key hee open to the Pope that is remit his sinne then heab solueth the Pope For wherefore is one excommunicated but because his sinnes are bound wherefore is one absolued but because his sinnes are remitted If it bee not in respect thereof the King may be said to haue power to excoÌ„municate that is to say to keep men from the Communion viz. when he committeth some to close prison where neither any can speake to them nor they to any Now therefore if the Priest may be the cause of the cause that is if hee can binde the Popes sinnes vvhy may he not be the cause of the effect that is why may he not excommunicate the Pope or which with S. Paul is all one deliuer him to Sathan According to that of Saint Hierome to Heliodore of the Eremiticall life God for bid that I should speak any euill of those who succeeding the Apostolike degree make the body of Christ vvith their sacred mouth vvho hauing the keyes of the kingdome of heauen in sort iudge before the day of Iudgement It is not lawfull for mee to sit before a Priest hee may if I sinne deliuer mee to Sathan for the destruction of the flesh that the Spirit may be saued And so Saint Rasil of the solitarie life cha 23. Peter inquit Amas me c. Christ said vnto Peter Louest thou mee Feed my sheep And in like sort vnto all Pastors and Doctors hee gaue the same power A token vvhereof is this that all binde and loose equally as vvell as Peter If euery Pastor and Doctor binde and loose equally as well as Peter vvhy not in Court exteriour as well as Peter sith the sheep are committed vnto them as well as vnto Peter The Minor Proposition I also deny heere as I did in the English Concord That is I deny that any Bishoppe hath power to throwe the King out of the Church or to excommunicate him according to canonicall excommunication so properly called and defined And further I denied that the supposed excommunication of Theodosius by Ambrose was canonicall excommunication yeelding there some reasons thereof Whereunto though very materiall this silly Iesuit answereth not one word and yet with Iesuiticall that is with brasen face is bold to set before thee Christian Reader his loathsome Coleworts twise yea thrise sodden ⧠Becans Iarre XI Question Whether the King may be Iudge of all Controuersies in the Church 1. COntrouersies that arise in the Church are of two sorts some are about faith and Religion others are concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires The former of these questions then is Whether the King by vertue of his Primacy bee supreame Iudge of all Controuersies vvhich pertaine vnto faith and Religion Maister Salclebridge saith be is pag. 163. in these vvords Sic luce clarius est Christianos Principes cum laude Controuersias fidei dijudicasse diremisse etiam in vniuersalibus octo Concilijs c. So as it is more cleare then the Sunne that Christian Princes vvith praise haue iudged of and decided controuersies of faith and that in eight Generall Councells c. Which is as much to say in the first of Nice the first of Constantinople that of Ephesus Chalcedon the second third and fourth of Constantinople and the second of Nice vvherein diuerse controuersies concerning matters of faith vvere iudged of and decided especially cuncerning the diuinitis of Christ against the Hereticke Arius of the diuinitie of the holy Ghost against Macedonius of one person of Christ against Nestorius of two Natures in Christ against Eutiches and Dioscorus and so of others All these Controuersies saith Maister Saclebridge were iudged of and decided by Kings and Emperours 2. Maister Tooker now hee affirmeth the quite contrarie vvho by no meanes vvill haue Kings or Emperours to bee Iudges of Controuersies of faith For thus hee vvriteth pag. 3. of his books Olere autem malitiam ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud videtur cùm Regem caput Ecelesiae Primatemque confingas omniumque causarum controuersiarum quae ad sidem Religionem pertinent iudicem tribuas It may seeme to sauour of malice cry out vpon your sausinesse vvhen as you faine the King to be head of the Church Iudge of all causes and controuersies vvhich pertaine vnto faith and Religion c. And againe pag. 50. Rexin suo Regno omnibus superior sit nullisubditus Fidei iudex no appelletur quidem Although the King in his owne Kingdome be aboue all subiect to none yet hee may not be called in any case the Iadge of our Faith c. And pag. 313. Reges Christiani non sunt fidei ac Religionis Iudices Christian Kings are not Iudges of faith and Religion 3. So as if now in England there should chaunce to arise a dissension or debate concerning any point of Faith or Religion as for Example concerning the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist vvhat should your Academicks heere do To vvhom should your Cittizens and the rest of the subiects haue recourse Should they goe vnto the King as Iudge in this point and aske his sentence determination Maister Tooker you see vvould not goe to the King What should they goe to some other Iudge then But Maister Salclebridge hee vvill admit no other What then vvere best to bee done in this case Truly euen that vvhich hitherto hath been done in the debate of the Kings supremacy to vvit alwaies to braule and iarre thereabout and neuer end the controuersie And vvhat 's the cause In very deede no other but for that some thinke one thing some another and they cannot or rather vvill not finde out the certaine and true Iudge vvho can decide the matter And this is the propertie of hereticks 4. The other Question is Whether the King be Iudge of all Controuersies that concerne other Ecclesiasticall affaires Maister Salclebridge saith that hee is pag. 165. in these vvords Audin ' Controuersias Episcopales ab Imperatore diremptas Doe you not heare Sir that Episcopall Controuersies haue been decided by Emperours c. is hat Ma. Tooker thinketh of this point is not vvell knowne For sometimes hee affirmes it as for example pg. 24 thus Nemini dubiuÌ„ est quin in Primitiua Ecclesia de rebus personis Ecclesiasticis â—us dicerent Imperatores No man can doub but that in the Primitiue Church Emperours iudged of matters and persons Ecclesiasticall c. And yet pag. 23. hee seemeth to deny it Non est Princeps supra res sed supra personas The Prince saith he is not aboue the matters but abone the persons c. And then againe pag. 49. Rex in suo Regno supremus est non supra res sed supra homines The King in his owne Kingdome is the chiefe or principall but yet not chiefe ouer things but ouer men And thus you see euery vvhere nothing but iarring and disagreement English Concord BOth Doctor Tooker and Hainric deny the King to be supreme Iudge in
successors in their kingdoms The first Kings that ruled after the dinision of the kingdome made were Ieroboam King of Israel Roboam King of Iuda In either Kingdom were Priests and Leuits But the high or Chiefe Priest could not resid-in both kingdoms but onely in one and that ordinarily in Iuda yet not withstanding hee was Head of all the Prusts and Leuites that remained in both Kindoms Neither could Ieroboam lawfully say vnto his Priests and Leuites You shall not obey the High Priest that resideth in the Kingdom of Iuda but you shall obey me onely for you are exempted from his iurisdiction and power c. And though he shold haue so said yet no doubt but he had offended If now King Ieroboam could not exempt the Priests and Leuites of his ovvnâ— Kingdome from the Iurisdiction and Power of a sorraine High Priest by vvhat right then doth now King Iames of England doe the same especially seeing hee anerroth that hee claimeth no more right or inrisdiction vnto himselfe oner the Church then the Kings of the old Testament did The Conclusion 1. ALL then that hath beene hither to said may be reduced into three heads The first is that the Kings Primacie in the Church is a nevv thing and first brought in by King Henty the eight nor hitherto hath beene beard of or vsurped in any other place then onely in the Kingdome of England The second is that there be so manie Iarres and disagrements of the English Ministry among them selues concerning this Primacy that it is not manifest nor certaine what the said Primacy is nor what sorce and authority the same hath The third that the Oath of this Primacy can neither be exacted by the King nor may the subtects take the same 2. Heerehence three other questions which might bee made concerning the Subiects will easily be solued There be 3. sorts of Subiects in England The sirst as some call them are Henricians vvho both acknowledge and sweare vnto this Kingly Supremacy The second sort are Puritans orpure Calumists who indeed doe not acknowledge the said Supremacy but yet doe sweare thervnto The third are Catholicks which neither acknowledge it nor will sweare it 3. The first question then is What may bee said of these Henricians vvhich both acknowledge and swear to the Kings Supremacy I aunswer that they doe vnwisely and inconsideratly The reason is Because it is folly and rashâ—es as before I haue said to sweare a thing that is doubt full vncertaine But the Primacy of the King is a thing altogether doubtfull and vncertaine amongst the Henricians as is manifest by their iarres and dissentions which hither to we haue shexed Ergo to sweare to such a Supremacy is both folly and rashnes 4. The second question is What may be said of the Puritans or pure Caluinists who doe not indeed acknowledge the Kings Primacy and yet if they be commaunded doe sweare thereto I answer that they are periured persons and Politicians The reason is Because they belieâ—c one thing and sweare another They beliene with Caluin that neither Kings nor secular Princes haue any Primacy in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters but onely in temporall yet neuerthelesse they sweare Allegiance vnto the King together with the foresaid Henricians as to the Primate and supreme Head of the Church and this they doe to make an externall and politicall peace vvhich is more esteemed by them then their faith and Religion and therefore they are rather to be called Politicks then Christians Of whom his Maiestie gaue a most vvorthy testimonie in his Preface Monitory to wit That hee had found more truth and honesâ—ie in the high-land and bordering theenes then in that sort of people 5. The third question is what may bee said of Catholicks vvho neither acknowledge the Kings Primacy nor swcar thereto I answere that they be inst vpright men vvho walke before God in truth veritie They be sincere who professe with their month that vvhich they thinke in their bart They are wise indeed who with good Eleazarus had rather die then consent to any vnlaw full thing no not so much as in outward shew They be like vnto the Apostles vvho endeauour to obey God rather then men They be like vnto the Martyrs of the Primitine Church vvho freely professe themselues before the persecutors to be such as indeed they are 6. But you vvill say they be miserable For if they refuse the Oath they are forced to vndergoe impresonments torments punishments Truely they are not therefore miserable but most happy For so dâ—d our Sauiour teach vs in the Gospell Math. 5. 10. Blessed are they who suffer persecution for â—ustice for theirs is the kingdome of heanen But then you will say It is a hard thing to suffer How is that hard which is done with â—oy and delight Heare what is said of the Apostles Act. 5. 41. And they went from the sight of the Councell reioycing because they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the Name of Iesus Heare what the Apostle saith of himselfe 2. Cor. 4. Superabundo gaudio in omâ—i tribulatione nostra I exceedingly reioyce in all our tribulations 7. And from vvhence commeth this ioy Truly froÌ„ a twofold gift of the holy Ghost to wit Hope and Charity Hope of future glory that maketh vs ioâ— full and full of comfort in all adnersities Rom. 8. 18. The sufferings of these times are not condigne to the foture glory that shall bee renealed in vs. And againe Rom. 12. 12. Reioycing in hope and patient in tribulation And Heb. 10. 34. The spoyle of your owne goods you tooke with ioy knowing that you haue a better and a permanent substance Do not ther fore leese your confidence which hath a great reward For patience is necessary for you that dooing the will of God you may receiue the promise c. 8. Nor is the force of Charitie lesse Rom. 8. 35. VVho then shall separate vs from the Charitie of Christ Tribulation or distresse or famine or nakednes or danger or persecution or the sword c. But in all these things we onercome because of him that hath loâ—ed vs. For I am sure that neither death nor life nor Angells nor Principalities nor Powers neither things present nor things to come neither might nor height nor depth nor other creature shall be able to separate vs from the Charitie of God which is in Christ Iesus our Lord c. 9. Heereto belong the examples of Christ of other Saints vvhich haue great force and efficacy to stirre vp and streng then the harts of Catholicks to suffer patiently in this life prisons fetters torments yea death it selfe 1. Pet. 2. 20. If dooing well you sustaine patiently this is thanke before God For vnto this are you called because Christ also suffered for vs leaning you an example that you may follow his steppes who did not sin neither was guile found in his mouth who when he was reâ—â—led did
for I deny the King to haue Primacie but out of yours vvho affirme hee hath it Therefore out of your opinion I might vvell dispute thus Whence hath hee Primacie Whether as a King or as a Christian King to shevv the discord For by Thomson and Burhill all heathen Kings as vvell as Christian By the Chaplaine onely Christian Kings are Primates of the Church This is a great Iarre compound it if you can And vvhere you adde that it mattereth not how hee haue it so he hath it This is a new Iarre For it mattereth greatlie according to Thomson and the Chaplaine For if he haue the Primacie because hee is King hee cannot lose it so long as hee is King if because he is a Christian King hee may lose it If hee may lose the Primacie hee is not secure if hee cannot lose it hee may take his quiet rest Dr. HARRIS Reply HIs first words of the 12. Question shew that he makes the Suppositum of himselfe not out of our Writers opinion especially Ma. Thomson and Ma. Burhill heere named by him For hauing set downe the Question thus Whence and by vvhat title hath the King Primacie in the Church hee saith The meaning of this Question is Whether the King haue Primacie as a King or as a Christian King But as Becane hath produced Ma. Thomson Ma. Burhill in his 1. and 2. Questions They both deny the King to haue Primacie in the Church Therefore the Iesuit heer sets downe the Suppositum as of himselfe and not as out of their opinions But what meant the Iesuit to say hee disputed heere when he onely asked the Question Do boyes vse to dispute with their Maisters when they onely aske questions of their Maisters Indeed if the Iesuit had disputed hee should haue disputed as in my English Concord is set downe and so by his dispute he had not taken away his ovvn Suppositum as heere hee doth but had disputed out of the opinion of some others who averre the Kings Primacy As touching the Iarre the English Concord euen out of the expresse words of Ma. Thomson manifested the agreement between the reuerend Bishop and Ma. Thomson in this point so plainly directly that Ma. Thomson himselfe wondred that Becane could stumble at it as at any Iarie And now lately comes forth Ma. Burhill in his Appendix pag. 289. asserting That an Ethnick King vvhiles he is an Ethnicke King can no more be supreme Gouernour of the Church then an Ethnick man vvhile he is an Ethnick man may be a Priest of or in the Church And so touching this poynt this Question heere is made up a full vniforme Concord and the Iesuiticall myst of this supposed great Iarre vtterly dispelled But is this Iesuit well in his wits affirming That if the King precisely as King haue Ecclesiasticall Primacie then hee is secure because as long as hee is King he can not lose it but if hee haue it as a Christian King hee may lose it vvhen as death or by their Antichristan popish new doctrine the Pope by one breath of his mouth at his pleasure excommunicating and thereby proscribing any Christian King may take away his kingdome and so his primacie but neither Pope death nor diuel can take away his Christianitie Rom. 3. ver 35. Note also heere good Christian Reader the horrible impudencie of this Iesuit who ironically afferteth That Kings are sure and may be secure to enioy their kingdoms when as Suarius in his spanne-new Booke hath made it knowen to all the world that by Iesuiticall doctrine most stiffely defended as orthodoxall and now in force Kings are not sure to enioy for the space of one moneth weeke or day their kingdoms liberties or liues if the Pope be disposed to bereaue any of them thereof That is to excommunicate them and that is very easily done euen by the breath of his mouth wheasoeuer he is pleased to pretendany cause thereof For then by their Canon law because hee is supreme Iudge whose will stands for reason and law is summa ratio reason no man must say vnto him Domine cur Itafacis Sir Iudge Supreme vvhy doe you so Thus in plaine truth by these poysonfull miscreant Iesuits are the liues and kingdoms of all Kings Christian brought at this day into farre more imminent danger then are the liucs and liuings of the meanest vassals of the said Kings and yet saith this Iesuit Kings in respect of their kingdoms may sleepe soundlie on both sides Which indeed is nothing else but to lull them asleepe in the bedde of carelesse securitie thereby with more speed and lesse danger to cut their throats BECAN Exam. Pag. 214 YOu obiect that I should reason thus According to Thomson and Burhill Ethnick Kings as vvell as Kings Christian haue Primacie of the Church Therfore all liuing in those Kingdoms are bound to doe vvhatsoeuer those Ethnick Kings impiously shall còmaund That was not my inference but this Therefore all Scots and Englishmen liuing in those Kingdoms are subiect in Ecclesia sticall matters to those Ethnicks as Primates of the Church Vpon it I doe not so much dispute as demaund thus What the English or Scottish would doe if those Kings should cōmaund them any thing touching the Church or religion If they should alwaies in all things obey they should doe against conscience if neuer obey they should not acknowledge their Primacy If then onely they should obey vvken they thought good they should make them selues Iudges of their Primats To these three they should haue answered or answere you if they deny to aunswere Dr. HARRIS Reply IAunswere first that vvhereas the Iesuit in diuerse places of his Examen hath professed that he vvill dispute nothing but about the English Iarres hee hath heere forgotten himselfe and endeuoureth the refutation of Ma. Thomson and Ma. Burhill touching the Ecclesiasticall Primacy of Pagan Kings requiring an aunswete thereof either from me or them Secondly that the Iesuits ignorance in Logicke is such that he doth not vnderstand when he reasoneth and when hee reasoneth not In his English Iarre chap. 12. Sect. 3. his words are these According to the opinion of Thomson Burhill all Pagan Kings are Primats of the Church Therefore all Englishmen liuing in Constantinople or Rome are subiect to the Turke or Pope in matters Ecclesiasticall Therefore vvhat shall they doe if the Turke commaund them to follovv the Alcoran or the Pope to pray for the dead Shall they obey the commaund Then they shall do against conscience Shall they not obey Then they deny their Primacy Shall they obey vvhen they thinke good Then subiects shall make themselues Iudges of their Kings Heere are fiue seuerall inferences all tending to evince the absurdities wich necessarily sollow vpon the supposed opinion of Maister Thomson and Ma. Burhil heerein and yet the Iesuit saith hee doth not dispute Moreouer in expresse words hee concludeth thus That if the English be subiect to the Tufkish
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