Christ as is witnessed by Sigebert Luitprand and other Historians of the Romane faction But euery where we shal meet with examples of Emperours which cut the wings of the Romane Bishops vsurped authority All these things so substantially manifested and pithily disputed by our Soueraigne King in his Apologie for the oath of Alleageance Page 127.128 will Dr. Tooker most willingly subscribe vnto especially seeing hee demonstrateth the same by sacred text saying Sub veteri Testa 2. Chro. 19 v. 4 reges haud dubiè gubernatores erant Ecclesiae intra fines suos exauctor auerunt enim summum Pontificem aliumque in eius locū subrogauerunt 1. Reg. 2. v. 17 Vnder the old Testament there was no question but that Kings were gouernours of the Church within their dominions for they deposed the high Priest and placed another in his roome Truely Dr. Tooker affirmeth Regem non Sacrare Episcopos That the King dooth not consecrate Bishops and as truely that the King is a sonne of the Church as Valentinian or with Theodosius a pupill or a foster childe of the Church yea a disciple not onely of Archbishops and Bishoppes but also of inferiour Priests and Ministers whose Sermons he more often heareth but onely Quoad officia Ministerialia respecting the proper office of Ministeriall duties and not in the Supreme gouernment of the Church And vnto this purpose writeth Dr. Tooker Page 311. of King Edward the sixt Titulumet stolam Pontificiam aspernabatur c. Although he refused the title and robe of a high Priest yet notwithstanding he retained the Christia Supremacy to himselfe as the meane wherby he might more safely aduise the Church and prouide for it against the time to come Againe he verifieth as much of our King Iames and other Christian Princes Page 312. Sunt quidem reges Christiani c. Euen now are Christian Kings and other Princes the highest and Supreme gouernours of all persons whatsoeucr within their Empire and Dominion and haue euer so beene from the ancient time of the purer and Primitiue Church And Page 312. Non tantum sunt praesules in ordine c. Yet notwithstanding they are not Prelates in any Priestly order although they enioy a Supremacy in the Christian regiment for vvith great Constantine they ought to be common Bishops of exterior matters and with Charles the great Ludouicus Pius Lotharius make lawes Ecelesiasticall Canons if neede require or with King Dauid Salomon Ezechia and Ichoshaphat keepe visitation in the Temple and giue order to Ecclesiasticall affaires And why not then with Salomon to depose and disrobe a high Priest and put another in his place for which opinion Dr. Tooker writeth Page 152. Totumhoc quantumcunque est c. All this how great soeuer which is as great as may be is but an or dinary document of pietie religion and royall iurisdiction Wherefore this standeth a fir me foundation of our side that King Salomon out of his ordinary power might depose the high Priest and bring him into order And therefore vaine is the Challenge of the Romane Bishops boasting an immunity as though no secular Prince could remoue them For it is plaine that this is practised in sacred Scriptures Therefore with what face though of brasse could the Iesuite Becane vtter to the world this low de lye And from whence doth he in another place confesse that it is so farre from King Iames to create and depose Bishops that hee rather acknowledgeth himselfe their foster childe and disciple As though King Salomon acknowledged not himselfe a foster childe of the Church and Disciple of the Priests when hee deposed Abiathar and subrogated Zadoc in his stead the Iesuite Sophister like is alwayes wallowing in a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi Moreouer Doctour Tooker Page 37. writeth Rex concedit suam regiam licentiam eligendi As often as it happeneth to any Cathedrall Church to be destitute of a Bishoppe then the King by a vvritte giueth licence to the Deane and Chapter to elect another person Canonically But I will btiefely declare vnto thee gentle Reader the whole processe and carriage of this election for it is common and vulgar euery day Thus therefore it proceedeth When any Cathedrall Church wanteth his Pastor the King sendeth foorth his royall Writte Conge Destire directed to the Deane and Chapter commaunding them with all speed to assemble and to choose an Archbishoppe or Bishop for their Sea but with this prouiso that they choose no other than that person which shall be named by the King vnder the penaltie of a Praemunire which is the greatest punishment among vs in England except death And the same Archbishop or Bishoppe so named by the King and elected as aforesaide must be consecrated by the Archbishop or Bishops vnder the same penalty Now consider learned Reader for I will make thee my iudge what other thing is this then to create Archbishoppes and Bishoppes excepting one lie ceremoniall formalities But let vs suffer that most blessed Martyr Archbishop Cranmer to rest in glory with Christ in heanen This Iarre and difference is of great momenn I meane betwixt the Papists and vs for if it appeare as cleare as the light both by the Popes Canon lawes also by open Tables of Ecclesiastical Histories as our most drad Soueraine hath most exactly demonstrated that the Romane Emperor created elected Popes set in order the Sea Apostolike And if all Archbishoppes and Bishops throughout all Prouinces receiued their Inuestitures from them according to the popish VVriters especially the Iesuits all those Romane Bishops which haue been so created and elected for many hundred yeares to omit all inseriour Archbishops and Bishops Non extiterunt Pastores intrantes per ostium in ouile sed Praedones aliunde ascendentes haue not beene Pastors entring into the sheepefolde by the doore but thieues and robbers ascending another way that is false Bishops Archbishops and Pastors Out of which I inferre three things First that all the Bishops so created by Emperours and Kings according to the words of Genebrarde vvere disorderly and Apostaticall rather then Apostolicall Secondly whatsoeuer was done of them by Episcopallauthoritie or Iurisdiction is of no moment force or validitie Thirdly that the Bishops so ordained are bound to restitution of all reuene wes and and profits which they haue reaped by their Bishopricks Seest thou not Iesuit how thou art beaten with thine owne rodde Quid hic consilij capiendum What deuise is now to be taken Let your Academicks who now onely hauing swallowed vp the Sorbonists will rule the rost to weet the Iesuiticall Fathers if it so may please their God Layola see vnto it BECAN Exam. Page 181 YOu use three arguments to prone that Doctor Tooker agreeth with Hainric herein viz. that Kings may make and depose Bishops i. Tooker embraceth as orthodoxall all things prooued by the King But that Kings may create and depose Bishops was soundly proned by the King Therefore Tooker
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
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
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
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