentence declaratorie only pronoūced to weet of heresie or any other crime of that King containing the penalty of depriuation For that is now an orthodoxall position of the Cacolike Romish faith Printed Cum priuilegio and expressely maintained by Suarius in his booke with this Title The defence of the Catholike faith against the errours of the English sect vvith the answere to the Apologie of the oath of Fidelity and the Preface monitory to the king c. The words of Suarius containing that Antichristian iniquitie Impietie Impudency are these It is most true Lib. 6. cap. 4. that the Pope may inflict the penalty of Deposition and pronounce the sentence of Depriuation of the Kingdome of any King supreme in his temporals after vvhich iust sentence so pronounced vvhereby ipso facto hee is deposed of his kingdome If a priuate man shall kill the king he doth it not by priuate authority but in the vertue of the sentence and consequently as an instrument of authoritie publike When a king is deposed then he is no king nor lawfull Prince Yea if such a king after Lawfull deposition of him persisting obstinate doth vvithholde his kingdome by force in this he begins to be a tyrant because hee is no lawfull king neither by any iust title doth possesse his kingdome This more plainely appeareth in a king that is an Heretike for by his heresie forsooth ipso facto hee is depriued in some sort of his Dominion and the proprietie of his kingdome because it either remaineth confiscate or euen by the very law is deuolued to his Successour if he be a Catholike And yet neuerthelesse he may not presently be depriued of his kingdome but doth possesse and administer the same iustly vntill by sentence at least declaratory hee be iustly condemned of his crime But after that sentence giuen he is altogether depriued of his kingdome so that hee can not with iust title possesse the same Therefore from that time hee may be handled altogether as a tyrant and consequently may be slaine by any priuate man vvhatsoeuer Now in the last point proposed this is to be saide That after the sentence condemnatory of the king for the priuation of his kingdom giuen by the Pope or vvhich is all one after the sentence declaratory of a crime hauing such a penalty by the law imposed on that crime certainely hee vvhich gaue sentence or to vvhom he committed it may depriue the king of his kingdome euen by killing him either if hee can not otherwise depriue him or if the iust sentence extend to the depriuing of him Marke well ô yee Christian Princes especially ô yee Princes Protestant orthodoxall doe you behold for it more neerely concerneth every one of you into what even the highest pitch of traiterous impudency and impietie this Coccatrice broode and Generation of vipers to witte the Iesuites are mounted when as in their treasonfull dogmaticall positions published in print to all the world and most stiffely by them auerred as doctrines of Catholike faith they teach it to be lawfull for any the basest villaine of a king to kill the king being excommunicated deposed or otherwise declared to be so and so criminous Moreouer they teach that the saide base vassall or villaine is in such case a more publike person lawfully to kill the king then the king or his Iudges are to sentence that villaine Traitor-Regicide The time was when Emperours were the soueraigne Lords of the Bishop of Rome
Gregory the great called Mauritius the Emperour his Lord and himselfe the Emperours Seruant but afterwards the case was altered cleane contrariwise and the Pope became the soueraigne Lord of the Emperour and the Emperour the Popes vassall In the yeare 1133 when Pope Innocent the second had set the Crowne vpon the Emperour Lotharius head hee caused the solemne manner thereof to be painted on a wall in his Lateran-Palace and vnder the picture these verses following to be written Rex venit adfores iurans per vrbis honores Post homo fit Papae sumit quo dance coronain The king at Palace of the Pope sweares fealty and than The king receiuing Crowne of Pope made is the Popes sworne man True it is that by the Popes Canon law Dist. 63 c. Tibi Domino et 22. q. 5. de forma in Glossa the Emperours as the Popes vassals must sweare homage to the Pope as holding their Crownes and Empires of him but it was neuer heard of before these Iesuiticall traytours had so heretically dogmatized that the Kings and Emperours hold their liues also of the Pope as the basest villaines that euer were to witte at the Popes pleasure Now iudge Christian Reader what noble schoolemaisters these Iesuites are teaching all Christian subiects the Art of killing their Kings Saint Iohn in his Reuelation Chap. 17. vers 16. prophecied That the King should hate the vvhore the scarlet vvhore died first in the bloud of Martyrs but now in the bloud of Kings and make her desolate and naked and should eate her flesh and burne her vvith fire If euer there were iust cause presented to kings to doe it surely now it is giuen them to the full Prou. 8.15 The King of heauen by vvhom they rule and decree iustice stirre vp betimes their royall hearts with vnited forces to constraine the Pope to renounce this his Antichristian bloudy claime or else to pull his triple Crowne from his head and to lay his Romish Popedome in the dust choosing another Patriarke if a Patriarke must needes bee had and bounding that new one within the Ecclesiasticall tedder onely That learned Gerson in his booke De Aufeberilitate Papae of taking the Pope of Rome cleane away gaue a good Item for this long since BECAN Exam. Page 100 YOu cite out of Bellarmine these words If the Pope should command vice and forbid vertue the Church were bound to belieue vertue to be euil and vice good but most deceitfully For Bellarmine doth not absolutely affirme that which you faine but vpon condition that grant one absurdity another will follow Bellarmines words are these It can not be that the Pope should erre in commanding any vice or forbidding vertue because then he should erre about faith For the Catholike faith teacheth that all vertue is good and all vice is euill But if the Pope should erre in commanding vices and prohibiting vertues the Church were bound to belieue vices to be good and vertues euill vnlesse it would sinne against conscience Dr. HARRIS Reply THis Iesuit makes Bellarmine write farre worse than as I produced him For in my Citation he spake thus If the Pope should command vice or forbid vertue the Church should belieue vice to be good and vertue to be euill but Becane brings him in writing more impudently and blasphemously thus If the Pope should erre in commanding vices or forbidding vertues the Church vvere bound to beleeue vices to be good and vertues to be euill vnlesse the Church would sinne against her conscience Which is plaine blasphemie and for which Bellarmine incurreth S. Pauls curse directlie For hee can not deny but that the blessed Angels of heauen and Apostles were as free from errour in their Angelicall and Apostolicall doctrines of faith and maners as the Pope is yet saith S. Paul Gal. 1. vers 8 If vve or an Angell from heauen should preach vnto you otherwise than that yee haue receiued let him be accursed But Bellarmine thus If the Pope should preach otherwise viz. vertue to be euill and vice good according to that of Esay Chap. 5. vers 20. Woe be to them that speak good of euill and euill of good the Church ought to hold the Pope so blessed as that she should sinne if shee did not belieue him so erring and erroneously preaching What is this else but to giue the holy Spirit of God the Lie in his face 〈◊〉 is here most absurd in writing thus Dato 〈…〉 do sequitur aliud If vvee grant one absurâ—â—◠〈◊〉 followeth another For grant that one absurdity that a blessed Angel of heauen should preach errour should this â—â—â—urditie follow That the Church vvere bound to beleeue him No saith Paul the Church vvere bound to holde him accursed Further it is apparantly vntrue wherewith Becane doth heere charge mee viz. that I said Bellarmine did absolutely affirme the Pope to command vice and forbid vertue or that the Church should belieue vice to be good and vertue euill for I cited it in a hypotheticall or conditional proposition thus If the Pope should command vice c. and not by a categoricall or singlie affirmatiue proposition thus The Pope doth command vice and forbid vertue c. It may be Becanes learning extendeth not so farre as to knowe when a thing is vttered categorically and when hypothetically and so of ignorant simplicitie he falsely burdened me with it If it were so I will the rather forgiue him but then I would haue him to goe to schoole againe to learne the principles of Logike if he knew it and yet would write thus he abuseth his Reader not a little But I will leaue this vnlearned Iesuite a while and indeede I begin to growe very weary of him with Bellarmine here would I gladly change a few wordes and learne of him whether the Church bee bound in any case to beleeue errour in faith or in the necessary precepts of manners If he affirme it he shewes himselfe to be an Heretike 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned in his owne conscience if hee deny it then suppose the Pope should erre in faith or manners yet the Church should not belieue him therin By the rules of the CanoÌ„ law If the Pope erre in faith that is if he be an Heretike he should be deposed but by Bellarmines paralell If the Pope erre in faith he must be beleeued If this be not doctrine hereticall what can be hereticall Therefore to the euerlasting shame of Iesuites let this hereticall position of Cardinall Bellarmine which Becane seekes heere to defend but the very heathen would blush to assert of any bee ingrauen with a penne of yron in lead or stone for euer viz. If the Pope should erre in commanding vices and forbidding vertues the Church is bound in conscience to belieue vices to be good and vertues to be euill Goe to now ô Pope and say Soule thou hast enough for now doe but command the bloudy and traiterous crime of Regicide that is killing of kings
matter of the Kings Primacy or Supremacie and that Becane throughout his Iarre striueth onely about words or syllables Against which kind of contention St. Paul writeth thus vnto Timothy 2. Tim. 2. ver 14. Protest before the Lord that they striue not about vvords vvhich is to no profit but to the peruerting of the hearers Vnto all this in my Concord from page 12. vnto page 19 Becane in his Examin answereth not one word ⧠Becans Iarre The I. Question Whether the King of England haue any Primacie in the Church 1. THE first Iarre or contention then is concerning the name of Primacy Many of our Aduersaries admit this Name but M. Richard Tompson had rather haue it called Supremacy then Primacie His reason is because Primacy doth signifie a power of the same Order Now the King hath not power in the Church of England of the same Order with Bishops and Ministers but a power of higher and different Order from them Ergo hee hath not the Primacy but the Supremacy The vvords of M. Tompson pag. 33. of his booke are these Nos in Anglico nostro idiomate belliores longè sumus quà m per inopiam Latini sermonis nobis Latinè esselicuit NoÌ„ enim dicimus The Kings Primacy Regis Primatum sed The Kings Supremacy Regis Suprematum Quo vocabulo nos quoque deinceps vtemur Multùm enim differunt Primatus Suprematus Illud enim Potestatem eiusdem Ordinis videtur significare hoc non item Wee in our English tongue doe speake much more properly then vvee can doe in the Latine speech through the penury thereof For wee doe not say The Kings Primacy but The Kings Supremacie which word 〈…〉 For that Primacy and Supremacie doe greatly differ Primacie seeming to signifie a power of the same Order but Supremacie not so 2. Out of which words wee gather two things The one that all Englishmen vvho vse the Name of Primacie doe either erre or speake improperly if vve beleeue M. Tompson For if they speake propertie seeing that the vvord Primacy doth properly siguifie a Power of the same Order they doe plainely vnderstand that the King hath Power of the same order with the Bishops and Ministers of his Church But this now according to M. Tompsons opinion is an error wherefore either they doe erre or speake improperly 3. The other is that a Coniecture may be made of the thing signified from the word signifying The vvord Supremacie is a new and lately inuented vvord vnknowne to the Ancient Fathers not vsed in Scriptures vnheard of in the Christian world Moreouer vvhat doth it signifie The Supreme power forsooth of the King in the Church Wherefore this is new also Surely if the ancient Fathers either Latine or Greeke had knowne this power they would haue found out at least som word whereby to haue expressed the same properly But this it seemes none of them did English Concord Page 20 IS Becane the Iesuite become a captious cauiller at syllables Pri. and Sapre Our Soueraigue Lord K. Iames translated the english word Supremacy a Apol. â—ur fid pag. 54 into the Latin word Primatum and Mr. Thomson translated the same English Supremacy into his Latine word Suprematum Here is full agreement in the thing it selfe and will the Iesuit striue about words or diuâ—rs names of the selfe same thing Certainely a Christian king is neither Presbiter Priest nor b August Q ex viroq Testa mixt Q. 101 chiefe of Presbiters that is Bishop nor chiefe among the Bishops that is Archbishoppe nor chiefe of Archbishops that is Patriarke nor chiefe of Patriarkes to weet Pope and in that sense he is no Primate or hath Primacy but he is the onely Supreme gouernour of all Presbiters Bishops Archbishops Patriarkes and Popes within his dominions whose supreme gouernment we call in English Supremacy or after the Latin word which our king vâ—ed Primacy and acknowledge the same by our oath thereof taken But now let vs attend these two goodly consequences which the Iesuite maketh 1. R. Thomson hath deuised a new Latin name to expresse the selfe same thing and the selfe same English name of the same thing Therefore the thing it selfe is new The Fathers of the Nicene Councell deuised a new name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to expresse the Deitie of Christ or Christ in respect of his Deity Therefore is Christ his Deitie new or Christ in respect of his Deitie new Take heede Becane of such a consequent Thus rather perhaps the sequell would runne more roundly The name Iesuits is new Therefore deseruedly may the Iesuits be called as blasphemous so new sectaries Indeede if the ancient Fathers had acknowledged the power of Vniuersall Bishoppe they would haue found at least one word whereby to haue expressed the same properly especially considering that if we will beleeue Gregory the great Gregor li. 4. Ep it 76.78.80 et lib. 7 Epist 79 To assume that arrogant profane sacrilegious Antichristian name of Vniuersall Bishoppe is all one and the same as to be the king of pride Lucifer who set himselfe before his bretheren to be an Apostate from the faith and the forerunner of Antichrist In the Canon law we read thus Dist 99 Primx Let not the Bishop of the first Sea be called the Prince of Priests or high Priest or any the like but onely the Bishop of the first Sea but let not the very Bishop of Rome be called Vniuersall Bishop Let Becane tell me which of the ancient Fathers either acknowledged the Popes supreme power ouer the whole Church or in proprietie of speech and as proper vnto him called the same Primacy touching which Chrysostom as hee is cited in the Canon law Dist 40 Multi writeth thus Whosoeuer shall desire Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heauen neither shall he be numbred among the serwants of Christ who doth handle or contend for Primacy His second consequence is this Mr. Thomson deuised a new word or name whereby to expresse in Latin more fully and properly as be tooke it the English word Supremacy Therefore whosoeuer doe not call Supremacy in Latin Suprematum speake improperly Fy how hang these together Forsooth please it the Iesuites as scattered broomeshaggs To conclude Becane himselfe Quest 12. page 43. brings in Mr. Thomson speaking thus Primacy is a royall good thing or the Prerogatiue royall vvhich can not be taken away by Ecclesiasticall censure neither is it absurd that an heathen king should be Primate of the Church Therefore according to Becane his dispute here They vvho ascribe Primacy to the king and call him Primate of the Church erre not but speake properly BECAN Exam. Page 106 YOu say this strife is about the name It is so I vrge nothing else But of they strine as you say where is the concord which you promise In the very beginning you despaire of concord And of you cannot dissolue the strife about the name what shall become
of the thing it selfe Dr. HARRIS Reply I Did not say our Writers did striue about the namer but I asked the Iesuit why he would brawl about the name when the thing it selfe was fully agreed vpon Here then in the beginning of this Iesuits examination wee haue him taken in a grosse vntruth For in my English Concord chap. 1. I prooued an vniforme consent of all not onely in the matter that is the kings Supreme Gouernment ouer all persons and in all Causes Ecclesiasticall or ciuill within his dominions but also in the very English name thereof to weet Supremacy vnto which selfe same thing and selfe same name of the same thing all our Protestant English Writers haue sworne and in our publike prayers in pulpit we solemnlie professe our allowance thereof and our concord therein as being our Kings most iust title As for the Latine name Primatus into the which the English word Supremacy is translated we all agree therein also For Becane Question 12. page 43 brings in Mr. Thomson calling the kings Supremacy in Latine Primatum and the king in respect thereof Primatem How hard then is this Iesuites forehead affirming that I granted discord in the name to be among vs Indeede Mr. Thomson in regard of the Papists who vnderstanding no Primacy but Sacerdotall that is Episcopall for by their Canon law all Patriarks are Primates and all Primates Patriarks so all Primates Sacerdotall clamour that we ascribing Primatum Primacy to our King yeeld him Iurisdiction Sacerdotall that is Episcopall to reforme their misconceit therein wisheth there were made some Latine word as Suprematus or the like to expresse fully our English word Supremacie thereby to cut off all Popish and childish cauills and to let them vnderstand that we by Primacie after the Latin word as it is now translated or Supreme Gouernment of the Church called in our English tongue Supremacy meane not Ecclesiastical Supreme gouernment Sacerdotall or Episcopall but onely Regall In England our two Archbishoppes are called Primates as being superiour gouernours Sacerdotall ouer all the Bishoppes and other inferiour clergie men within their Archbishopriks in causes Ecclesiasticall but because our king is supreme gouernour euen ouer those archbishops and all other persons Ecclesiasticall and Temporall and in all causes Temporall and Ecclesiasticall within his dominions wee call in English that his supreme gouernment not Primacy but Supremacie as if it were Supre-Primacy or aboue Primacie Therefore I had iust cause to aske the Iesuite why his friuolous fatherhood wold contend about names when there was and is so full agreement in the verie thing it selfe In regard whereof S. Paul depainteth this Becane as hee sheweth himselfe here to be in his orient colour thus 1. Tim. 6.4 He is puft vp and knoweth nothing but doteth about questions and strife of words vvhereof commeth enuy strife rayling and euill surmising euerie word falling so pat vpon the Iesuites head as it S. Paul had pointed him out with the finger Indeede Becane in asking me how I vvill concord them in the matter vvhen I see and grant varietie of the names prooueth those words of S. Paul to fit him well viz. That he is puft vp and knowes nothing For here he knoweth not which countrey swaynes do know that there may be and is identity of matter or person when there is variety of names of that matter or person But because I doe commiserate his fatherhoods ignorance herein I will vouchsafe to teach him this one lesson taken out of their owne Canon law which in Dist. 80. ca. Loca in the Gloss schooleth him thus Idem est Primas et Patriarcha sicut et dicit lex differentia tantum nominis est inter pignus et Hypothecam A Primate and a Patriarke is one and the same as the law faith the difference is onely in the name of Pignus and Hypotheca in Latin in English of pledge and pledge and so of these two words in Latine Primatus and Suprematus in English as wee in England vnderstand it Supremacy and Supremacy And the saide Canon law Dist. 99. ca. de Primatibus in the very text it selfe schooleth him more fully thus De Primatibus quaeritur quem gradum in Ecclesia obtineant an in aliquo a Patriarchis differant Primates et Patriarchae diuer sorum sunt nominum sed eiusdem officy Primates and Patriarks haue diuers names but one office so the kings Supremacy may in Latine haue diuers names but it is one and the selfe same Regall office BECAN Exam. Page 106 BVt if Thomson be heard They who say the king hath Primaâ—â—â— Primacy of the Church signifie that hee hath power of the same order with Bishops and Pastors But this is a great errour not onelie in the word but in the thing it selfe Therefore they erre not onely in the word but in the very thing who speake so What answere you to this you plainely dissemble Dr. HARRIS Reply I Answere plainely and truely first that Mr. Thomson said that the word Primatus did signifie power of the same order with Bishops onely in the Papists sense and vnderstanding but nothing lesse then so in the Proâ—estants sense who meane by Primatus Primacie power Regall only and not Episcopall In whose sense Mr. Thomson himselfe calleth that Regal power Primatum as was shewed by Becane himself producing Mr. Thomsons owne words Q. 12. Pa. 43. Therfore they who speake so erre neither in word nor in the thing it selfe Secondly I answere plainely without dissimulation that the Iesuites mouth here runnes ouer with a palpable vntruth since it is most certainely true that not any one Protestant English Writer calling the kinges Supremacy in Latine Primatum signifieth or would haue signified thereby that the king hath power Sacerdotall with Bishops and Pastors Indeede the Papists did and doe seeke thereby openly to scandalize vs as though we ascribed to our King Queen power Sacerdotall or Episcopall in the Church which moued Queen Elizabeth of blessed and famous memorie in the later end of her Iniunctions to commaund this explanation following to be published in Print with this Title AN ADMONITION TO SIMple men deceiued by the malitious Her Maiestie forbiddeth all her subiects to giue eare or credit to such peruerse and malitious persons which most sinisterly and malitiously labour to notifie to her louing subiects how by the words of the oath of Supremacie it may be collected that the Kings or Queens of this Realm possessioners of the Crown may challenge authority and power of Ministery of Diuine offices in the Church wherein her said subiects be much abused by such euill disposed persons For certainely her Maiestie neither doth ne euer will challenge any other authoritie then that which was of ancient time due to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme That is to say vnder God to haue the Soueraignety rule ouer all maner persons borne within these her Maiesties Dominions Countries of what estate
our vniforme agreement in truth touching the kings Supremacy to be a seeming discord So that a short Reply to all the rest will be sufficient with reference vnto this yea euen to this one distinction of Regall and Sacerdotall rightly vnderstood ⧠Becans Iarre II. Question Whether that this Primacy which the King hath in the Church be Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall 1. THis is now another Iarre Vnder King Henry the 8. and King Edward this Primacy was alwaies called Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall as it appeareth out of Doctour Sanders whose words are these Caluinus Henrici Primatum Ecclesiasticum oppugnauit Caluin did oppugne King Henries Ecclesiasticall Primacy Againe Episcopus Roffensis quòd Heurici Primatum Ecclesiasticum nollet confiteri ad mortem producitut The Bishop of Rochester because he denied King Henries Ecclesiasticall Primacy was brought forth to die c. Andagaine Multi in custodijs propter negatum Ecclesiasticum Regis Primatum detenti Many were kept in prison for denying the Kings Ecclesiasticall Primacy In like manner Henricus mandauit vt filius in fide Catholica educaretur excepto Primatus Ecclesiastici titulo quem ei reliquit King Henry commanded that his Sonne Edward should be brought vp in the Catholike faith excepting the title of Ecclesiasticall Primacy which he left vnto him And yet more Stephanus Wintoniensis Edmundus Londinensis Cuthbertus Dunelmensis Nicolaus Wigorniensis Datus Cicestrensis Episcopi timide restirerunt pueri Regis Primatui spirituali imò simpliciter subscripserunt The Bishops of Winchester London Dutham Worcester Chichester did fearefully with stand the Spirituall Primacy of the Childe King nay they absolutely subscribed thereunto 2. Vnder Queene Mary that succeeded to her Brother King Edward in the Crowne this Title of Primacy was taken away in a Parliament held at London as witnesseth Iacobus Thuanus in the 9. book of the History of his time in these words Antiquatus ijsdem Comiths Primatus Ecclesiastici titulus The title of Ecclesiasticall Primacy was abolished in that Parliament The same was againe restored vnder Queen Elizabeth as testifieth the same Author in his 15. booke c. 3. But now in these our dayes vnder King Iames this matter is called into question Some not daring to call it Primacy Ecclesiasticall and spirituall but only Primacy belonging to Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall matters amongst whom is M. Doctor Andrewes or the Kings Chaplaine in his Torture of Tortus pag. 90. where he writeth thus Neque verò quoad spiritalia alium nos Regi Primatum tribuimus neque quoad temporalia alium Pontifici detrahimns quà m debemus Prior ille Regibus omni iure postertor hic Pontifici nullo iure debetur Neither doe we attribute one Primacy concerning spirituall matters vnto the King nor doe wee take from the Pope any other Primacy concerning temporall matters then vvee ought to doe The first is due vnto Kings by all right the later no way pertaineth to the Pope c. I vvhen I first read these vvords in the Chaplaines booke did thinke that hee had taken these two towit Primacy spirituall and belonging to spirituall as also these other Primacy temporall and belonging to temporall for one and the same thing But now it seemes that the Defenders and Interpreters of the Chaplaine to wit M. Tompson and M. Burhill do take it otherwise For so writeth M. Burhill pag. 55. of his Booke concerning this point Non dicit Primatum spirituatem sed Primatum quoad spiritualia deberi Regibus omni ture He the Chaplame doth not say that Spirituall Primacy but Primacu belonging to Spirituall is due vnto Kings by all right c. And theeag une pag. 133. in fine Etsi enim Regi tribuimus Primuth in Ecclesia non tamen Primatum spiritualent aut Eâ—â—â—siassicum ei tribuimus sed potius Primatum quoad les personas spirituales Ecclesiasticas For although we giue vnto the King Priâ—acy ouer the Church yet doe wee not gine vnto him Primacy spirituall or Ecclesiasticall but rathor Primacy belonging to things and persons spiritual and Ecclesiasticall c. And M. Tompson pag. 31. of his Booke also saith Non dixit Primatum Ecclesiasticum aut Spiritualem quasi formaliterintelligat sed quoad Spiritualia idest obiectiuè materialiter The Chaplaine said not the Primacy Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall as though hee vnder stood it form ally but for so much as it belong eth to Spiritual that is to say obiectiuely and materially c. In which sense the same Author pag. 95. saith Dicimus Regem gubernare quidem Ecclesiastica sed non Ecclesiasticè We say indeede that the King gouerneth Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically 4. So as if you aske in England whether the King hath Primacy Ecclesiasticall or no It will be answered thus King Henry K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth had Ecclesiasticall Primacy K. Iames hath not Primacy Ecclesiasticall but onely so far forth as it belongeth to Ecclesiasticall things Hath then his Maiestie that now is lesse then they had So it seemes Is then the Kings Primacy in England so nipped and pared in so short a space So they say Is it then almost decayed and at anend I doubt not but it is What is the cause Hearben to the common saying What 's quickly got is quickly lost as also to that of the holy Scritture Si est ex hominibus consilium hoc aut opus dissoluetur Act. 5. 38. If this deuise or worke be of men it will be dissolued English Concord THE Primacy or Supremacy Regall Page 14 vnder K. Henry 8. K. Edward 6. Q. Elizabeth and K. Iames hath been is and will be one and the same That is to say Supreme Power Regalin the church Iewel Defons par 6 ca. 9. Duasi 1. et 2. wherby Kings may not Burne incense as Ozias did nor rush vpon Episcopall function nor preach the Gospell nor administer the Sacraments to the people nor bind nor loose The which with som of our Writers spoke of by Becane in this Question is to gouerne Ecclesiasticall things Ecclesiastically but execute those things only which belong vnto them as kings to performe that kinglie function therein which Dauid Salomon Ezechias Tortura Tort. pa. 381 Iosias and other of the most noble and most religious kings haue done and which was euer lawfull fora king to doe or particularly if you had rather thus The right and power by Regall authoritie to make Church lawes as that GOD should not be blasphemed a Dan. 3. 29 That God should be pacified in a fast b Iona. 3.7 and honoured in a festiuall day c Ester 9.26 and all such as we read to haue been made in the Code Authentiks and Capitulars by Constantine Theodosius Iustinian and Carolus Magnus Moreouer to delegate such as should iudge of the lawes so made d 2. Chr. 19.8 Further to binde his subiects by oath to keep those lawes e 2. Chro. 15 14. et 34. 32 yeain
their deserts he may depose as Salomon did Abiathar In the meane time 1. Reg. 2. ver 27. the King alloweth not that any Bishop especially the Bishop of Rome should rule ouer all the Christian vvorld This Iesuit bringing in our King heer denying that hee will meddle with the matters of other men not his subiects as on the one side hee deseruedly commendeth our gracious King therein so on the other side he iustly condemneth that busie-body the Pope intermeddling in matters of the King his subiects endeucâ—ring impiously and impudently to auert his subiects froÌ„ swearing allegiance vnto their Soueraigne against the law of Nature Nations against the law of God and man therein shewing himselfe indeed to be that wicked man that sonne of perdition that very Antichrist described by St. Paule 2. Thes 2 especially considering that neither our King nor the meanest vassall or villaine of our King is the Popes subiect For by the right and ancient diuision of Prouinces this Realme of England was not vnder the Bishop of Rome Pope Innocent 400. yeeresafter Christ confesseth that he had not sufficient authority to call one poore Britan out of this Realme The case was this The Bishops of Africa prayed Innocentius cither to send for Pelagius the Britan or to deale with him by letters to shew the meaning of his lewd speeches tending to the derogation of Gods grace To whom the Bishoppe of Rome answered thus Quando c. When will hee commit himselfe to our iudgement write I what letters I vvill See B. Bil. Pag. 320. vvhereas he knoweth hee shall be condemned And if hee were to be sent for they may better doe it that are neerer to him and not so farre distant as I am BECAN Exam. Pag. 115 IF these propositions be equiualent viz. The King hath not Primacy Ecclesiasticall The King cannot execure offices Sacerdotall or Episcopall then it followeth that they who deny the King canexeciâ—te officas Sacerdot all deny the King to haue Primacy Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall And they vvho hold that the King hath Primacy Spirituall affirme that he may execute offices Episcopall This is rather to increase then to take away the Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere the Iesuit playeth the wrangling Sophifter his Elench is as the Schoole tearmeth it A dictosecundum quid addictuÌ„ simpliciter For these words Primaeus Ecclesiasticus doe not simply but secundum interpretationem vel sensum according as some Writers meane thereby signisie Primacy Episcopall and not Regall In which sense all Protestant Writers deny the King to haue Primacy Ecclesiasticall Others by those words Primatus Ecclesiasticus mean Primacy Regall or not Episcopall In which sense all English Protestant Writers ascribe vnto the King Primacy Ecclesiasticall and as Master Burhill vvriteth may vvell call it Primatum Spiritualem Spirituall Primacy So heere the Iarre is taken cleane away and the Iesuit is sully answered in all objected by him in due place The rest which against his owne and all good method hee iumbleth heere together hotch-potchwise as The King to be no Head nor to call Councells c. shall heereafter in their due place receiue also their full answere ⧠Becans Iarre III. Question Whether the King by vertue of this Primacy may bee called Primate of the Church MAister Henry Salclebridge doth absolutely affirme it For thus be writeth pag. 140. Dico Regem Angliae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Primatem esse I say that the King of England is Primat of the Church of England Nay he vvill haue this point to be so certaine and out of al doubt that he thinketh whosoeur should deny it to offend against the publike profession of England For so he saith pag. 177. Angliae RegeÌ„ Anglicanae Ecclesiae PrimateÌ„ esse in professione publica Anglicana Veritasis sacris liter is nixae ponitur That the King of England is Primate of the Church of England is founded in the publique English Profession of Truth grounded vpon the sacred Letter 2. M. Tooker and M. Burhill doe absolutely deny it For thus writeth M. Tooker pag. 3. Olere autem malitiam ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud videtur cùm RegeÌ„ Caput Ecclesiae Primatemque consingas It may seeme to sauour of malice and cry out vpon your saucinesse when as you feigne the King Head and Primate of the Church c. And Ma. Burhill pag. 133 Nec primatem quidem omnino Regem nostrum dicimus multò vetò minus Primatem Ecclesiasticism Neither doe wee at all call our King Primate and much lesse Ecctesiasticall Frimate c. 3. Heer-hence doe I frame a twofold Argument One out of M. Tookera words in this manner Hee that affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church is a sausy and malicious fellow But M. Salclebridge affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church Ergo he is a sausy and malicious fellow The other argument I frame out of M. Salclebridges words thus He that denieth the King to bee Primate of the Church doth offend against the publique Profession of the Truth receiued in England But M. Tooker denieth the King to be Primate of the Church of England Ergo he offendeth against the publique profession of the Truth receiued in England So I wis one Mule claweth another 4. But now it may bee demaunded whether of them doth iudge more rightly in this case M. Salclebridge who affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church or M. Tooker that denieth it This controuersie dependeth vpon another question to weet whether these two Names Primate and Primacy are necessarily connexed or as they say Coniugata M. Salclebridge thinketh that they are Therfore because he hath once affirmed the King to haue the Primacy of the Church hee consequently anerreik that the King is Primat of the Church For that with him this Argument hath force à Coniugatis The King hath Primacy Ergo the King is Primate As also this The Chaplaine hath a Bishoprick Ergo he is a Bishop 5. Now M. Tooker hee thinketh the contrarie For pag. 6. of his booke hee expresty saith That the King hath the Primacy of the Church but yet hee is not the Primate of the Church And contrariwise The Archbishop of Canterbury hath not the Primacy of the Church yet is he Primate of the Church So as hee denieth these two consequences à Coniugatis to weet I. The King hath the Primacy Ergo hee is Primate 2. The Archbishoppe is Primate Ergo hee hath the Primacy And perhaps hee vvill deny these in like manner I. The Chaplaine hath a Bishopricke Ergo hee is a Bishop 2. M. Tooker is a Deane Ergo hee hath a Deanery English Concord Pag. 29 WHy should I schoole an Asse with whom gently to claw and curstlie to kick Mule-like is all one Or why should I rubbe your memorie to recognize these your owne words Iames the most renowned potent King of England Refut Apol. Praef. monit Regis pag. 17.
to haue Primacy Episcopall But the first is true according to Becane viz. That the deny as Becane meaneth and Becane meaneth that the King vsurpeth Primacy Episcopall Therefore the later is true also viz That Dr. Tooker and Mr. Burhill denying the King to be Primate or to haue the Primacy deny him to be Primate or to haue Primacy Episcopall as all Protestants doe So that here is among vs all a full and settled Concord and the Iesuites Iarre as empty chaffe is blowen cleane away ⧠Becans Iarre IIII. Question Whether the King by reason of his Primacy may be called Head of the Church THis Title first began to be vsurped of King Henry the 8. as all Authors aswell our owne as our aduersaries do testifie For thus writeth Iacobus Thuanus in his first booke of the Histories of his times Henricus post diuonium se Caput Ecclesiae constituit K. Henry after his diuorce from Q. Katherine made himselfe Head of the Church c. And Polydor Virgil lib. 27. of his History of England saith Interea habetur Concilium Londini in quo Ecclesia Anglicana formam potestatis nullis ante temporibusvisam induit Henricus enim Rex Caputipsius Ecclesiae constituitur In the meane while to wit after his foresaid diuorce a Councell was held at London wherein the Church of England tooke to it selfe a forme of power neuer heard of before For that King Henry was appointed Head of the same Church c. Genebrard also in the fourth books of his Chronologic hath these words Henrieusanno 1534. in publicis Comitijs se caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae appellauit King Henry in the yeare of our Lord 1534. in publike Parliament called himselfe Head of the Church of England c. Also Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England saith Exquâ— licendiformula primam occasionem sumptamatunt vt Rex Supremum Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae diceretur By which manner of speech it is said the first occasion was taken of calling the King supreme Head of the Church of England c. And againe in the same booke Proponebantur eis noua Comitiorum Decreta iubebantur iureiurando affirmare Regem Supremum Ecclesiae esse Caput The new Lawes or Statutes of the Parliament were propounded vnto them to wit to the Kings subiects and they were commanded to sweare that the King was head of the Church c. Iohn Caluin in like manner vpon the 7. Chapter of the Prophet Amos writeth thus Qui tantopere extulerunt Henricum Regem Angliae certè fuerunt homines inconsiderati Dederunt enim illi summam rerum omnium potestatem hoc me grauiter semper vulnerauit Erant enim blasphemi cùm vocarent eum summum Caput Ecclesiae sub Christo Those who so greatly did extoll K. Henry of England were men voide of consideration For they gane vnto him the chiefe power of all things and this point did euer gall me grieuously For that they were blasphemers vvhen they called him the chiefe Head of the Church vnder Christ c. 2. The same Title did K. Edward Sonne to King Henry and his Successour vsurpe as it may be seene by his Letters to Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury which begin thus Edouardus Dei gratia Angliae Franciae Hyberniae Rex supremum in terris Ecclesiae Anglicanae Hybernicae taÌ„m causis spiritalibus quà m teÌ„poralibus Caput Reuerendo Thomae Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo saluteÌ„ Edward by the Grace of God K. of England France Ireland supreme Head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland as well in Causes Ecclesiasticall as temporall to the Reuerend Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury greeting c. The same Title also did Bishop Cranmer giue vnto the said King as appeareth by his letters written to other Bishops subiect vnto him thus Thomas permissione diuina Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus per Illustrisimum in Christo Principem Edouardum Regem sextum supremum in terris Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae Hybernicae sufficienter legitimè authorizatus Tibi Edmundo Londinensi Episcopo omnibus fratribus Coepiscopis vice nomine Regiae Maiestatis quibus in hac parte sungimur mandamus vt Imagines ex Ecclesijs cuiusque dioecesis tollantur c. We Thomas by Gods permission Archbishop of Canterbury being sufficiently and lawfully authorized by our most gratâ—ous Prince in Christ King Edward the 〈◊〉 supreme Head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland do in his Maiesties Name and place which berein we supply command von Edmund Bishop of London and all the rest of our Brethren Bishops that Imaves be taken out of the Churches of euery Diccesset c. And Doctor Sanders also in his booke of the Schisme of England saith thus Quamprimum visum est Henrici octaui mortem diuulgare statim Edonardus Henrich filius nonum aetatis annum agens Rex Angliae proclamatur sumurn Ecclesiae Anglicanae in terris Caput proximè secundum Christum constitutel it c. As score as it was thought good to diuulge King Henries death by and by Edward his sonne being of the age of nine yeares was proclaymed King of England and ordained supreme Head of the Church of England on earth next vnder Christ c. 3. Queene Elizabeth although she were a woman yet she thought her selfe no way inferiour to her Father or Brother Shee therefore would be also called supreme Head of the Church of England For so writeth Iacobus Thuanus in his 15. booke of the Histories of his time Elizabetha recep to à Patre fratre titulo Ecclesiae Caputper Angliam coepitappellati Queene Elizabeth hauing receiued the former Title from her Father Brether began to be called Head of the Church throughout England c. 4. But now aduyes vnder K. Iames this title is put in Repardie The Chaplaine to wit M. Doctor Andrewes doth admit the same in his Tortura Torti but M. Tooker and M. Burhill do reiect it M. Tookers words which a little before I recited are these Olere autem malitiam clamitare audaciam tuam videturillud cum Regem Caput Ecclesiae Primatemque confingas It may seems to sauour of malice and try out upon your sausines when as you feigne the King to be Head and Primate of the Church c. And in like manner doth M. Burhill pag. 133. reprehend a certaine person of ouer much want onnes and boldnes for calling the King Head Pastour and Primate of Bishops 5. In his debate and Iarre then what shall the King do If he admit the Title of Supreme Head of the Church of England M. Tooker and M. Burhill will no doubt murmure streadly If he rerect it what then will the Chaplaine say Perhaps this contention may be mollified if the King as he gaue to the Chaplaine the Bishopricke of Ely so he would giue to M. Tooker and M. Burhill two other Bishopricks For then least they might seeme ungratefull they would easily grant this Title to the
should eate the labours of their hands and drink the water of their own wells with more security Were your Priests Iesuits or confounded none vvould hurt or destroy in all the mountaine of Gods holinesse None would hatch the Cockatrise egges or weaue the Spyders web of Gun-powder treasons and milhons of other trayterous complots and bloudy conspiracies You you are they who in very deed trouble Israell and bring the whole Christian world into combustion It is a statute enacted in the heaueÌ„s that euery soule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 13. ver 1. as saith ChrysosÌ„tome writing vpon those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be hee an Apostle or Euangelist or Prophet or any other Peter Pope or whosoeuer should bee subiect to the higher Powers for conscience sake But by the Popes statute or Canon the vilest shaueling Priests aforesaid are so exempted froÌ„ subiection to the highest Powers Kings and Emperours that they are not bound to obey them or their lawes for Conscience but onelie for Order sake Therefore they are not bound to giue neither will they giue to Caesar that which is Caesars viz. Tribute for Tribute belongs to him nor Custom yet Custom is due to him They will not as Saint Paul did stand at Caesars iudgement seat to be tryed there much lesse will they as Christ did present themselues to that tribunall vvhich hath power giuen to it from aboue to bee condemned there Some kind of reason they may haue for it as this They hold with Antichrist why then should they follow Christ Touching the popish Layicks If as the Iesuit heere saith all the Kings subiects vvithin his Realmes are bound to obey the King why doe they disobey him euen in the face beeing open and professed wilfull Recusants to come to Church there to heare Gods word truely preached and his Sacraments duely administred to pray to God to praise God in the congregations of his Saints Why doe they against the law of God of Nature of Nations and of their King refuse to testifie by oath their Allegiance to their Soueraigne Why vnlesse it be for that they want motion as hauing no vertue of motion thereunto deriued vnto them from their Pope-Head or else because they take them selues to be the subiects of the Pope and not of the King And this is indeede Preiudiciall to the King in the highest degree BECAN Exam. Pag. 132 YOu cite out of the Canon law some maimed words which you read not there nor vnder stand That you may vnderstand them I will cite them whole as they are The Sacrament of this office c. They are Pope Nicolas words and containe these three things 1. That Christ placed the Sacrament of Preaching the gospell principally in Peter when he saw the vessell let downe from heauen and when it was said vnto him Rise Peter kill and cate 2. That God would haue the vertue and effect of the gospell to be powred vpon the Gentiles from Peter as from a Head 3. That God tooke Peter into the Jellowship of indiuiduall vnitie by communicating his name and dignitie to him for he would haue Peter called the rocke and foundation of that Church whereof he is the rocke and foundation What gather you hence against the Pope nothing as all Onely you bewray your dulnesse and ignorance berein Dr. HARR IS Reply I Gather hence that the Pope is very Antichrist shewing himselfe as God The Scripture saith that by preaching the gospell 1. Cor. 3.7 Paul may plant and Apollo may water but this God onely giues the increase that is the vertue and effect of preaching But here Peter to weet the Pope is said to giue the vertue and effect of preaching The Scripture 1. Cor. 3.11 yea the Canon law saith that there is no foundation or rocke of the Church but onely Christ Iesus But here the Pope challengeth not onely the name but the very Dignity of Christ viz. to be as Christ is The foundation and rock of the Church God saith Esay 48.11 Hee will not giue his Glory or Dignity to any other but here it is said that Peter to weet the Pope is assumpted into the Dignity of the indiuidual vnity The indiuiduall vnity is our Lord God but here the Pope is assumpted into the fellowship of the name and hence it is that the Papists or Papi-coliks call that Romish Anrichrist their Lord God the Pope Thus haue I gathered out of the blasphemous assertioÌ„s of this Iesuit here and out of their Canon law enough for this one time and to much for Becane to answere all his life time against their Pope-Head But how doth the Iesuit gather that the Sacrament of preaching was principally constituted in Peter when after the vessell let downe it was said vnto him Rise Peter kill and eate seeing that Christ before his passion did constitute the Sacrament of preaching equally and with the selfe same words in all his Apostles saying Gopreach the gospell to all the world By vertue whereof the rest as well as Peter did preach the Gospell but this vision and this speech to Peter was after Christs ascension not to constitute the Sacrament of preaching the Gospell principally in him but to reforme the errour that was principally in him viz. that he ought not to preach the gospel to the Gentiles Therefore by that speech and vision he was emboldned to preach the Gospell to Cornelius a Gentile but not to kill Cornelius as Cardinall Baronius expounded those words against the Venetians If the Iesuite had cited the whole words of the Canon as he promised to doe he might haue learned by those words of the Canon Dexteras Societatis the right hands of Fellowship that the Sacrament of preaching the Gospell was as principally constituted in Paul towards the Gentiles as it was in Peter towards the Iewes As touching me I had read that Canon often but I purposely cited out of it those words onely which shew what a blasphemous Head the Church of Rome hath who challengeth to be assumpted into the fellowship of the indiuiduall vnitie in such sort that all gifts and graces of God are powred vpon the Church from him and through him as the Head of that his body the Church And those words which I cited were not maimed but full enough to euince the Pope to be such a blasphemous Head indcede Notwithstanding I must giue the Iesuite leaue to hold on his course viz. to wound his Pope when he seeks to heale him to disgrace mee without cause and to bely mee without blushing BECAN Exam. Page 133 YOu cite out of Durand truely that all Bishops descend from the Pope as members from the head Which is nothing else but this that they all receiue from the Pope Iurisduction of the externall Court Which as English Academicks say is in liâ—e sort giuen by the king to the Bishops in England Therefore here is the Iarre between you and the Academicks Dr. HARRIS Reply
IN England the King doth but nominate some to be Bishops They are chosen by the Deane and Chapter The King approueth and ratifieth the Electiò but they are consecrated Bishops only by Bishops And therupon without any grant therof froÌ„ the King they haue ipso facto Episcopall function and Iurisdiction in externall Court Whereby it is apparant euen by this Iesuitesinterpretation of the words that our Bishops doe not descend from our King as the Romish Bishoppes descend from the Bishop of Rome who receiue the gifts of the Holy-ghost and the vertue and effect of their preaching from the Pope and so descend from him as members from the Head which Pope saith Bellarmine is the onely Bishoppe iure diuino by the word of GOD and all the rest of the Bishoppes Archbishops Patriarkes are but his Curates iure humanâ— by the wordor inspiration of the Pope Inspirante Petro as Leo saith The Pope breathing on them the Holy-ghost All English Academicks would detest such descending of our Bishops froÌ„ the King who giueth vnto our Bishops chosen and consecrated their Baronries and Iurisdiction coactiue by corporall or temporall mulcts which is Dr. Tookers meaning herein but not Iurisdiction meerely sacerdotall or Episcopall viz. to excommunicate to giue Orders to confirme c. And so here is still the Concord maintained BECAN Exam. Pag. 134. THE rest vvhich you cite out of Hostiensis and the Abbat you neither cite vvell nor understand It irketh mee to warne you so oft and to obtaine nothing Dr. HARRIS Reply TRuely I vnderstand that Martin Becane is a very vnlearned and slugge Iesuite as shall in this place manifestly appeare In the meane time I pray you Christian Reader to obserue how the case is now altered touching the Popish Headship from that it was heretofore for euen as Antichrist groweth on to his height of impudency and impietie so the Headship increaseth Heretofore the Pope was said to be not simply the Head of the Church as Christ is but the inferiour-ministeriall Head now hee is growen to be the Supreme Head equall with Christ as hauing the same Tribunall and Consistorie that Christ hath and being able to doe all that Christ can doe To proue this I cited the words of the two most famous and iudiciously learned Canonists that euer were Cardinall Hostiensis and Abbat Panormitane and in the margine of my booke I quoted rightly the places where those words were written The matter you see to be of the greatest moment and most fitting to the dispute of the Head of the Church here in hand yet the Iesuite hath no other thing to answere but this you doe not cite those wordes well nor vnderstand them Whereof Christian Reader be you iudge after that I haue produced at large their owne words which are as followeth Panormitan Super prima primi de Electione cap. vener abilem verb. Transtulit Papa transtulit imperium in Germanos Papa autem hoc potuit facere ex magna causa concurrente cum possit facere quicquid Deus potest Alias Christus non fuisset diligens Paterfamilias si non dimisisset in terris aliquem loco sui qui expedientibus causis possit omnia facere quae ipse Christus Hanc regulam firmauit Hostiensis in cap. Quanto De Translatione praelatorum vbi dicitur quod cum Dei et Papae idem sit consistorium omnia potest facere quae ipse Christus excepto peccato Sed improprie excipit peccatum quod Peccatum non cadit sub potentia imò sub impotentia The Pope translated the Empire to the Germanes The Pope might doe it vpon great cause because be can do whatsoeuer God can doe Otherwise Christ had not beene a diligent father of his family if hee had not left one in his owne stead on earth who as causes require can do all that Christ himselfe can doe This rule hath Hostiensis confirmed in cap. Quanto de translat Praelat where it is said that seeing there is but one and the selfe same Consistory of God and the Pope The Pope can do all things that Christ himselfe can doe except sinne But Hostiensis improperly excepted sinne because sinne falleth not vnder power but rather vnder impotency or weakenesse By these their words thus at large set downe it appeareth that I cited the words well and knew what I cited euen enough to demonstrate that the Popish Primate is a blasphemous Head and that our King is no such Head Both which are appatant to any man of reading but this slugge Iesuite is so vnlearned that hee vnderstandeth nothing which hath any sound learning or iudicious reading in it ⧠Becans Iarre V. Question Whether the Kings Primacy do consist in any Power or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall HEERE now is there a great Iaure and debate amongst our English Aduersaries nor can the same be easily vnderstood vnlesse it be first well distinguished Ecclesiasticall Power is threefold as the Diuines doe teach One of Order another of interiour Iurisdiction the third of exteriour Inrisdiction To the first belongeth to effect or consecrate and to administer Sacraments to the second to gouerne the Church in the interiour Court or Court of Conscience and to the third belongeth to gouerne the Church in the exteriour Court Now certaine it is that the King hath not the Power of Order by reason of his Primacy For this dooth M. Tooker confesse page 14. vvhere he saith Reges non habent potellatem administrandi Sacramenta Kings haue not power to administer Sacraments It is also certaine that be hath not Iurisdiction of the interiour Court or Court of Conscience For this in like manner doth M. Tooker confesse pag. 63. Omnis jurisdictio saith be in foro interiori Sacerdotum est nulla Regum All Iurisdiction in the interiour Court or Court of Conscience belongeth to Priests not ance vvaie to Kings c. 2. All the question then is whether the King hath Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the exteriour Court or no About this point are the Englishmen at a great iarre and variance amongst themselues some affirming it some denying it others distingnishing M. Tooker affirmeth it pag. 305. in these words Qui habet plenissimam amplissiman iurisdictionâ—min foro exteriore potest candem dare auferre Rex eam habet Ergo potest eandem dare auferre Totum hoc liquet ex V. N. Testamento Hee that bath most full and ample Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court can giue and take away the same at his pleasure But the King hath this Iurisdiction Ergo he can giue and take away the same All this is manifest out of the old and new Testament c. With him agreeth also M. Salclebridge pag. 140. Regesoleo sacro vncti capaces sunt Iurisdictionis spiritualis Kings saith be anointed with holy oyle are made capable of spiritual IurisdictioÌ„ c. And then again in the same place out of the Lawes of Eng. Rex saith be est persona mixta vtpote
Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction The Bishop of Ely saith Hee hath some Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but not all So the King hath Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall with Tooker Supreme vvith the law all manner vvith the Bishop some but not all vvith Burhill and Thomson none none at all Is this your English Concord Dr. HARRIS Reply THe foole will alwaies be playing with his bable some fooles with varietie but this clay-witted Iesuit playes with his downe right repetitions of the same things in the same words wheras heeretofore he hath receiued in my English Concord a full cleare and solid answere to all and euerie one of these particular seeming Iarres but in truth no iarres at all Wherein is manifested our good Concord euen in all those seeming Iarres In short thus Master Thomson denieth the Kings Supreme Church gouernment to be called Primacy or the King Primat as Papists vnderstand it to weet Episcopall but he himselfe calleth the Kings supreme Church gouernment Primacy and the King in respect thereof Primat as the Protestants meane to weet Regall So Dr. Tooker denied the King to be called Head of this Church that is Episcopall or Papall but Doctor Tooker acknowledged expresly that the King is not onely the Head but also the toppe of the Head of this Church to weet Regall And in that sense saith Ma. Burhill they say well who call the King Caput Appendix pag. 284. Pastorē et Primatem the Head Pastour and Primat of this Church Doctor Harris saith Ma. Burhill denieth the King to haue Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in the outward Court viz. Sacerdotall that is in Dr. Harris meaning not Presbyteriall but Episcopall according to that of Lactantius who called Sacerdotium summum Episcopatum Sacerdotall that is Episcopall Archiepiscopall or Patriarchall And Dr. Tooker saith that all Iurisdiction of Priests that is of Presbyters or lowest Priests or all Iurisdiction Presbyteriall is in the inner Court. Is heere any Iarre The Bishop of Ely saith The King hath power of Censure to weet Regall and Ecclesiasticall as plainly appeared when Salomon deposed Abiathar the high Priest And againe he saith The King hath not power of Censure that is Episcopall as Excommunication Or in short thus The King hath some Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction viz. Regall And the King hath not all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction viz. Episcopall Dr. Tooker Hainric say the King hath all supreme Ecclesiastical Iurisdictiō i Regall And our English law saith The King hath not as this Iesuit writeth all manner of Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall for that would include both Episcopall and Presbyteriall or in Becane his sense Sacerdotall but all manner of supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction that is Regall Ma. Thomson saith The King hath no Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction or Primacy for Primacy and Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction are all one with Ma. Thomson Episcopall but Ma. Thomson saith The King hath Primacy or Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction Regall So the King hath all and all maner Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction Regall and The King hath not all The King hath none none at all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction Sacerdotall or Episcopall The King doth not gouern Ecclesiasticall things ecclesiastice that is Episcopally or Sacerdotally The King doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things Regally Is not heere a plaine Concord and vniforme agreement The Christian harmony whereof this Iesuit cannot dissolue though all his iarring hart-strings would burst in-sunder But whereas this Iesuit saith that M. Burhill affirmeth the King to haue no Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction none at all in Court either inward or outward hee sheweth himselfe to bee past shame in his grosse vntruths for M. Burhills express words in his a Pag. 285. Appendix are these Quomodo nullam nullam penitus huiusmodi Iurisdictionem Regiesse aio his verbis vbi propositionem qua hoc asseratur falsam esse pronuntio How do I say that the King hath none Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction none at all in Court inward or outward vvhen I pronounce that proposition to bee false vvherein this is asserted So the Iesuit brings in Ma. Burhill affirming that which hee expresly denith The particular manner and materiall points of this Supreme Gouerment Regall and Ecclesiasticall are set downe by our gracious King Iames by Queene Elizabeth by three of our most learned Bishops viz. of Salisbury Winchester and Ely as is transcribed in this Reply English Concord but especially in Hainric Salo-Brigian his Becano-Baculus with vniforme consent BECAN Exam. Pag. 141. IF supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall that is Primacy of the Church was exercised vnder Queene Mary and might lawfully be executed by the Pope then it followeth that it vvas lawfully separated from the Regall Crowne For if it vvere by Diuine right vnited vnto it it could not bee separated from it and lawfully exercised Dr. HARRIS Reply IF the heauens fall wee shall haue stoare of Larksheads Wee will as soone grant that the heauens may fall as that the Pope might lawfully exercise supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction within this kingdome If Queene Mary would wilfully superstitiously renounce that Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction which was due vnto her as Queene of England by the law of God and the law of this kingdom yet it followes not that the said supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction was not by diuine and humane right vnited to the Crowne The publique worship scruice of GOD was vnder the law vnited to the persons Leuiticall to the place where the Temple was yet Ieroboam who made all Israel to sinne as Quecne Mary more bloodie then he made all England to sinne changed both persons and place by whom and wherein Gods diuine publique worshippe was then to be performed Heere then is nought else but Becanicall folly or foppery Iesuiticall BECAN Exam. Pag. 145 THat which you cite from the Bishop of Ely and assert heere your selfe viz. That we giue more to an Abbess namely power to excōmunicat then you to the Queen is not true You ascribe all to the Queen which you doe to the King as to haue Primacy to be head of the English Church c. Abbesses with vs haue not power to excommunicate as Elizabeth with you had Hear what our Canons think of this matter It is plaine 33. q 5. ca. Mulierem that the woman is subiect to the dominion of the man or her husband hath no authority For she cannot teach nor be a witnes nor iudge how much lesse may she commaund or raigne De sentent Excommunicationis cap. De monialibus And againe If Nunnes or Monialls lay violent hands vpon themselues their Conuerts or Clerks they ought to be absolned by the Bishoppe of that Diocesse vvherein their Monasteries are Hence the canonists gather that Abbesses cannot absolue and therefore cannot excommunicate their Monialls And this is obserued in our practise See Suarez Tom. 5. d. 2. Sect. 2. et 3. Dr. HARRIS Reply THE reuerend Bishop of Ely asserted the Abbesses with Papists to haue or dinary Iurisdiction spirituall and therein to be equall with Abbats and that
large That an Abbesse may haue a Praelature and dignity with administration and a right to visit euen without the Monastery which right she may also commit to others And the Bishop Bitontine very lately holdeth and proueth the same in his works dedicated to Pope Clement 8. See the very Text. Sext. de Elect ca. Indemnitatibus prouing the same Barthol in l. 1. cod de dign lib. 12. n. 4. saith that Abbesses haue dignity with administration not onely ouer their Nunnes but also without for that they haue Castles c. as Abbats haue dignity with administration Sext. de Priuilegijs ca. Apostolicae And therefore by a ruled case among the Doctors grounded vpon ca. Attendentes in Clemētin de stat Monachor they ought to visit or to commit the visitation to others Extra con ca Vas electionis Out of these the like Steph. d' Aluin ca. 2. sect 12. of the power of Abbesses concludeth that Abbesses Prioresses claustrall by a certaine right constitutions and rule of S. Benedict from whence all the rest in a manner are drawne as also by custome haue authority and power ordinary spirituall and Ecclesiasticall ouer those that are vnder them And cap. 3. sect 8. That Abbesses Prioresses ex cardin concil 17. cal 4. bj cap. Dilecta and the Gloss adioyned haue all administration as well spirituall as temperall of those monasteriall Nuns saue only of those things whereof a woman is vneapable to weet of Order Now touching the power which Abbesses haue to excommunicate Because Tho. Aqui. in 4. sent dist 18. q. 2. art 2. in corpore writeth thus Excōmunicatio non est actus clanis directe sed magis exterior is iudicij Excommunication is not an act of the key directly but rather of external court Nauarre lib. quinto consil 1. de sentent Excom concludeth that a vvoman by priuiledge may also excommunicate Tabiena and Arnilla verbo Abbatissae nu 3. besides Panormitan Astensis and others That an Abbess may cōmand the Priests her subiects to excōmunicate their rebellious obstinat Nunnes or to absolue them Whereupon Steph. d'Aluin cap. 3. sect 12. concludeth thos Proinde omnis habens Iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam et si non habeat clauem ordinis potest excommunicare ex D. Thoma Therefore all hauing Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction may excommunicate according to Tho. Aquin. Now that they haue Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction witnes Panormitun in ca. De stat Monachor Iason consil l 40. lib. 2. Flaminius deresig lib. 3. q. 12. n. 12. saying Dispositum iur is in Abbate habere locum in Abbatissis What right Abbats haue Abbesses haue the same And againe Panormitan Arnilla Flaminius write That Abbesses exempt haue right or iurisdiction to visit the places and persons subiect to them and that they haue Clerks subiect vnto them Pleno iure that is vnder their gouernment as well Ecclesiasticall as Temporall Now say Card. Parisius and Flaminius Out of the right to visit or from visiting by her selfe or her deputie followeth her Iurisdiction to depriue depose correct punish and chastise And to haue them subiect to her Pleno iure by full right doth plainely import Iurisdiction Depriuation Visitation and Correction To conclude this point If priuat men and vvomen be capable of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction If Abbesses haue and execute the same in collating Benefices instituting suspending depriuing visiting iudging crimes and imposing and receiuing purgations of Bishops lastly excommunicating and absoluing according to Popish Canons Canonists Custome and practise among them with what face doth this Iesuit or any other Papist scandalize our Kings or Queenes for taking or vs for ascribing vnto them Supreme Ecclesi Iurisdiction yet not that wherby our Kings or Queens may institute Clerks excōmunicate or absolue them oras King Iames and late Queen Elizabeth haue in their writings published to the whole world Therefore most impudently false is the Iesuit heere asserting that Queen Elizabeth had power to excommunicate Touching Suarez let this Iesuit know that Steph. D' Aluin hath refuted in this point a farre greater better learned man then Suarez is to weet Franciscus a Victoria in his Relect. 2. de potest Ecclesiae and shewed the practise of the Church to be as heere hath beene declared Christian Reader I haue beene much heere in this point because it is of that moment and so remarkable for recompence in replying to the remainder of Becanes Examivation I promise to bee short the rather because in truth it is but froth not deseruing any other answere at all but that which is already set down in my English Concord ⧠Becans Iarre VI. Question Whether the King of his owne Authority can assemble or call together Councells 1. NOvv follow the Iarres and debates of our Aduersaries concerning the Offices and Functions of the Kings Primacy and they are sixe in number which may be disputed of The first is of assembling or calling together of Synods The second of enacting of Ecclesiasticall lawes The third of conferring or bestowing of Benefices The fourth of creating and deposing of Bishops The fift is about Excommunication The sixt and last is about the decision and determining of Controuersies The question then is vvhether these offices belong to the Kings Primacy I will speake a vvord of each in order 2. First it may bee demaunded vvhether the King by vertue of his Primacy may of his owne authority call or assemble together Synods therein sit as chiefe head This was certainly perswaded that it might be done in the time of King Henry K. Edward and Queene Elizabeth but now vnder King Iames the matter is called into question M. Salclebridge pag. 121. affirmeth that be can dot it in these vvords Christiani Principes in Regnis suis cum laude propria auctoritate Synodos conuocarunt Constitutiones condiderunt causas audierunt cognouerunt Christian Princes haue with great praise assembled Synods by their owne authority in their Kingdoms haue made Constitutions heard and examined causes c. And again pag. 146. Rex Angliae potest Synodos indicere omnium Ordinum Oecumenicas et in ijsdem praesidere The King of England saith he may assemble Generall Councells of all Orders or degrees and therein sit as President or Chiefe c. And pag. 155. hee saith in like manner Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate deiure Synodos conuocarunt The Kings of England haue by their owne supreme authority and by right assembled Synods c. 3. Now Ma Tooker in this point is very variable one vvhile contradicting himselfe another while others And this is manifest out of the diuerse testimonies he produceth The first is pag. 37. where hee hath these words A quibus magis aequum est indici Concilia quà mabillis penes quos semper fuit authoritas ea congregandi Cùm autem communiter triplex ponisoleat Concilium Generale Prouinclale Dioecesanū Concilium Generale solius Papae iussu celebrari vultis sed nequeillud nisi ab
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
at Ierusalem whether did raigne Christian or Pagan Princes how idle is this when the question is only about Christian Princes what is there no difference here betwixt a Iesuite and a Sophister But if Peter was then the sole Primate of the Church why did he not alone call that Synode and why did Iames sit President in that Councell what meane these words Visumest nobis it seemed good vnto vs and not rather it seemed good to Peter or alone or with the addition of Primate or after this manner it seemed good to our holy father Pope Peter after him to the residue of the Apostles and Elders If Peter or the Pope bee Supreme iudge of all controuersies what meane these words Visum est spiritui Sancto It seemed good to the Holy-ghost and not rather it seemed good to Pope Peter the Supreme iudge of all controuersies This is a great mysterie as if no mortall man but only the Holy-ghost could be Supreme iudge of all controuersies in the Church And why may not prouinciall Councells becalled by the Metrapolitan Nouel constit 123. leg 13. et 133 Franc. and Dioecesan by the Bishops by vertue of Ecclesiasticall lawes made by Christian Princes especially seeing as Dr. Tooker rightly affirmeth their indiction primarily appertayneth to the King and from him may be deriued to the Bishops These things doe excellently agree together BECAN Exam. Pag. 152 YOu say our English Writers touching the Kings Supremacy differ only in words or names An ingenuous confession whence I conclude his Supremacy to be verball and titular only and not reall Yet the Bishop of Rochester died for not acknowledging it And others for the same causes are imprisoned which makes you labour so much to bring asleepe or to extinguish this Nominall Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply I Say as I haue aboundantly proued in this Replie and in my English Concord that all our English-Protestant-Writers doe with full and vniforme consent agree in the reall solide and substantiall Supreme Gouernment of the King in all Causes and ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill within his Dominions next vnder Christ Further that all the said Writers sully agree in the verie name of that Supreme Gouernment to weet the English name Supremacy Moreouer that all the saide Writers in the sense of this reall thing and of the name of this reall thing call the same Supreme Gonernment in Latine Primatum Primacy and Iurisdictonem Spiritualem vel Ecelesiasticam Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction Againe that all the saide Writers call and acknowledge the King to bee reallie Supreme Gouernour in all Causes and ouer all Persons Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill vvithin his Dominions next vnder Christ. And in this sense all the said VVriters call the King Supreme Primate and Head of this Church as hath been shewed expreslie out of their owne writings Whereby appeaâ—eth that in very truth here is no English Iarre among our Protestant Writers Reall or Nominall And so these figge leaues wherewith Becane endeauoureth to couer the shameful nakednes of the Popish sort denying to acknowledge the Kings Supremacy aforesaid are remoued and taken cleane away But alas for for this seely Iesuit who is confined now in his English Iarre to Iarre Nominall only and not Reall and hath no other twigge to hang by but this scattered consequent viz. The Protestant English Writers expresse the selfe same substantiall thing to weet the Kings Supremacy with varietie of names and phrases Therefore the thing it selfe is not reall but nominall Our Academian school-boyes would deseruedlie might hisse this Iesuite with his consequent out of the Vniuersitie Schools as exceeding foolish and childish Thus rather would the argument proceede The Iarres of some Writers about a thing or matter are Nominal only and not Reall Therefore their consent is reall and the thing it selfe Reall Touching Rochester-Bishop inculcated by this Iesuite our King in his Apology pag. 121. according to the publike Records writeth thus Roffensis in carcerem coniect us est priusquam in iudicium capitis de Primatu Pontificis vocaretur idque partim quòd tardior esset ad successionem Regiae prolis confirmandam cui iam antea Regni Ordines subscripserant partim quod implicatus eo negotio tenebatur quod de sancta Virgine Cantiana ill is temporibus forte inciderat adeo vt propter â—elatas Pseudoprophetiae illius fraudes reus iudicatus sit Maiestatis ob non detectam coniurationem The Bishop of Rochester vvas imprisoned and condemned not onely for acknowledging the Popes Supremacy but also for gaine saying the lawfull succession of the Kings progeny and for concealing high treason against the King And why might not the Bishop of Rochester then or why may not the Popish ones here now in like case be imprisoned or put to death for treason against their Soueraign Who can denie that it is treason for any subiects to deny their Soueraigne to be their lawfull Prince But since euery lawfull Christian Prince is Supreme gouernour of his owne subiects in things Spirituall and Temporall or which is all one is Custos vtriusque Tabulae Keeper of both Tables to deny that of their Soueraigne is to deny him to be their lawfull Prince Assuredly to acknowledge the Popes Supremacy here as now it is defined and conuerted from Spirituall to Secular is to acknowledge the King to hold his kingdome of the Pope in Chiefe and that also at his will and pleasure as it is plaine by their Canon law and Canonists yea to hold their liues also as Tenants of Life at the Popes will by Iesuiticall doctrine as before in this Reply and in Becano-Baculus was expresly shewed and prooued demonstratiuelie And what is this else but apparantly to denie the King and to assert the Pope to be their Soueraigne Lord and King indeed And is not this high treason in the highest degree why then may not such lawfully be imprisoned condemned and executed as Arch-traitors At least why may not our King require an oath and this saide oath of his subiects against the Pope vsurping his right 2. King ca. 11. v. 4 as well as Iehoiada the high Priest did of the men of Iuda for Ioas their King against Athalia that vsurped his state Queene Elizabeth in her Explanation of the Supremacy caused these words to be printed and published to all her subiects viz. That if any her subiects would accept the oath of Supremacy with this interpretation sense meaning viz. That the K. or Q. Maiesty of England vnder God is to haue soueraignetie and rule ouer all manner of persons borne within her Maiesties Realmes Dominions and Countries of what estate Ecclesiasticall or Temporall soeuer they be so as no forraine Power shall or ought to haue any superiority ouer them her Maiesty is well pleased to accept euery such in that behalfe as her good and obedient subiects and shall acquite them of all manner penalties contained in the said Act against such as shall
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
Pag. 48. DIstinguish but the times as St. Augustine teacheth you namely the times of the Churches peace wherein raigned Christian Princes and the times of persecution wherin Pagan Kings had the Soueraignty and you shall rightly vnderstand the Scriptures Of the peaceable times of the Church so writeth Dr. Tooker pag. 42. It belonged to King Dauid Salomon Iehoshophat and Iosias to giue lawes to the Leuites and to the whole congregation of Israel And in the same place he writeth again of the times of persecution Erat Apostolorum omnium c. It vvas not one but all the Apostles which both called the Councell and decreed vvith like solemnity of these words Visumest Spiritui sancto et nobis It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to vs. Ma. Thomson speaking of this matter doth not denie that the lame Apostolicall law had any force without the fauour of Caesar as though there had neuer beene law in the Church vvithout the aforsaid approbation of the Emperour but onely that without it they had no force vnder paine of corporall punishment as is most plaine by the tenor of his vvords So that heere is no Iarre or dissension among the English Writers as hee affirmeth but onely a dreaming dorage of the Iesuit who childishly sporteth himselfe with a fallacy of Equinocation especially when hee endeuoureth to match in equall ranke the lawes and Canons of Bishops with the lacred decrees and Constitutions of the Apostles Well wrote Saint Augustine Dâ—Nâ—ur et Grana c. 61. I am bound to consent to the holy Scriptures of the which sort are the decrees of the Apostles without all refusall And in another place Iread other Writers Epist 19. ad Hiero. Dist 9. Egoâ—oht how much soeuer they excell in holinesse or learning so as I doe not therefore thinke it truth because they thought so but because they perswade mee by other canonicall Authors or by probable reasons not differing from truth And against Faustus Lib. 11. ca. 5. We must read this kind of learning such as are the writings of the holy Fathers and Doctors non cum credendi necessitate sed cum libertate iudicandi not as bound to belieue them but as free to iudge them And vnto this purpose he writeth in another place Neither vvill I obiect the Councell of Nice vnto thee Cont Maxinn l. 5. c. 14. neither must thou obiect the Councell of Ariminum vnto mee let matter vvith matter and reason dispute vvith reason out of the authorities of holy Scriptures The Iesuit I hope will not deny that all the Apostolicall Sanctions vvere giuen by Diuine Inspitation and dareth hee affirme so much of all Ecclesiasticall Canons of Bishoppes yea though the Popes Holinesse haue breathed vpon them yea of the Councell of Trent Against which the Embassadours of the French King Anno 1562 who was there present protested in this manner Minus legitima minusque libera c. All those Councells vvere euer accounted lesse free and therefore not so lavvfull vvhen they vvho vvere assembled not ledde by the holy Ghost spake after the pleasure of some other to vveet the Pope And the Vniuersitie of Paris Anno 1517. in their appeale against Pope Leo the tenth and his Councell assembled at Rome wrote in this sort Leo Papa dicimus in quodam coetu c. Leo the tenth in a certaine Assembly in the Citie of Rome vvee knovve not hovv gathered together yet vve are sure not in the holy Ghost And is Becane the Iesuit ignorant in what pleasant manner Cardinall Cusan brake this iest vpon Eugenius the Pope saying De còcord lib. 2. ca. 20. Hovv can Pope Eugenius affirme this thing to be true because hee vvill haue it so and for no other cause Ac si inspiratio ipsius Sancti spiritus c. As if the mind of the holy Ghost vvere in the power of the Bishop of Rome and must then inspire vvhen the Pope vvill have him inspire To conclude this Question I desire the Iesuit Becane in the behalfe of Ma. Thomson to yeeld a sound reason wherefore the Bishops in the first Councell of Constantinople did in this humble manner entreat Theodosius the Emperour Rogamus clementiam c. Wee beseech your clemency that by the letters Patents of your Piety you vvould confirme and cause to be ratified the decree of this Councell BECAN Exam. Page 162 THe Apostles by diuine right might make lawes Which right cannot be proued to haue bin transtated froÌ„ them to Kings or Emperours but to Bishops successours of the Apostles with whom as with the Apostles the Spirit of truth remaineth for euer Therefore the Bishoppes and their Lawes or Canons euen in England are no lesse diuinely inspired then the Apostles or their Lawes or Canons Apostolicall Which if you deny the Arch-bishop of Cauterbury or certainely the Bishop of Ely will cause you to be punished therefore You are abasht to speake any thing of King Henry 8. his law touching the lawfull marriages in degrees not prohthited which carnall knowledge followed Dr. HARRIS Reply VVHat modest Hearer will not be abashed and what Christian heart will not tremble to heare these blasphemies vttered by the Iesuite The Apostles were Gods chosen pen-men to write the Scripture as they were immediately mooued by the Spirit of God 2. Pet. 2.19 21 without possibility of error They were Gods immediate instruments either joyntly in Councell or singularly alone to set downe Lawes and Canons Essentiall parts of that Scripture wherof we read thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Tim. 3.16 1. cor 15.15 The whole Scripture is gluen by inspiration of God The Apostles were such chosen witnesses to testifie Gods truth Gal. 3.8 that if an Angel from heauen should testifie otherwise than they did he must be accursed Are all Bishoppes or any one two three c. Gods immediate pen-man to write portions of holie Canonical Scripture Are all the Lawes and Canons made by Bishops in all Councells essentiall parts of Canonicall Scripture giuen by inspiration of God Are all Bishops God immediate chosen witnesses to testifie the truth so without all possibility of falshood that the Churches faith should depend thereon so sure that if an Angell of heauen testifie other wise then they haue preached or written he should be accursed Then must writings testimonies and lawes hereticall go for Scripture Canonical and so Diuine Scripture must be hereticall Is not this blasphemy And this necessarily followeth from the Iesuite his premisses here to weet That all Bishops and the lawes and Canons in Councells and other writings made by Bishops are and were inspired by the spirit of truth without errour as the Apostles and their Canons and writings were Ten seucrall prouinciall Synods gaue consent with the Arian Heretikes And whereas in the first and most famous generall Councell of Nice which maintained or thodoxally Christ his God-head there were but three hundred and eighteene Bishops In the hereticall
but because they are set downe there not only as Canons or Doctrines allowed but also as Essentiall parts of holy writte and Canonical Scripture so neither Assuerus Ordinance was not any Law or Canon of Bishop was is or euer shall be According to that of Saint Hierom vpon the 89. Psalme Quamuis sanctus sit aliquis post Apostolos quamuis disertus sit non habet authoritatem No man be hee neuer so holy or eloquent after the Apostles hath any authoritie The Canons and Doctrines of the Apostles are the foundations whereupon the Church of Christ is built Ephes 2.20 and containe that absolute certainety of Diuine truth that If an Angell from heauen should teach otherwise he should be accursed Agreeable to that of Saint Augustine Contra liter Petilian lib. 3. ca. 6. De quacunque re quae pertinet ad sidem vitamque nostram non dicam si nos sed si Angelus de coelo nobis annunciauerit praeterquaÌ„ quod in Scripturis legalibus et euangelicis accepist is Anathema sit Bee it of any thing that pertaines to faith or maners I do not say if vve but if an Angel from heauen preach otherwise then is set down in the scriptures Legal Euangelicall let him be accursed But of all other Lawes Canons and Writings Origen in his first Homilie vpon Hieremy writeth thus Sensus nostri et enarrationes sine his testibus non habent fidem Our iudgements or decrees and our Explanations vvithout these witnesses haue no credit And these witnesses saith Augustine De Pec. mer. et Remiss lib. I. cap. 22. nec falli possunt nec fallere Can neither deceiue nor be deceiued Therefore when Constantine the great had gathered those 318. Bishops to the famous Councell of Nice by way of instruction he gaue vnto them the Apostles Canons and Doctrines set downe in the Scripture as their Directorie rule whereby to make and square their Ecclesiasticall Canons Theodoret lib. 1. cap. 7. reports the wordes thus Euangelicae et Apostolicae literae c. The writings of the Euangelists Apostles and Prophets do plainely instruct vs in the vvill and minde of God Therefore laying aside contention let vs seeke out of those oracles diuinely inspired the vnsolding of things propounded Therefore what horrible blasphemy is this in the Iesuit to assert first that the Bishops their lawes and writings are of like inspiration and authority to binde the Conscience as the Canons and Doctrines of the Apostles contained in the Scriptures Secondly that it mattered not whether those Canons and Doctrines were written in Gods booke or no. Because Aristotle faid of all lawes Scriptaene sint leges an non scriptae interessenibil videtur Wheras Tertullian saith against that Heretike Hermogenes Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina Sinonest scriptum timeat vae illud adijcientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum Let Hermogenes shew it written or else let him feare that curse which is appointed for those vvho adde to or take from the Scripture And touching Philosophers the same Tertullian in the said book writes thus in capital letters Haereticorum Patriarchae Philosophi Philosophers are Arch-fathers of Heretikes Secondly That the Apostles Canons Doctrines set downe in Scripture are but humane Canons and Doctrines Which then saith Augustine de vnitat Eccl. contr Petilian cap. 3. were to be taken away His words be these Auferantur de medio quae aduersus nos inuicem non ex diuinis Canonicis libris sed aliunde recitamus Quaeret fortasse aliquis cur vis ista auferri de medio Quia nolo humanis documentis sed diuinis oraculis Ecclesiam sanctam demonstrari Away vvith all those authorities that either of vs alleage against the other but those that are taken out of Canonicall Scripture If any aske why I would haue all other authorities put away I answere because I vvould haue the Church demonstrated by Diuine Oracles not humane documents Plus aliquid dicam saith Chrysostome in his second Homily vpon Pauls second Epistle to Timothy Ne Paulo quidem obedire oportet si quid dixerit proprium si quid Humanum I will say more Paul him selfe is not to be beleeued If hee speake any thing of his owne if he speake only as a man Therefore Saint Paul of his Canons and Writings saith thus If any man thinke himselfe to be a Prophet or Spirituall 1. Cor. 14.37 let him acknowledge that the things vvhich I write to you are the Commandements of the Lord. How great is this Iesuiticall impietie and how abhominable too call Diume Oracles and Gods commandements Humane documents But this is not all The Iesuit addeth out of Vlpian for a generall rule That thesole will of the Prince is sussicient to make a law to be of force to binde Christians to obey for conscience sake for of such lawes only we here dispute Whence this impiety should necessarily follow that because Nabuchodonosor the Law-maker vsed all his Monarchicall power and authoritie to make a decree That euery subiect of his should fall downe and worship the golden Image which he had set vp Sidrach Mishak and Abednego were bound in conscience to fall down and worshippe it Heretofore we haue found the Iesuit to be very vnlearned but in this passage he declares himselfe to be impious also and blasphemous BECAN Exam. Page 169 WHere read you that the fift Councell of Constantinople vvas celebrated vnder Theodosius You alwayes erre Indecde the words you cite are in the first Councell of Constanunople viz We pray your Clemency to confirme the Councells decree The reason of which words you saide was this That alt though those Fathers made a decree which had force of an Ecclesiasticall law and force to compell by Ecclesiasticall censure yet they prased the Emperour to confirme the decree by adding a constraining force through temporall punishments If this your reason whereby you defended Thomson be good why doe you aske me another If if be not good why did you not answere for him better If Thomson meane that Prelates may by their owne authority make lawes Ecclesiasticall to bind their subiects to the keeping thereof by â—â—â—sures Ecclesiasticall but cannot vrge them by punishments Corporall and that Kings should onely subseruire serue vnder the Prelates as their outward executors hangmen or the like he consenteth with vs. Otherwise there is no Concord Chuse which you will Dr. HARRIS Reply COncord What concord hath Christ with Belial The beleeuing Protestant with the Idolatrous Papist The seruants of Christ with the sworne slaues of Antichrist Wicked Nahash the Ammonite would not couenant with the Gileadites for peace vnlesse he might thrust out all their right eyes and bring shame vpon all Israell The Iesuit here more wicked than Nahash protesteth that he will haue no concord with vs vnlesse he may not only bring shame vpon Israel but quench the light and glory of Israel to weet that our Kings casting their Crownes at the Popes nay at
inferiour Bishops feete should stand ready to be hangmen or the like executioners of all their impious and vnrighteous decrees commands viz to hang and burne whom when and where they will Chuse vvhich vve vvill We will chuse millions of Combats with garments tumbled in bloud rather than to yeeld to the least iotte of this shame and disgrace of our royall Monarches the Soueraigne Lords of all Prelates within their Kingdomes Patriarkes or Popes themselues Although no lines of concord can be drawen between vs and the Papists yet here among our sâ—lues is full consent Dr. Tooker saith in times of Churches persecution the Apostles did and wel might make lawes Ecclesiasticall Mr. Thomson granteth as much and addeth that because the authority of Emperours then heathen did not breath vpon them or with them they wanted the enforcements by corporall punishments as imprisonments losse of goods members life c. Dr. Tooker saith in times of Church peace the authority of calling Councels and of ratifying the Canons and Decrees made in Councels belongeth to Christian Kings and Emperours Mr. Thomson with full agreement saith in those times of peace the Bishops and Councels could not make any Ecclesiasticall law which had force of law without the authority of the King or Emperour To backe this assertion of Mr. Thomson I mooued the Iesuite to yeeld a sound reason why especially if that be true which Pope Boniface 8. in that last Canon Extrauâ—g Commun de Mâ—â—or et Obedien Vnam Sanctam viz. Vterque gladius spiritualis et materialis est in potestate Ecclesiae sed ille Sacerdotis is manu Regum et militum sed ad Nutum sacerdotis exercendus Both spirituall and materiall sword are in the Churches power but th' one is to be vsed by the hand of the Priest th' other by the hand of the King or Soldier but at the Priests beck or command so many to weeâ— 150. Bishops assembled in the first Councell of Constantinople should be such suppliants as it were vpon their knees vnto the Emperour beseeching so earnestly intreating him to confirme the Councells decree if that decree had had force of Ecclesiasticall decree without confirmation of the Emperour But this empty Iesuit not being able to giue another solide reason and not daring to yeeld that runs away from the matter and leaueth nought else behind him but the crackling sound of a windie tubbe answering vnto me nothing but this If your reason brought to defend Thomson were good vvhy did you aske me another If not why did you not giue me a better which his answer made in forme of the two horned Dilemma is thus returned vpon him with both hornes directly bent against him If my reason were good to accord them why doth the Iesuit here hold on his prattle of discord if it were not good why did not the Iesuit produce a better and a more solide reason of those Fathers intreaty for Imperiall confirmation to ratifie their decree considering that the Question as it was moued and darted by me strooke the Iesuites Cause through the very heart As som cannot fish but in troubled waters so it seemeth this Iesuit can holde no argument but in mists of confusion For here he confounds the Councell and lawes of the Apostles with Councels and Canons of after-Bishops Sic canibus catulos sic paruis componere magna It is belike the fashion Iesuitical to compare molehils with mountaines The Apostles in extraordinary manner Diuinely inspired might and did make Ecclesiastical lawes to binde the conscience of all Christians though not to punish their bodies But the after-Bishops in times of Christian Emperors neither did nor could meet specially in generall Councells to make lawes Ecclesiasticall for the space of 600. yeers at least after Christ without Imperiall commaund And when they were mette in Councell not only the Emperour but also his officers the lay Senate and Iudges sate as Presidents there giuing-rule and order for making of those Canons not suffering any to passe for law without their consent and confirmation of the Emperour as Hainric the Salo-Brigian in his Becano-Baculus hath with great varietie of solide proofs fully demonstrated and further hath there produced very many Ecclesiasticall lawes touching in a manner all Ecclesiasticall matters and Ecclesiasticall persons commendably made by orthodoxall Kings and Emperours without Councells of Bishops Lastly whereas the Iesuite here slyeth vpon mee indeede not vpon me but vpon the Compositer for mistaking the Arithmeticall figure of 5. for 1. and as though I had written fiue at large the Iesuit sets down quintuÌ„ he sheweth himself to be in the one a truthlesse wrangler and in the other a seely fly-catcher My Compositer or Transcriber must be whipt in print mistaking one letter for another but he must go scot-free mistaking one name for another one man for another to weet Tooker for Richard Exam. page 120. For which I would not taxe him in due place and here constrained I do it because I would not misspend the Readers precious time with such empty and childish trifles ⧠Becans Iarre VIII Question Whether the King by his owne proper authority may conferre collate or bestow Ecclesiasticall benefices 1. THat the King may conferre Ecclesiasticell liuings M. Henry Salclebridge affirmeth pag. 121. in these words Christiani Principes in suis Regnis cum laude propria authoritate beneficia conâ—ulerunt Christian Princes in their owne Kingdomes by their owne proper authority haue giuen or bestowed benefices and that to their praise c. And then againe pag. 150. Audin Iesuita non modo collationes beneficiorum ad Angliae Reges spectare fed ad eosdem illos spectare vti Ecclesiae Anglicanae Primates vel supremos Ordinarios c. Do you heare Iesuite the collation of benefices doth not onely belong to the Kings of England but also it doth belong vnto them as they are Primates or supreme Ordinaries of the Church of England c. And yet more Rex ratione supremae suae Ecclesiasticae iurisdictionis praesentabit ad liberas Capellas The King by vertue of his supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction shall be able to present vnto free Chappell 's c. 2. Now M. Tooker to the contrary denieth it pag. 36. where talking of the Kings of England he saith thus Beneficia autem curata vel non curata non conferunt omnino in queÌ„piam maiora minoraue multo minus dignitates Ecclesiasticas sine Episcopatus siue Archiepiscopatus per vniuersum ambitum Regnisui Eorum certè collatio vel institutio est quorum est destitutio id est Episcoporum Comprouincialium qui potestatem habent personas ipsassacrandi Hoc habetiuris Regia Maiestas quod minor â—ubordinata poteslas habet ius inquam nominandi pâ—aesentandi apud nos c. Kings doe not at all collate or bestowe vpon any man benefices that haue care of soules or not care greater or lesser and much lesse Ecclesiasticall dignities
vvhether Bishopâ—ickes or Archbishoprickes throughout the whole circuits of their Kingdomes For this truely belongeth vnto those whose office it is to dispose there of to wit to the Compreninciall Bishops who haue power to consecrate the saide persons on vvhome they bestowe them Indeede the Kings Maiesty notwithstanding hath this right with vs in England which an inferiour and subordinate power also hath to wit right so nominate and present vnto benefices c. 3. Behotde here a triple Iarre or discord betweene these two Authors and this in a daily and vulges watter The first is that M. Henry Salclebridge saith that the collasion of benefices belongeth to the Kings of England in that they he the Primates of the Church of England M. Tooker saith to the contrary that it belongeth not to Kings at all but to Bishops The second Iarre is that M. Salclebridge saith that Kings by their owne authority haue conferred benefices M. Tooker saith that they neuer do nor haue done The third is that M. Salclebridge saith that Kings by vertuâ— of their supreme Ecclesiasticall Iâ—risdiction may present 〈◊〉 benefices M. Tooker â—â—â—rrâ—th that in this point Kings hauene more right then their subiects and other inferiour persons for so he saith Hoc habet iuris Regia Maiestas quod minor subordinata potestas habet The Kings Maiesty hath in this point of conferring beneficer the same right that an inferiour and subordinate power bath c. Whether of these two then should King Iames belieue if he had a fat benefice or an Archbishopricke now to bestow English Concord HEere is also a Iesuiticall trifling altercation about words Hainric by collation of Benefices vnderstandeth Presentation Nominations to Benefices the very Donation of Benefices Doctor Tooker thereby concclueth the Institution of Presbyters and the consecration of Bishops Dr Tooker acknowledgeth the Kings Presentation Nomination Donation Hainric by no meanes attributeth to the king either Institution or Consecration as both of them being proper go the Bishops The Kings presenthig of his Clearks to the Bishoppe for institution of them into such Benefices with Cure as respect the Kings hereditary right of Patronage is nor much different from the presentations made by his subiects who haue the like right of Patronage vnlesse it be herein viz that the King by his writ may and doth compell the Bishoppe especially after recoucry by Quare Impedie opposing himselfe therein to institute fitte Clarks presented by his Maiesty or by other Patrons to the said Bishoppe But the presentation of certaine Benefices with Cure after they haue continued void of any Incumbent for the space of 18 Monethes appertaines vnto the King by way of lapse as vnto the Supreme Ordinarie in his Dominions or the only Supreme Gouernour of the Church therein and that by the common lawes of England as is expresly shewed in Becano-Baculus Page 142. 150. Moreouer there are certaine Benefices with Cure called Donatiues which admit no Institution at all of these the King by his owne Donation onely without any either Episcopall Institution or Archidiaconall Induction makes the Clearks rightfull possessours Doctor Tooker knoweth well these triuial and vulgar matters as Becane here calleth them and beares in minde our most learned Soueraigne his words in his Monitory Preface touching the Collation of Benefices Page 33. How often haue the Kings of France withstood the Pope in such sort that they would not yeeld vnto him the very Collation of Benefices And those other words concerning Bishoprickes receiued from Kings and Emperours Page 29. Euen the Pope also with all obedience and submission did acknowledge himself to hold his Popedom of the Emperour And Page 31. He that peaceably is desirous to know in what sort the Bishops of Spaine Scotland England Hungary by ancient Institution euen vntill moderne innouation came in and were inuested by Kings with quiet possession of their temporals purely and intirely he shall finde the same by searching the liues of the Fathers and by reading Histories Walthram Naumburg lib. de Inuestit Episc Behold then how a threefold Concord ariseth out of that threefold Iarre which the Iesuit faineth The first Concord Hainric saith that the conferring of certain Benefices belongs to the Kings of England by way of lapse as they are the chief Gouernours of the Church of England Doctor Tooker affirmeth that the Collation of Benefices lying void of any Incumbents aboue 18. Monethes appertaineth to the King onely by way of lapse and not to the Bishops or Archbishops or to any other subiect The second Hainric saith that Kings by their own authority haue oftentimes giuen Benefices to weet Donatiues Tooker auerreth that the King may giue 40. 50. or moe within the compasse of one yeare if so many fall void The third Hainric saith that by the lawes of England Kings because of their Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction present to free Chappels and that none of their subiects to weet Bishoppes or Archbishops haue authority to visit the said Chappels Dr. Tooker instructed by the same lawes auoucheth that Kings onely haue that authority and no subiects but by the Kings grant Finally if the hungry Iesuite who mindeth onely his meat that is far Benefices or Archbishoprickes can produce but one little either word of Scripture or sentence in Ancient Father whereby it may appeare that the Collation of Benefices belonged to the Primate of the Christian Church as Primate let him haue the victory But if he cannot vnlesse hee be more then impudent let him seale vp his lips and recognize those words of the Parisian Aduocate Arg. 11. Page 25. That of Luk. 9. The Sonne of man hath not vvhere to rest his head is Equiualent with this The Church by Diuine right hath no Territory BECAN Exam. Page 173 SMall Benefices without Cure may be conferred vpon Clearks which are neither Priests nor Bishops Therefore Tooker by Collation doth not meane Institution or Sacration Againe hee saith that the King of England hath no other right then to name or present but to giue or conferre is more then to name and present you faine Tooker by Collation to vnder stand Instuntion or Consecration Therefore you dissent from Tooker Hainric saith the Collation of Benefices belongeth to the King of England as Primate of the Church of England but this you deny for you bid mee shew out of Scripture or Ancient Father that the Collation of Benefices belongeth to the Primate of the Church Not I but Hainric who affirmed it must shew that It is my part only to shew that English Writers dissent in this point This I haue done let me therefore haue the victory Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere the Iesuit is as a chased timorous Hart which hauing his deadly wound giuen him flyeth out a while straggling from his fellowes but feeling decay of his vitall spirits and lifes bloud runs into the brakes to hide his head and there to perish Becane in his verball but in no sort reall confutation of his
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.
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
if the Turke should commaund them to follow the Alcoran The King of Spaine force them to heare Masse The Pope to pray for the dead and some heathen King perhaps compell them to Idolatry Shall they then obey these Princes commaund But then should they doe against their consciences Shall they refuse to obey Then farewell Primacie of the Church Perhaps they vvill aunswere that they vvill obey vvhen they thinke good Shall therefore subiects be Iudges of their King May then the Catholicks in England say after this manner If it please your Maiestie in this point we think good to obey your Maiesties commaund but in that not English Concord IN this place either the Iesuit is beside himselfe or else hee hath much forgot himselfe For euery where in his other Questions hee affir meth that no King either Pagan or Christian hath any Primacy in the Church and yet heere hee enquireth from whence and by what title hee hath his Primacie in the Church Therefore by his owne learning hee beateth his braines to find the originall of nothing If he take away this supposition that the King hath a Primacie in the Church either precisely as hee is a King or else because hee is a Christian King hee is a foolish Sophister For his dispute runnes not thus The King if he haue Primacy of the Church he hath it either as he is a King or as a Christian King but hee hath it in neither of the said two respects therefore hee hath it not at all If hee let that supposition stand then because it is manifest that our most gracious King Iames is by birth a King and by religion a Christian King he is a brainsick wrangler For sith by his supposall heere The King hath the Primacie of the Church vvhat matter is it whether he haue it as hee is a King or as hee is a Christian King if so bee he haue it at all Wherefore there is no cause that we should much stand vpon this idle and beggerly question wherein is onely a shadow of a question Furhermore I would haue the Iesuit vnderstand that this Primacie of the Church hee standeth vpon is not deriued from the title of a King but from God himselfe For Moses was adorned with this dignitie in the Church of Israel And yet we neuer read that hee was stiled with the title of a King But certainly that you may knowe heere is no iarre or odds among vs respecting the maine the worthy Bishop of Ely in his Tortura pag. 377. hath soundly and according to the very truth manifested That the Primacie of the Church belongeth not to Ethnicke Kings as Ethnick but vnto Kings as they are Christian Kings or Defenders of the Diuine truth His words are these Et sunt ista quidem ex Testamento veteri satis solida fundamenta non quod ad reges infideles Primatum pertinere probent c. And those things before related out of the old Testament are so solid and substantiall grounds as Tortus shall neuer bee able to shake Not that they proue this Primacie of the Church to belong to Pagan Kings no surely wee in the new Testament giue no more vnto such Princes then vvas giuen in the old vnto Ahasucrus and Nabuchodonosor Wherfore in this point Tortus is beside himselfe but yet if Caesar become a Christian as in Constantine then presently he hath the same right ouer the Church of the new Testament vvhich Iosias had in the old Reditus statim fit ad iura regum Israel there is a present possession of the ancient rights of the Kings of Israel as soone as euer they are made Kings of the Israel of God giuen vp their names to Christ. Wherefore this is not our purpose that the Persecuters of the Church such as vvere Cains and Tiberius should be the Gouernours of the Church vvho would not receiue that title although a man would giue it them because they employ their vvhole strength to ruine and roote vp the Church but let them then take superiority in the Church vvhen they are vnfainedlie converted to the faith thereof There are due to Caesar the things of Caesar and there belong to the Christian Caesar vvhatsoeuer duties vnder the old Law were either payd or payable by the people of God to their Kings vnto vvhom were then due and yielded all manner of subiection and obedience not onely in the affaires of the couill state but also of the Church These things so expressed are very true and fitting our purpose for in them we haue learned that Pagan Kings as they are Pagans haue no Primacie in the Church But what if almighty God so guide and gouern the hearts of Pagan Kings as that they would stand for the worship of God against error and make lawes for the same let the Iesuit tell mee in that case vvhether God doth not hinde our cōscience to obey pagan Princes And let him take heed how he deny it least Bellarmine fall on his Iack for it because he hath resolued the matter in the very same words De pont Rom. lib. 5. cap. 2. But yet if he doubt lot him resort to Saint Augustine in his 166. Epistle to the Donatists who writeth on this manner Quando Imperatores veritatem tenent c. When Emperours stand for the truth and giue out a commaundement for the same against errour vvhosoeuer shal despise the same encreaseth his owne damnation For euen among men hee suffereth punishment but before God hee shall not dare to appeare vvhich refuseth to doe that which truth it selfe commaundeth by the hart of the King And according to this opinion our reuerend B. in his Tortura Torti pag. 381. most truly writeth Quodcunque in rebus religionis c. Whatsoeuer the Kings of Israel did in matters of religion neither did they anything vvithout commendation vvherein they had power authority to enact Lawes as that GOD should not be blasphemed vvhich you will not deny the King of Babel also did Dan. 3.29 And the King of Nineuch Ionas 3.7 that vvith a publique proclaimed fast God almightie might bee satisfied Andaccording to this sentence wrote Saint Augustine many yeares before him in his 50. Epist to Bonifacius the Souldiour Sed illud propheticum iam impletur Psal 2. Et nunc reges seruite domino in timore c. But now is the propheticall Oracle fulfilled vvhich speaketh in the 2. Psalm Now ô yce Kings serue the Lord in feare And how shall Kings scrue the Lord in feare vnlesse they prohibite and punish those enormities with religious seueritie and iustice vvhich are daily committed against the Lords will and commaundement And because hee is a King he serueth as a seruant by making Lawes vvith force and vigour to commaund things that are righteous and to forbid the contrarie Euen as Ezekias serued by destroying the Temples of Idols and cutting downe the groues Euen as King losias serued by dooing the like Euen as the King of
Niniuch serued by compelling the vvhole Citie to pacifie the Lord. Euen as King Darius serued by breaking the Idol in pecces Euen as King Nabuchodonosor serued by making a godly and laudable lawe that vvhosoeuer blasphemed the God of Sydrach hee should be destroyed and his house razed In this therefore Kings serue the Lord in that they are Kings vvhen they doe those things for his seruice which they cannot doe but as they are Kings If therefore the Iesuit had seriously knowen how to distinguish these things hee might haue acknowledged that Maister Burhill and Maister Thomson agreed with the reuerend Bishop in this point Especially when Maister Thomson in pag. 78. writeth thus expresly and distinctly Omnes principes etiam pagani c. All Kings yea very Pagan Kings objectiuely haue supreme power ouer all the persons of their subiects both in sacred and ciuill things especially to attemper their measure and permit their exercise vvhich thing is witnessed by the Chronicles of all Nations Although the Pagans vsed that their power against the Lord yet vvas it a fault of the men abusing their power giuen them of God to a good end and not any fault of the power at all But yet by a farre more speciall regard did this power in Ecclesiasticall matters of old belong to the good Kings of Israell and now also to Christian Princes For they as bceing of the lewish Synagogue and these as beeing of the Church haue a greater and more speciall right in all causes of the Church then if they were meerely and onely Kings Wherefore in one respect it was said to Cyrus Pastor incusestu Thou art my Shepheard and in another respect to Dauid Tu pasces populum meum Israel Thou shalt feed my people Israel Which thing Iremember our reuerend Bishop hath admonished in another place And speaking to Becan himselfe pag. 94. hee concludeth with these words Haec facilia sunt intellectu miror te tantum Theologum hic haesisse These things saith hee are easie to be vnderstood and I cannot but vvonder that Becane vvho is magnified by the Papists for so great a Diuine should faile in a point of such facilitie Heere you may perceiue Readers that there is a constant English concord and no Iarre among vs at all wherein these two things offer themselues to bee considered First the Logick and secondly the plainnesse or rather ignorance of this Iesuit or at the least a Iesuiticall iarre or the Primacy of Kings established by the Iesuits themselues 1. Thus he reasoneth out of Maister Thomsons and Maister Burhills opinion All Kings yea popish and pagan haue a primacy in their Kingdoms Ergo saith the Iesuit it must needs follow that all persons liuing in those Kingdoms are bound to doe all things though neuer so vvicked which are by them commaunded Is this the Diuinitie of the Iesuits Math. 23. 2. Our Sauiour speaketh thus to his Disciples The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire all things therefore vvhich they commaund you to doe that obserue and doe Acts 4.18 There the same Pharisees out of the same chaire forbid the Apostles that they speake and preach any more in the Name of Iesus Therefore may not the Iesuit as Logically conclude that the Apostles are bound to obey them and then no more teaching in the Name of Iesus But Peter and Iohn answered them other wise Whether it be more iust vvee obey GOD or man iudge yee And after this manner writeth Isidore in the Canon law Si is qui praeest 11. q. 3. out of Basil St is qui praeest prohibet vobis quod a Domino est proeceptum c. If hee that sitteth chiefe forbid you that vvhich is commaunded of the Lord or on the contrary commaund that vvhich is forbidden of the Lord let him bee accursed of all them that loue God and reckoned a false vvitnesse and sacrilegious person The Romane Catholiques of Venice of Sorbona many other Noble-menan France acknowledge the Popes supremacy in the church but if the Pope should commaund them to become his subiects in temporall things etiam in ordine ad spiritualia in behalfe of spirituall causes or if hee should authorise the Alcoran and commaund them to follow it would they thinke you obey his vvill Then must they doe against their conscience If they doe not obey him then what shall become of the Popes Primacie I will beate you with the scourge of your owne tongue Perhaps they vvill aunswere They vvill obey vvhen they thinke good Shall therefore the papislicall Catholiques in France and in Venice take vp this saying Heere O Pope wee thinke good to obey your Holinesse commaund in this point and not in that and then farewell the Popes supremacy Thus much of the Logicke of Becane Now for his plainenesse or plaine ignorance these are the words of the Bishoppe of Ely in Tortura Torti pag. 39. Dominia non fundantur in fide sic infidelitate non euertuntur Quin rex quinis cum de Ethnice Christianus fit non perdit ius terrenum sed acquirit nouum Gouernments and principalities are not founded vpon belieuing and therefore are not ouerthrowne by infidelitie But vvhen any King is made a Christian of a Pagan hee loseth not the earthly right he had before but acquireth a new right Thus farre our vvorthy Bishoppe Now saith the Iefait in these words The Chaplaine teacheth that Pagan Kings haue no Primacie in the Church but they receiue it by their conuersion to Christianitie But I say that these are not the words of the Bishop of Ely onely but before him of Cardinall Bellarmine De Roman Pont Lib 5. cap. 2. et 3. Dominium non fundatur in gratia aut fide Christus non abstulit regna ijs quorum erant c. Lordshippe and principalitie is not grounded on grace or belieuing Christ tooke not away Kingdoms frons them to vvhom they belonged for hee came not to destroy things vvell established but to perfect them Therefore vvhen a King is made a Christian which vvas a Pagan hee loseth not his earthly Kingdome which hee had obtayned by right but acquireth nouum ius a nevv right Which nevv right if Becane may be belieued as an Interpreter or Concluder or Iudge is the Primacie in the Church And so we haue him crying guiltie confessing the question let vs sound the victory For if there be no iarre heere betwixt the Iesuits about this Primacie then haue wee plainly confirmed and euicted them that Christian Princes haue a Primacie in the Church For so Bellarmine expresly and dogmatically affirmeth That Ethnick Kings becomming Christians acquire a nevv right Which new right by confession of Becane is the Primacy in the Church Therefore Christian Kings haue a Primacie in the Church But vvhat is the Primacie of Pagan Kings as Pagans I leaue it to the Papists themselues to consider BECAN Exam. Pag. 212 I Doe not take away the Supposition out of mine ovvne opinion
amplexi idem sibi aut non multo secus asseruerunt c. The Oath of Primacy vvas first brought in vnder K. Henry the 8. vnder whom Sir Thomas More and the Bishop of Rochester vvere beheaded and that partly because they refused that Oath From him all my Predecessors dow neward as many as haue imbraced this Religion did retaine the same Oath or not much different vnto themselnes c. Novv the later Oath vvas inuented by King Iames himselfe The second poynt 6. The Question then is Whether all the Kings subiects in England are bound in conscience to tabe both these Oathes as often as the King shall exact the same Or vvhether they should suffâ—rimprisonments torments and death it selfe rather then sweare Concerning the former point the Catholiques doubt nothing for that they haue certainly and firmly determined rather to lese their lines together with the glorious Martyrs Sir Thomas More and the Bishop of Rochester then to admit the Kings Primacy and abiure the Popes Now coucerning the later Oath there hath been some doubt made these yeares past For that some Catholicks who perceiâ—ed not the force scope of that Oath did a little stagger at the beginning vvhether they might with a safe coÌ„science sâ—earâ— thereto or no. Which doubt of theirs notwithstanding did not last long but vvas soone taken away by Pope Paul the fist and Cardinall Bellarmine For the Pope forthwith directed two Apostolicall Breues to the Catholiques of England and the said Card vvrote a letter to Ma. Blackwell then Archpriest of this affaire Both Pope and Cardinall dec deny that the said Oath may be taken with a safe conscience and their reason is this Because no man with a safe conscience can deny the Catholicke faith But hee now who should take this Oath proposed by the King should deny the Catholicke faith though not generally yet in part so farre foorth as belongeth to some one article there of Ergo no man vvith a safe conscience can take this Oath 7. This reason beeing very sound all good Catholicks admit but our Adversaries doe not I in fauour and consolation of the Catholicks haue determined to adioyne heere vnto two other reasons especially against the Oath of Supremacy which by the Aduersaries cannot be reiected The first is this No man is bound in conscience to sweare that which is either apparantlie false or at leastwise doubt full But that the King is Primate supreme head of the Church and for such to be obeyed not onely in temporall but also in Ecclesiasticall matters is either apparantly false or at leastwise doubt full Ergo no man is bound in Conscience to sweare the same The Maior is cuident of it selfe for that it is not lawfull to affirme any thing which is either false er doubtfull and much lesse to sweare the same The Minor is prooned thus For that it is iudged apparantly false aswell amongst the Caluinists as amongst the Catholicks that the King is Primate supreme head of the Church But now amongst the Caluinists of England who adhere vnto the King the same is called into doubt For that some of theÌ„ affirme others deny these points following 1. That the King is Primate of the Church 2. That he is supreme head of the Church 3. That he hath Ecclesiasticall Primasy oner the Church 4. That hee hath power and Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall 5. That the King by his owne proper Autheritie may assemble Councelis or Synods and sit as chiefe Head or President therein 6. That hee can confer benefices or Ecclesiasticall liuings 7. That he can creats and depose Bishops 8. That hee is ludge in Controucrsies of faith c. So as truly if these and the like points be doubtfull and vncertaine amongst those who adhere vnto and fanour the King seeing that some deny them some assirme them it followeth necessarily that the Kings vvhole Primacy is an vncertaine thing What rashnes then impudencie is it to goe about to binde Catholicks in their Consciences to sweare that which they themselues doe affirme some of them to be false some others to be doubt full 8. I vvill explicate more distinctly that which I haue said The Oath of the Kings Primacy doth containe so many parts as there be or are thought to be Offices and functions of the Kings Primacy The Offices then either are or are thought to bee dinerse as we haue seen before towit to assemble Synods to exact and decree Ecclesiasticall lawes to confer benefices to create Bishops to determine controuer sies of faith and the like Therefore diuerse are the parts of the Oath of the Kings Supremacie Of these parts then let vs take one of them by it selfe to wit this I A. B. doe sweare in my conscience that I will be faithfull obedientvnto the King as often or whensoeuer he shall by his owne proper authority create Bishops whom he will againe depose from theis office or dignity whom hee will c. If this part onely of the Kings Offices shoulâ— be exacted of all his Maiesties subiects in England what do you thinke would be done Would all trow you yea they vvho most adhere now vnto the King sweare this Let them swear that would M. Tooker I am sure if hee be a constant man would not For that he denyeth the creation and deposition of Bishops to belong any way vnto the King And if so be that heâ— who otherwise acknowledgeth the Kings Primacie at least in words would not sweare there unto how then should Catholicks be compelled to doe the same who doe in no wise acknow ledge it And what I haue said concerning this point the same may be also said of therest 9. My other reason is this King Iames doth often protest that he claimeth no more right or Inrisdiction oner the Church then did the Kings in the olà Tistament in ancient times and therfore that this his Primacy must be coutained within the same lymits termes that theirs was in the old Testament But the Kings in the old Testament could not compell their subiects to sweare such an Oath as this I A. B. doe openly testifie and in my conscience declare that Ieroboam is the onely supreme Gonernour of this Kingdome of Israel as well in spirituall as temporall matters And that no forrayner hath any iurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority in this Kingdom c. Ergo neither King Iames can inforce his subiects to take such a like Oath The Maior is manifest out of his Maiesties owne words in his Apologie The Minor I thus explicate After the death of King Salomon his kingdome God so disposing was diuided into two parts vvhereof one contained ten Tribes the other two So as by this meanes they became two distinct kingdoms afterwards and therein raigned two distinct Kings one whereof had no depeÌ„dance of the other in temporall gonernment One was called King of Israel the other King of Iuda and both of them had
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
practice in his Prouince which thing making so much for establishing and confirming the outward peace and Ecclesiasticall politie of the Christian world is much desired Cod. de sacra sa Eccl. l. omni Inno and hoped for at the next generall Councell as wee read in old time that the Emperour of Constantinople by his law did in all things equall the iurisdiction of the Bishoppe of Constantinople with the power of the Bishop of Rome Quam legem euertere nunquam potuit Papa omnia conatus Imperator is patrocinio tutam Which law maintained by the patronage of the Emperour the Pope could neuer repeale although he assaied all meanes for the same Liberat. cap. 13. And may not then I pray you sir those Kings lawfully say to their Priests Doe not obey the Bishop of Rome but obey this Patriarch alone You are exempt from all Romish power and iurisdiction If the Iesuit doubt heereof let him repaire to Gerson De Auferebilitate Papae that stiffe Patron of the Romane Religion and hee will teach him thus much Iohannes de Parisys also in his Treatise De Pot. Reg. Papal cap. 13. writeth thus Bonifacius obtinuit a Phoca c. Pope Boniface obtained of Phocas that the Church of Rome should be called the Head of all Churches Whereby we may gather such another argument That it appertaineth to the Emperour to transferre the Primacy of the Church and to order Ecclesiasticad affaires According also with the decrce of the Councell of Chalcedon cap. 28 or as it is related by Carranza Sess 16. Sedi veter is Romae patres merito dederunt Primatum quódilla ciuitas caeter is imperaret And cap. 12. Quascunque ciuitates per literas regis Metropolitico honor arunt nomine The old Fathers did worthily giue the Primacy to the See of old Rome because it then ruled ouer all the residue and all Cities vvere honoured with the title of Metropolitan by the Kings Letters Pattents But now at length I will particularly answere to the obiections of Becane 1. There were not Priests and Leuites in both the Kingdoms of Iuda and Israel as hath appeared out of the expresse words of the Scripture 2. Ieroboam might lawfully say vnto his Priests which were not Leuites but of the lowest of the people and by him made and consecrated You are exempt from the iurisdiction of the High Priest vvhich is at Ierusalem 3. If King Iames so often protest That his Primacy is defined within those bounds and limits wherein the godly Kings vâ—der the old Testament contained theirs Then it followeth that the Primacie of Kings is both godly and certaine founded on holy Scriptures and not doubtfull or false as this falsary Martin affirmeth nor containeth so many parts as are thought to be the offices thereof by Hainric Thomson Burhil Dr. Tooker or any other Protestant Secondly that King Iames may lawfully and by right compell his subiects to the Oath of Supremacie Thirdly that Pope Paul the fist Bellarmine and Becane resisted King Iames impiously and against all humanitie by seeking to avert his subiects from their allegiance from taking both the one and the other so iust and godly an oath After the same manner as Elymas did resist the Apostles seeking to turn away the Proconsul froÌ„ the faith Act. 13.8 Hauing thus satisfied the questions of Becane to the full and more then was needfull dispelling their clowdie mists and breaking the snares of these Spyders webs and so made vp into a perfect Concord and harmony all the supposed English Iarres about the Kings supremacy There now remaineth nothing but the Iesuits Epilogue or Conclusion which by changing only the persons and tearmes I may most aptly and iustly returne vpon the Papists in this manner The Conclusion ALl then that hath been hitherto said may be reduced vnto three heads The first is that the Kings Supremacy in the Church is an ancient right no new thing but first ordained by Christ the ancient of dayes and was practiced in the old time by the most approued and pious Kings in the old Testament But the Popes Supremacie was neuer vsed by any sound and godly Bishop of Rome before that infamous Emperour Phocas thefore a new thing neuer rightly claimed The other that there be so many iarres and disagreements among the Romish Clergie about this Primacie of the Pope that it is not manifest or certaine what the said Primacy is nor what force or authoritie the same hath The third that the oath of this Primacy can neither be exacted by the Pope nor may any Papist take the same but the oath of the Kings supremacy may be exacted by the King and obserued of all his good subiects Heerehence three other questions which might be made concerning the subiects will easily be answered There are three sorts of subiects which liue in those regions where the Papacy beareth sway 1. The first are Baronians who in truth acknowledge and swear to the Popes supremacy that is to his direct supremacy for his indirect supremacy is directly ridiculous 2. The second Bellarminians or Pope-puritans who doe not acknowledge this supremacy and yet sweare vnto it 3. The third are true belieuing Protestants who neither acknowledge it nor will sweare it The first question then is What may be said of these Baronians I answere that they doe vnwisely and inconsideratly The reason is because it is folly rashnesse to sweare a thing that is doubtfull vncertaine as for example The Popes supremacie as is manifest by their iarres and dissensions which heeretofore wee haue shewed The second question is What may be said of the Bellarminians or Pope-puritans I answere They are periured persons and polititians The reason is because they belieue one thing and sweare another For they agree and consent therein with the right and orthodoxall Protestant and yet with the Baronians they sweare allegiance to the Pope as to the Lord Paramount of the whole world in temporall things for Pope Paul the fift doth challenge the same And this they doe to keepe an externall and politicall peace which is more esteemed by them then their faith and religion and therefore are branded by Carerius in his publique writings and authorized to bee impious Polititians and haeretiques of this time and not to be called Christians And of whom Pope Paul the fift may truly assirme That he had found more truth and honesty in the high-land and bordering thieues then in this sort of aequinocating people The third question is What shal we say of the Protestants who are the right and true Catholicks I answere They be iustand vpright men who walke before God in truth and veritie They be sincere vvho professe with their mouth that which they belieue in their hart They are truly couragious who with good Eleazarus had rather die then consent to any vnlawfull thing no not so much as in outward shew They be like vnto the Apostles who endeuour to obey God rather
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