THE ENGLISH CONCORD, IN ANSWER TO BECANE'S ENGLISH jar: Together with a Reply to Becan's Examen of the English Concord. By Richard Harris, Dr. in Divinity. 2. Tim. 2.16. Stay profane and vain babble: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. AT LONDON, Printed by H. L. for Mat. Lownes; and are to be sold in Paul's Churchyard, at the sign of the Bishop's head. 1614 TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT Majesty; james, by the Grace of of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the true, ancient, Catholic, and Apostolic faith: and Supreme Governor in all Causes, & over all persons Ecclesiacticall within his Dominions. So ordained to be by the Divine Majesty. Most Gracious Soveragine; THat busy packhorse jesuit Becan, maintaining, what in his small power lieth, diametral opposition to your majesties rightful & supereminet pour Ecclesiastical: To make the same seem ludibrious in the eyes of his adherents, (as King David dancing before the Ark, seemed to be in the eyes of profane Michal); in his printed empty pamphlet, styled, Dissidium Anglicanú, brought, as it were, upon the world's Theatre, five English Protestant Writers, in defence of your majesties said Supremacy; namely, the most learned, & Reverend Bishop of Ely, with his two Chaplains, Master Thomson, and Master Burhill, also Master Doctor Tooker, and my Self; as jarring among ourselves, in many and material points of the said Supremacy: and thereupon he concluded, that your Majesty hath no iuct cause, to urge the taking of the Oath of Regal Supremacy upon your subjects; sith the defenders thereof in writing cannot agree in the main, real, and essential parts of it. Which pernicious project of the Adversary, caused me, in my most humble duty, & loyal service to your Majesty, eftsoons to write my book of English Concord; therein showing, and proving the sweet harmony, whereby all the foresaid five Writers utter the rightful Supremacy of your sacred Majesty. Now, because some of your majesties Popish and English subjects, have turned the said pamphlet of Becan, out of Latin, into English, thereby to cause that poisonful canker to spread further, and that Roman leprosy to overrun the outward faces, and inward hearts of English Papists, on this side, and beyond the Seas: To countermine that serpentine plot, viz. to suppesse, or at the least, to stay the further progress of that running Canker; it seemed good unto your Majesty, to command the translating of my said book into English: which was done accordingly. But before it could be printed, Becan had written, and sent to the last Frankfurt Mart, his EXAMEN of my book of English Concord: which forced me to annex my REPLY, and Refutation of his Examen, in the Interim, in English also, because the other are in English; intending with all convenient speed, to send the same Reply augmented, beyond the Seas in Latin, that this importune Adversary, may see his reed Examen shaken down, and shinered all to pieces; and also may behold the English Concord, fully maintained, and justified, in every part and parcel of Regal Supremacy. I humbly confess unto your excellent Majesty, that it grieved me at my very heart, to spend so many good hours, in refuting the Almanack-pamphlets, of this shallow, and in very truth, unlearned jesuit; wherein is not to be found any learning, reading, or judicious discourse, fitting a Father-Iesuit: but only boylike wranglings, about either seeming jars, in words or syllables; or escapes of the Transcriber, Printer, or Corrector, in some abcedary letters, in numeral figures, in quoting the middle paragraph-word, for the first word of the self same Canon: whereas the very express words, or the very substantial matter, according to the meaning of the Author, and the purpose in hand, was faithfully set down. These trifles, which (with his shameless calumniations, untruths, and scurrilities, make up the very bulk of his triobulare book) though they might well have been let pass, as things of nought; or buried in silence: yet because wise Solomon adviseth, Sometimes to answer a fool in his foolishness; lest my silence herein, should cause this jesuit to grow more insolent; or the Popish sort in their ungrations and rebellious denial of this Oath, more confident; I have made this Reply, to give him more matter to work upon: It being my settled resolution, through God's assistance whiles I breath, to justify in writing against this jesuit, both the rightfulness of your majesties Supremacy, and also the uniform agreement of the said Writers therein. The rather, because, though this jesuit by his silly scribble, brings shame and disgrace to the Pope, whose cause he undertaketh to defend; yet is thought not the unmeetest Emissary of his Unholiness; for that this Popeparasite, with his hard forehead, dare set forth in print, any thing for his Lord God the Pope, & against your sacred Majesty: be it, for the matter, never so impiously gross; and for the manner, never soimpudently sourrilous. Wherefore, having tasted of your highness most Gracious patronage in my former labours, I am emboldened to present these also unto your royal view: being more desirous of your Mayest: sole judgement, to approve the lines defending regal jurisdiction; then of a whole College or council of our Adversaries. Because such is the desert of your royal mind, and pen, as was by Sabellicus attributed to Cicero: Pulchriùs illi multo fuit Latinum sermonem, quàm Romanum Imperium auxisse. So is it more honour to your excellent Majesty, (if such a Prince be capable of access of Honour) that you have by writing propagated the religion of Christ, then if by battle you had enlarged your Dominions, and Great Britain's Monarchy: The one being the price of the death of jesus: the other, your most lawful patrimony, by the death of your royal forefathers. Which the Lord grant you may so long enjoy, as your own royal heart desireth, and all your loving subjects do say, Amen. Your majesties most humble, and loyal subject, RICHARD HARRIS. A PREFACE TO all English Papists who approve not the Gunpowder Treason: answering the Preface of BECANE. For as much as Becane hath discoursed of an English jar about the Supremacy, I am willing to use a few words unto you; but in no case to be troublesome with any tedious Oration. About two years since, Becane wrote two Libel-pamphlets touching the King's Supremacy: th'one against the Apology and monitory Preface of our most mighty and gracious Sovereign, JAMES, King of great Britanne: Th'other, against a book called Tortura Torti; or rather against the author thereof, the most reverend Bishop of Ely. The smoky fumes of which Pamphlet (for they contained no matter in them) were dispelled by Dr. Tucker, Mr. R. Tomson, Mr. Rob. Burhill, and by Hainricus Salobrigiensis. Notwithstanding, Martin Becane abideth conceitedly obstinate, although there be many things, which might have cooled his heat, and taken from him all lust of further brawling. And principally these: First, the iniquity of his Cause. Then, your indifferent equity. Lastly, the manifold intestine jars and differences of Roman Writers, about the Pope's Supremacy; and our full agreement in the King's Supremacy. What shall I need to speak of the iniquity of his Cause? For it fights against the Church of Christ, in the behalf of the honour and Sovereignty of Antichrist; after the manner and bias of Icsuits. And in this case, what one of the forenamed hath he not just cause to fear? Again, your indifferent equity, wherein (with the Venetians and the Parisian Sorbonists) you detest the jesuits, who seek to justify their Cause by the imprisonments, bonds, and deaths of Traitors, suffered for their rebellions against their native Kings; whose hands (unless they were the hands of this Becane) would it not shake, and cause to let fall the pen? whose spirits, though never so lofty, would it not depress, infringe, and dissipate, save only of Becane? But, very impiously and impudently doth he apply, to the Gunpowder 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 jesuite will have it so; 1. Agazing stock to God: who, beholding their treacherous and covert conspiracies against their most gracious Sovereign, his Anointed (as the jesuite here confesseth) laugheth them to scorn; enfeebling their forces, for our victory; and preparing hell fire, for their eternal punishment. 2. A spectacle to Angels: who [wondering there be any (so much as styled with the name of Christians) that tremble not to call the royal Supremacies of Kings in the Church (ordained by God himself, grounded upon Scriptures, practised with commendation, by the best, both Kings of Israel, and Emperors Christian) Potentissimos Inferorum Principatus; The most potent principalities of hell:] rejoice to behold such infamous and execrable Traitors committed to the safe custody and torture of spiritual wickednesses. Lastly, A spectacle to men: who (being dispersed through the whole world, and but hearing of these most inhuman and bloody jesuitical conspiracies, more savage than cruelty itself) are inflamed for the Lords Anointed to undergo perpetual combats with all these pestilent Emissaries of Antichrist. Moreover, if you know not with what great variety, inconstancy, and vanity of opinions the popish Writers travel; and with what uniform consent of all our Writers the King's Supremacy is maintained; listen and read-over (but cursorily) this little Book which here I present to you: and in it you shall find particularly expressed before your eyes, wherein and in what heads they differ among themselves, about the Pope's Supremacy; and how we accord in the Supremacy of our King. And here it much concerns your desire of peace and tranquillity, to observe how gallantly this Becane presenteth himself to you, with his counterfeit and childish wiles to entrap you: wherein he playeth his prizes so skilfully and subtly to cirumvent you, that by his only cunning hopeth to gain no small praises. But seeing he is ready for the combat, I will so provide that he shall not find me unprepared; not only to meet with his blows, but also to repel them, and to turn them back again upon his own head. Of which our conflict I desire you to be Spectators. In the mean time I beseech the most merciful heavenly Father to grant you zeal according to knowledge, etc. The most desirous of your salvation, Richard Harris. Becan: Exam. By the way of a lie and calumny, you writ, that I did use that of the Apostle: You are made a gazing stock, to God, Angels, and Men; of Traitors: I did not use it of Traitors; but of those Catholics, who are with you, imprisoned, banished, spoiled of their goods and fortunes, or also put to death. You know who they are. Dr. HARRIS Reply. I Know the jesuite herein belieth this State most impudently: by which, none but traitorous, or at least, seditious obstinate catholics (& not any one merely for faith or religion) have been or are imprisoned, exiled, despoiled, or executed. 2. The jesuit here confesseth, that those said traitors were Catholics; and themselves (even the Gun-powder-traitors) confessed that their treason was undertaken for their faith and religion. So traitorous and dangerous to Christian States is the jesuited Popery. 3. This Becane in his conscience thinketh that these words, You are made gazing stocks, were and are most fitly and truly to be applied to Garnett, that cunning, but archtraitor; viz. when he was dismembered, and his head and quarters fixed on high, to be gazed on. 4. The present jesuited Romish faith, is impious heresy, and Idolatrous blasphemy: the religion is gross superstition, and open rebellion against God and the King; or rather an open profession of the lawful kill of Kings (Gods Anointed) by the meanest vassals of the said Kings, authorized by the Pope to kill them. As it is plainly set down by Suarez, in his late book against our King, Lib. 6. chap. 4. imprinted by public authority with privilege. Therefore by all laws divine and human, why may not all such jesuited catholics be most justly imprisoned, despoiled, exiled, or executed as guilty of high treason, for this their traitorous and rebellious faith and religion so stiffly maintained by them? especially, when as by their own popish doctrine, Heretical obstinate Schismatics (such as indeed all those catholics are) may be imprisoned, and despoiled of goods, lands, and life itself: and when as so many thousand dear Saints of the Lord, merely for their orthodoxal faith and pure religion, have been in their bloody Inquisition, and other popish persecutions, most savagely tortured, even to death. Therefore with great impudence doth he charge us with shedding the blood of Martyrs for faith and religion; from which we are as free, as they therein are guilty. 5. No small number of popish Martyrs, so canonised and enrolled amongst them, were in truth heinous and diabolical Traitors against the King, Queen, and State here; and accordingly were here executed: therefore, indeed these words, You are made agazing stock etc. the jesuite applied to Traitors, to wit, such popish Martyrs. 6. Lastly, the exceeding clemency of our King towards the now imprisoned seditious and treacherous catholics is such, that they far more deliciously and live more sportfully (I might well have said, riotously) then millions of his majesties good subjects do, who enjoy their liberty. This is too too well known. And this, forsooth is that hard-hard usage, and hot persecution, which hath bred this jesuitical exclamation. BECANUS jar. THE King's Supremacy in the Church of England is a new thing. It began under King Henry the 8. continued under King Edward the 6, and Queen Elizabeth: and now under King james, the same is rend and torn in pieces, with so many domestical jars and divisions, that long it cannot stand. So as Christ in the Gospel said full well, Omne regnum in se divisum desolabitur: Every Kingdom, divided in itself, shall be destroyed. But what, and how great these discords be, I will show in these few Questions following: I. Whether the King of England have any Primacy in the Church, or no? II. Whether the Primacy of the King, be Ecclesiastical and spiritual? III. Whether the King by this Primacy, may be called the Primate of the Church? FOUR Whether by virtue of the same Primacy the King may be called Supreme Head of the Church? V Whether this Primacy consist in any Power, or jurisdiction Ecclesiastical? VI Whether the King, by reason of his Primacy, can assemble or call together Counsels, and sit as Precedent therein? VII. Whether he can make Ecclesiastical Laws? VIII. Whether he can dispose of Ecclesiastical livings, or Benefices? IX Whether he can create, and depose Bishops? X. Whether he can excommunicate the obstinate? XI. Whether he can be judge, and determine of Controversies? XII. From whence hath the King this his Primacy? XIII. Whether he can force his Subjects to take the Oath of Supremacy? In these Questions do our Adversaries extremely differ and disagree; but especially these: M. Doctor Andrew's, in his Tortura Torti; M. William Tooker Deane of Lichefield, in his Combat, or single Fight with Martin Bucane; M. Richard Tomson, in his Reproof 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 unto them) I will also cite Doctor Sanders, in his book of the Schism of England; Genebard in his Chronology; Polydore Virgil in his History of England; jacobus Thuanus of Aust, in the History of his time; john Caluin in his Commentary upon the Prophet Amos, and others. English Concord. THe Regal Primacy, in the Church of England, is much more ancient than the Popish Primacy in the Roman Church. The Regal Primacy had his beginning from the * Daniel chap. 7. v. 6 Ancient of Days, under the most ancient Patriarches: It flourished magnifically under the Orthodoxal Kings, Israeliticall and evangelical: and now in England it flourisheth most of all under King james; sound sounded upon the rock, and built upon the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, permanent for ever; so that, by the fall of rains the coming of floods, and the wine-blasts of any jesuits whatsoever, it cannot be so much as moved; much less removed; and least of all rent and torn in pieces: But, of the Popish Primacy, rightly said Christ in the Gospel; Every Kingdom divided in itself shall be desolate. Now what and how great their jars and discords are, I am to show, in handling these few Questions following. English Concord. BEcane, in his book of English discord, and in his first Question, demanded, Whether the King of England have any Primacy or Supremacy in the Church? And I in my book of English Concord, demanded, Whether the Pope have any Primacy in the Church? considering that Saint Cyprian asserteth that Peter did never 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: Whosoever desireth (or affecteth) the Primacy in earth (as all Popes do) shall find confusion in heaven. Homil. 35 in Matth. Whereunto the jesuite in his late book, entitled Examen Concordiae Anglicanae, The examination of the English Concord, answereth or objecteth thus: BECAN, Exam. THat they are not the words of Chrysostome, Pag. 92 but of some other author joined with him. 2. That these words are against our King, desiring Supremacy in earth. 3. That the Author speaketh promiscuously of both the Primaces, Secular and Ecclesiastical; 4. but distinguisheth between the desiring and obtaining of the Primacy; referring the one to vanity, and the other to the judgement of God. Dr. HARRIS Reply. 1 I Do commiserate the silly ignorance of this jesuite Becane, who knoweth not, that these very words aforesaid, are not only canonised, but also expressly fathered upon Chrysostome, in the Pope's Canon law; which the jesuite dare not affront. Dist. 40. ca Multi. The words of the Canon are these; Also john Chrysostome: Not every one is a true Priest, which is named a Priest. Many Priests, and few Priests: Many in name, but few in work: Take heed therefore brethren, how you sit upon the Chair; because the Chair doth not make the Priest, but the Priest the Chair, etc. The same Chrysostome: Whosoever shall desire Primacy in earth, shall find confusion in heaven: neither shall he be numbered among the servants of Christ, Qui de Primatu tractaverit, Who handleth, or ambitiously speaks of, or challengeth Primacy. De Scriptor. Ecclesiasticis. And according to that Canon, the most profound and famously renowned Canonist (even by Bellarmine in his late book) to wit, Henry Cardinal Hostiensis (upon the 15. Chapter of Penitency and Remission, Cap. Cui Papa) ascribeth these words unto Chrysostome, as to the Author of them, thus: And so in the Penitential Court, the Pope is made less, and his Confessor greater: and this Chrysostome insinuateth, Dist. 40. Multi. Wherefore the jesuite may take from me, thus cleared, this falsity unto himself: or else he must return it over; To the Authority of their Apostatical Church; To their authentic and ordinary glosses and explanations of the Gospel; To the decrees of the Roman Bishops; To their chiefest Canonists and Divines: for in the writings of all those, he may find sentences written in that Work, called the Imperfect Work, alleged as out of Chrysostom. 2. By the express words of the foresaid Canon, it is manifest, that the words of Chrysostom, are by their Canon law referred unto Priests and Priests only, who sit upon the Chair, in express terms often repeated. Whereby it appeareth, what a silly and unmannerly Sophister this jesuite is, who thence frameth his Argument against our King, drawn thus into form syllogistical; as indeed from thence it can be drawn no otherwise. What Priest soever desireth Primacy in earth, shall find confusion in Heaven. The King of England is a Priest desiring Primacy in earth. Therefore he shall find confusion in heaven. Were this jesuite in our University Schools, he would be hist out, as an absurd Dunce, for arguing. Our gracious King is no Priest, but detesteth their Priests and Priesthood, as Antichristian. He is by the grace of God the high and potent Monarch of Great Britanne, France and Ireland; and under Christ made of God (without any ambitious desire of his) Primate or Supreme Governor over all persons, and in all cause's Ecclesiasticallor Temporal, within his Dominions; maugre the beard of the Pope, and all his Shavelings. But if the jesuite will rightly assume out of the Mayor proposition, set down in the said Canon law; he must take the triple crown of Primacy from the Pope's head, and wrap it up in the dust of Confusion, thus: What Priest soever (though it were Peter himself) doth challenge, or ambitiously desire Primacy in earth, shall find confusion in heaven. But the Popes of Rome have, and (now most of all) do challenge (as their right) Primacy in earth; [Not only over the whole Clergy (contrary to that Inhibition of S. Peter. 1. Pet. 5. v. 3. Not as Lords over God's Heritage) but also over Kings: and that not only in spirituals, but also in their temporals: viz. in their Goods, Revenues, Crowns, Kingdoms, liberties and lines; As their chiefest jesuite Writers, Bellarmine & Suarius, and this mean jesuite Becane, have not been ashamed to dogmatize in their late public writings: some whereof have been even by State-Papists, in their Parliaments censured and condemned, as seditious & pernicious against King's prerogatives royal, crowns and dignities. And some of them by us, here lately have been purged by fire.] and also most ambitiously have and do desire and practise to get the Popedom; and being opposed therein, do by all, even bloody means, endeavour to retain the same; Onuphr, in Chronie. Rom. Pont. as the thirty Schisms in the Church of Rome about the Popedom (whereof the last & worst lasted by the space of fifty years together, raised and continued by the ambitious desire thereof in the Popes themselves; even to the shedding of the lives blood, of two hundred thousand christians, caused by two Antipopes at once) doth more than demonstrate. To instance this ambitious desire in one, but their principal one and chieftain, Hildebrand the first, who with brazen face did openly undertake to depose the Emperor from his Empire: The Cardinal Beno, who lived with Hildebrand and knew him too well, writeth thus of him; Hildebrand poisoned six Popes, to make his way to the Popedoma. Nauclere reporteth that the clergy said, Pope Hildebrand was excommunicated by the Bishops of Italy, as having defiled the Apostolic Sea with Simony, etc. And Abbot Vrspergensis writeth, Anno. Dom. 1080. that the Council of Brixia censured Pope Hildebrand as an usurper of the Sea of Rome; not appointed by God, but intruding by fraud & money. And to speak in general, as Mantuan saith, of Rome and Romanists; — Venalia nobis. Templa, Sacerdotes, Altaria Sacra, Coronae: Ignis, thura, preces, coelum est venale, Deusque. Where Church, Priest, Altar, Mass, Crown, for money told: Also Fire, Incense, Prayer, Heaven, and God are sold. Where all things come for money, there is no probability, that the Popedom (there more worth than all things else) should come freely without money, etc. Rome is no changeling: of which the jesuits may read in the Canon law, thus: Roma fundata fuit a praedonibus, adhuc de Primor dijsretinet; dicta Roma, quasirodens manus. Roma manus rodit: quos rodere non valet, odit. Rome was first founded by thieves, and savoureth still of her beginnings. By th' hand Rome biteth States: and whom she cannot bite, she hates. If Rome bite all not giving; sans gifts, she pope's none living. Now since the Assumption is so plainly proved, we may thus conclude, Therefore the Popes of Rome shall find confusion in Heaven. Hence the Popish Antichrist is by the Apostle termed fitly, Filius perditionis, The son of perdition or confusion. Moreover, from the words of Cyprian, is this Syllogism (as canonshot) directed against the very heart of the Pope's Primacy, thus: If Peter did not, ne could challenge to himself Primacy; then the Pope having no Primacy, but as Peter's successor, cannot challenge Primacy to himself: But Peter could not challenge Primacy to himself (as Cyprian here saith, De Simple Praelator and else where proveth thus: Hoc erant utique, etc. The rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was, endued with like fellowship of Honour and Power.) Therefore the Pope cannot challenge the Primacy. This of Cyprian the jefuit passeth over, dryfoot: and not without cause; seeing he could get no balm from Gilead to cure this deadly wound given to the Pope, by Saint Cyprians foresaid canonshot. 3. The jesuite doth here shamefully belly Chrysostom, affirming that he speaks promiscuously of both Primacies, Secular and Ecclesiastical; whereas most distinctly he writeth thus of them: Dominus introduxit, etc. The Lord brings in a diffeference between worldly, or temporal Princes, and ecclesiasticals: because the Princes of the world are therefore made, that they might rule over their subjects, and serve themselves of them, 1. Sam. 9 ver. 11. etc. and spoil them to their own profit and glory (according to the saying of God to Samuel; This shall be the manner of your King: he will take your sons for his Chariot-drivers, Captains, and Husbandmen; and your Daughters for Apothecaries, Cooks, and Bakers: he will take your fields and vineyards, and give them to his servants, etc.) But the Prince's Ecclesiastical are therefore made, that they may serve their underlings, and minister unto them all things which they have received from Christ: That they should neglect their own profit, and procure the profit of others: and if need be, that they should not refuse to die, for the safety or salvation (pro salute) of their inferiors. Therefore if these things be so, there is cause and profit to desire the Secular Primacy; but to desire the Ecclesiacticall, there is neither reason nor cause. For what wise man would hasten willingly to submit himself to servitude, labour, grief, and such a danger, as to render an account for all the Church, before the iust judge? unless peradventure, he think there is no judgement of God, or fears it not: as one, abusing his Ecclesiastical Primacy secularly, changeth the Ecclesiastical into the Secular. Than which words, what could be written more distinctly and plainly, against this lying jesuite, and his Pope's Primacy; to stop the mouth of the one, and to pluck up the other by the roots? I mean the Primacy Papal, which is now become the highest temporal Primacy in the earth: of which, the Emperors, as vassals, hold their Imperial crowns, yea their lives; and yet neither of these, but during the Pope's pleasure. And this is with them become an article of the Romish faith. Hence it is, that his majesties subjects are forbidden by the Pope, in their oath of Allegiance, to swear, that, what in them lieth, they will preserve the life of their Sovereign, against the Papal, and all other foreign power; because (as the Pope hath definitively set it down) they should therein deny the faith. Is not this his Ecclesiastical Primacy become Temporal, or rather Diabolical? Therefore every good Christian, from Chrysostome here is to learn, That the Pope either thinketh there is no God, or judgement of God to come; or that the fear of God, and of his judgement, is not before his eyes. Surely, if the popish Primacy be that Ecclesiastical, here described by Chrysostome; the Pope will no longer contend for it; he will soon hate it worse than dog or snake. 4. The jesuite here either very ignorantly, or very impudently abuseth his Reader; whom he would make believe that Chrysostome in that Homily, so distinguisheth the Primacy of Honour, to wit Ecclesiastical, from the obtaining of that Primacy; as though he misliked the one for vanity, and approved the other as a good thing given by God: whereas the express words of Chrysostome are clean contrary; thus: Nune scimus, etc. Now we know that a good work is one thing, and the Primacy of honour is another thing; And that it is good to desire a good thing: but to covet the Primacy of honour, is vanity. To shut up this point; The Christian Reader may here understand, that the Pope even by the virtue of this testimony of Chrysostome, set down in, and authorized by, the Canon law, is incapable of Ecclesiastical Primacy. For if he be no Priest indeed, he can be no Ecclesiastical Primate indeed. But by this Canon indeed he is no Priest, because he is no Priest Opere, in Priestly work, that is, as S. Paul expounds it, to preach the word in season, 2. Tim. 4.2 1. Pet. 5.2 Heb. 5.14 out of season, etc. or as Saint Peter explains it, To feed Christ's flock with the sincere milk, or strong meat of the word: or as Chrysostome here describes it, To serve his inferiors, by ministering unto them all that he hath received from Christ: ready not only to neglect his own profit, to procure theirs; but also, if need were, to lay down his life for them. The Pope therefore being less in nothing then in this work, is, by the express words of this Canon, nothing less than a Priest indeed; and by necessary inevitable consequence, nothing less than Ecclesiastical Primate indeed. Here is now high time for this jesuite to lay-under his shoulders for support of the tottering Primacy of his Pope, very sore shaken by this Canon law-shot, and ready to fall down into the dust. Wherein, pitiful is the Pope's case, who in this conflict, for his defender, bath so seely a weakling, and so ignorant a jesuite, as this Becane is, and hereafter will more and more appear to be. English Concord. BEcane, in his book of jar, & in his second Question, demanded, Whether that Primacy of the King be Ecclesiastical and Spiritual? And I in my book of Concord, Page 4. and in my second Question, demanded, Whether that Primacy of the Pope be Secular and Temporal? Because on the one side, the Pope, Lucifer-like, asserteth, All power to be given unto him, as well in heaven, as in earth. Which power Pope Boniface the eightth went about to put in practice, when he endeavoured to strike a Terror into Kings, Princes, Nations, and people on the earth; rather then to plans' Religion in them. And on the other side, Chrysostome saith: They who believe not the judgement of God, nor fear it, abusing their Primacy secularly, turn it into the Secular. And Christ saith, first unto Peter; I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven (not of earth) and then of himself; My kingdom (that is, my Primacy, which to the Pope is in stead of his kingdom) is not of this world. Ioh 18.36 If it were of this world, my servants would surely fight, that I should not be delivered to the jews. And this said diametral opposition betwixt the Primacy of Christ, and the Primacy of the Pope-Antichrist, caused Pasquil to write in verse no less truly, then eloquently, thus: Christus regna fugit: sed vi Papa subingat urbes. Spinosam Christus; Triplicem gerit ille coronam. Abluit ille pedes: Reges his of cula praebent. Pavit oves Christus: Petit hic Regna omnia mundi. Pace venit Christus: venit hic radiantibus armis. Christ, worldly kingdoms offered, did eschew: The Pope by force, seeks kingdoms to subdue. A Crown of thorn our Saviour Christ did bear: The Pope a triple Crown of gold doth wear. Christ washed the feet of his disciples all: But all must kiss the Pope's feet, great and small. Christ fed his sheep and lambs most carefully: The Pope to worldly kingdoms casts his eye. Christ to his own, both mild and meek did come: The Pope with Arms, the world doth overun. Here is a matter very dangerous to the Pope's Primacy: which this shallow jesuite not daring to deny, and yet not able to answer unto it; leaving it as it were the body, flieth only upon the shadow, that is, the Citation, as it followeth. BECAN. Exam. OVs of Gratian, Page 92. Dist. 9 cap. Innocen: you 〈◊〉 the Pope, asserting All power to be given to him as well in heaven, as in earth: but, falsely. For in Dist. 9 there is no such Canon to be found, Yea, run over all the Distinctions that are in Gratian, yet you shall not find it. Indeed there is such a Canon in the second part of the Decree 22. Question 4. which gins thus; Innocens: but there it no mention of those words, which are cited by you. Dr. HARRIS Reply. IS this beseeming the gravity of jesuitical Fatherhood, so childishly to snatch after flies, that is, Escapes in Citations, either of the transcriber, or composer, or corrector, and sometimes, peradventure, of the Author himself; seeing those escapes are so frequent in most books printed? The Gloss of the Canon law, is so accurately and judiciously written, that the most learned Canonists circ it often for good Canon law, as they do the very text of the Canon law: and yet the said accurate Gloss faileth often in the Citations, which it useth; whereof these two Escapes may serve for a taste: viz. Dist. 81. ca Si qui verb. Emendent: The Gloss citeth Dist. 22. ca Nullus: and yet in that Distinction, there is no such chapter to be found. Again, in Dist. 96. ca Si Imperator. verb. Definimus; the Gloss citeth, 'Cause 20. Quest. 3. ca Quasitum: and yet there is no such chapter or Canon to be found in that third Question, nor in that twentieth Cause. If this jesuite had written against the Authors of that learned Gloss, he would have strewed upon them, (as he hath done upon me, in like case) these his rhetorical flowers, or rather boyish scurrilities; viz: You cite the Canon falsely. You have not read the Canon. You understand nothing. How shall I warn you to cite truly? It irketh me to warn you so often. I see I do but lose my my labour in desiring you to cite truly, since I can obtain nothing, etc. In Page 8. of my English Concord I cited jewel his Apology, part. 4. cap. 21. Dinis. 7. collecting certain reasons to prove that which I there alleged. jewel, for proof of his collections, cited First: 9 q. 3. Neque ab Augusto. Secondly, Dist. 40. Si Papa. Thirdly, Dist. 19 Si Romanorum. For my part, the authority, and most profound learning of that reverend Father, bred such a reverence in me towards him, that I would not so much as examine the said Citations, but set them down, as I found them written in his book. Now the jesuite, in his Examination of the said Citations, finding some small slips in some of them, bestowed upon the Bishop (through, or by, my sides) these scurrile and disgraceful flowers following: You profit nothing. I will teach you once again. It easily appeareth that you never saw, either the Glosses, or Canons. Such Glossators, out of England, are of no estimation. Who would not admire the insolency of this jesuitical Bragadochio, objecting ignorance to the incomparably learned Bishop jewel? unto whom, in the indifferent judgement of any equal and judicious Readers of the writings of them both, Becane is not worthy to hold the candle, or to carry his books after him. This I thought meet (gentle Reader) to signify unto thee in general, because this trifling disputer in his whole discourse following about Citations, doth nothing else, but misspend the time in such empty sopperies. As for this Citation in particular, viz. Dist. 9 ca Innocent; The very truth is, it was only the fault of the Transcriber: for those very words, D. 9 ca Innocent. written, I expuncted with mine own hand, before any jesuitical censure passed over them. The matter comprised in the words which I cited (viz. That all power is given to the Pope, as well in heaven as in earth) was a thing so well known to all papists of any reading, and also acknowledged as an article of popish faith; that for proof thereof, I set down no Citation in the Margin of my book. But now, lest this unlearned jesuite, having read so little (as by all his writings may appear) in the Canon law, or popish councils, or Canonists, should imagine that no proofs of the said matter are to be found in them; I will direct him, for his schooling sake, first to the Canon law, Dist. 22. ca Omnes. Where Pope Nicholas speaketh thus: Christ himself alone founded the Roman Church, and erected it upon the rock of faith, when he gave to Peter, claviger of eternal life, the rights of the Empire earthly, and also heavenly. What is this else, but more plainly, translated into English, thus: He gave to Peter (and consequently to the Pope) all power in heaven and earth. But it may be, the jesuite would feign see the place, where the very words are written. Therefore, Secondly, I do direct him to the popish Council of Lateran under Pope Leo the tenth; in which Council Stephanus the Bishop of Petracha, spoke thus openly, with great applause: In the Pope is all power, above all powers, as well in heaven, as in earth. Thirdly, I direct him to the most famous Canonist, Abbot Panormitan; who, super prima primi de Electione, cap. Venerabilem. verb. Transtulit, writeth thus: The Pope may, upon very great cause, transfer the Empire from one nation to another, because he can do whatsoever God can do; otherwise Christ had not been so diligent a father of his family, if he had not lest one on earth in his place, who can do all things that Christ himself can do. By this it is plain, that as All power in heaven and earth was given to Christ: So all power in heaven & earth, is given to the Pope. And consequently, it is as plain, that as Christ is God: so the Pope is God. For better understanding of which consequent; I send the jesuite to that learned and judicious, yet popish, Writer, Marsilius Patavinus, who relateth out of Bernard thus: All things were given to Christ, because he was the eternal Son of God. And Christ doth challenge to himself all things, by the right of creation, and merit of redemption. And whosoever takes these unto himself, makes himself indeed God. 2. Thes. 2.4 That is (as Saint Paul describeth him) the popish Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God as God, showing himself that he is God; or rather, exalting himself above all that is called God, or worshipped. Which may better appear by Becanes' solution of these two Questions following: First, whether, as to Christ and Pope, All power is given in heaven and earth; so both Christ and Pope, have one and the same name given to them, viz. The name above every name; that at the name of the Pope, Phil. 1.9. as at the name of lesus, every knee should bow of things in heaven, in earth, and under the earth? Unto this former question, I suppose Becane would say, Respondetur quod sic, that is, affirmatively: because in his Examen, pag. 133. he saith, The Pope Peter was received into the fellowship of the name and dignity of the individual unity, or Godhead. Then the second question goes further, thus: whether at the name, yea at the feet, of the Pope, all should not do more, than bow the knee; since the greatest Emperors must fall down flat with their faces on the ground, to kiss his feet; and with their necks stretched out, must receive and entertain his feet trampling upon them; and lastly (as it is challenged at this time) must offer readily their throats to be cut at the Pope's pleasure. Before I leave this Strain, I must set down that which the Gloss, out of the foresaid Canon Omni. D. 22. inferreth, viz. thus: Argumentum quod Papa habet ulrumque gladium, et spiritual●m, et temporalem. This argueth that the Pope hath both the swords, Spiritual and Temporal. Even as the Canonists also thence gather the Pope's supreme power temporal even over the Empire, to confer it to whom he will, and to transfer it whence, and whither he will. And so the Pope falleth into the just condemnation of God, and Confusion in heaven: whereof we heard before out of Chrysostome. Here two great mischiefs are necessarily inferred, pat upon the Pope's head: the former; That he is that Antichrist, and his Primacy Antichristian. The later; That the Pope, by reason of that his Primacy, lieth deeply plunged into hellish confusion. And yet here the jesuite Becane is as mute as a fish: so miserable a desendour of the Pope is he; even that Becane, who in the Preface to his Examen wished, that he might be the king's valiant Champion to descend his Cause. Now surely his Majesty should be maincly well holden up, through his great store of ignorance; more gross than ever I perceived in any jesuite Writer whatsoever. English Concord. Become, in his jar, Question, 3. demanded, Whether the King, by reason of his Primacy, may be called Primate of the Church? And I in my Concord demand, Whether the Pope, by reason of his Primacy, Anton. de Rosellis. may be called (as popish Writers call him) King of Kings and Lord of Lords? For example, Boniface 8. who in time of solemn supplications went appareled right as the Emperor himself, Crowned with a golden Crown Caesar like, glistering in an embroidered gown, and a naked sword carried before him at his commandment. Can ye, Vide vit, Dondolo, in Sexco. o Academics, (for the jesuite often speaks to you) beholding this spectacle, forbear laughing? Unto this the jesuite saith no more but as followeth. BECAN. Exam. YOu cite out of the life of Boniface 8. which is in the sixth book of the Decretals, these words: Boniface 8. In time of solemn application, &c. but, falsery. There is no such thing there, neither yet in Platina, who is well known to have written the life of Boniface accurately. Peradventure you found some such thing in the English fables; but they, out of that Island, carry no credit. Dr. HARRIS Reply. YEs: I find it in the Paralipom. Vrspergensis, page 365. thus: Papa Bonifacius 8. ipso apparatu in jubilaeo, qui tunc Romae agebatur, se solenniter ostentavit: Primo quidem solenni die, in Pontificalibus apparens populo, Apostolicam ill is benedictionem impartitur: postero die, Imperiali habitu, infula Caesarea insignis, gladium ante se nudatum jussit deferri, et sedens alta voce testatur; Ecce duo gladij hic. Boniface 8. in time of jubilee, showed himself the first day in his Pontifical robes: the second day in his Robes Imperial: to wit, the imperial Crown on his head; etc. and a naked sword borne before him, with proclamation thus: Behold here two swords. And there I read also this exclamation: Vides O Petre successorem tuum: Et tu Salutifer Christ, cerne tuum vicarium: vide quò ascendit superbia servi servorum tuorum. Oh Peter thou seest what manner of successor thou hast. And oh saviour Christ behold thy vicar, and see, whither the pride of the Servant of thy servants hath ascended. Further, in Aventine, ut ex concilio Vangionum, I find this written, viz. The Pope usurpeth both the Empire, and high Priesthood, as Decius, and other worshippers of false Gods, were want to do. The jesuite mistook my purpose in that marginal note, Vita Bonif. 8. in Serto: which was not to show where it is written, viz. that Boniface went in procession Emperor-like appareled: but that the Christian Reader might be directed to a writing authentical, where he might see Pope Boniface 8. pictured out in far worse & more odious colours; namely, at the end of the sixth book of the Decretals, thus: In the year 1294, Boniface got the Popedom, but not without the crime of ambition, and of other ill feats. He pretermitted nothing which either fraudor ambition could compass. He was so proud, that he contemned all men. There are some who write, that he suborned, and privily sent certain men, who in the night by a voice sent down as it were from heaven, entering the Chamber of Pope Celestine (a simple man) should persuade him to relinquish his Popedom, if he would be saved. This is notorious, that when Prochetes the Archbishop of Geneva, was before him on his knees upon Ash-wednesday, whereas, according to the manner, the Pope should throw ashes upon his head & say: Remember man thou art but ashes, and to ashes thou shalt return; Boniface cast ashes into Prochetes eyes, and said: Remember man thou art a Gibelline, and with the Gibellines, to ashes thou shalt return. The same Boniface sent his letter to Philip King of France, first to exhort him, and if that would not serve, to threaten him to undertake the Hiernsalem expedition. Philip commits that Legate to prison; whereupon the Pope sends the Archdeacon of Marbon, to command the King in the Pope's name to dismiss his Legate; 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 ● of France was devolved to the Church of Rome. But Sarra, sent by King Philip, took the Pope prisoner, and so brought him to Rome, where within 35. days after for very grief of mind, he perished. In this sort died Boniface, who endeavoured to cast terror into the hearts of Emperors, Kings, Princes, Nations, and People, rather than to sow religion among them: who also endeanoured to give kingdoms, and to take them away, to put in, and to put out, whom he would. Learn, all Princes both Secular, and Ecclesiastical, learn by his example, to rule the Cleary and people, not proudly and contumcliously as he did. Behold here, gentle Reader, First, how great the ignorance of this jesuite is, who knew not that the Treatise of the life of Boniface set down in the sixth of the Decretals, was made by Platina. Secondly, how unluckily the ignorance of this jesuite here is; which hath ministered unto me so just an occasion to publish afresh unto the world, what a most shameless, and odious Tyrant Pope, their most renowned Pope Boniface the eight was. English Concord. Becane, in his jar and fourth Question, demanded, Whether by reason of his Supremacy, the King may be called the Supreme 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 wilt thou answer to Christ the head of the universal Church, Lib. 4. Epist. 38 at the trial of the last judgement, who endevorest by the name of Universal Bishop (much more by the name of the Supreme head of the uninersall Church) to bring into subjection all his members unto thee? Unto this, though it touch the Pope necre, the jesuite, in his Examen, answereth not one word. English Concord. BEcane in his fift Question demanded, Whether the king's Primacy consist in any power, or jurisdiction, Ecclesiastical? And I in my fift Question demanded, Whether the Primacy of the Pope consist in any power or jurisdiction Temporal? That is, in a dominion temporal and coactive; considering that Christ said thus: The Kings of the nations bear rule over them, but ye shall not be so: and that Bernard writeth thus, peremptorily: Luke 22.25 Consider. ad Eug●n. lib. 2. It is plain that dominion is forbidden the Apostles. Therefore presume thou to usurp to thyself, either as a Soneraigne. the Apostleship; or as an Apostle, the Sovereignty. Thou art plainly forbidden one of them. If thou wilt have both together, thou stalt lose both. Otherwise. think not thyself to be excepted out of the number of those, of whom the Lord complaineth, saying; They ruled, but not by me. And yet, Martin. Polon. Boniface the 8, giveth the King of France to understand, that he is chief Lord in matters Spiritual and Temporal through the whole world: and commands the said King to acknowledge that he holds the Kingdom of France of him: because it is heretical to think and hold the contrary. In like manner said Pope Adrian: The Emperor reigneth by us; Auentin. 1.6 whence hath he the Empire but from us? Behold: it is in our power to give it to whom we will. And according to their Canon law: Kings and Emperors, by the command and will of Christ, receive their power from the Pope, as * Extran. Joan. 22 Cum inter nonnullos. in Gloss. from their Lord God. Hereunto the jesuite makes answer as followeth. BECAN. Exam. Page 94. In the 7. Page you cite, ex cap. Cum inter nonnullos, Extrau. Page 22. these words: Kings and Emperors, etc. I know not whether more falsely or ridiculously. Indeed falsely, because in that Chapter, there is no such matter. Ridiculously, because, when as in the sixth of the decretals, are found these words: Extravag. Cum inter de verborum significatione; you out of mere ignorance and sluggishness, set down these words: Extravag. Cum inter. Page 22. What, is john and Page all one with you? Truly, children cannot be more foolish in citing, then thus. Unless you profit better, the Doctors of the Canon law will never admit you to the degree of a Bachelor. Dr. HARRIS Reply. EXcuse me (Christian Reader) uttering the truth of this scornful jesuite, in more tart manner, here and there, than otherwise is usual with me, or fits my disposition. If ever there were, or be, an ignorant slug, trifling lie frivolous, boyish lie scurrilous, & a lying, forsooth, Father jesuite▪ this Becane is one, & among such may bear the bell: as I will make it appear before I dismiss him. His boyish scurrilities are two: In the former, he asketh whether john and Page, be all one with me? A question fit to be made by a Petite schoolboy to his fellow, then by a Father, jesuite, to an ancient Divine. In the second, he would cut-off all my hope to attain the degree of Bachelor. The jesuite may know that I am a Doctor in Divinity, of 19 years standing; it may be, as ancient Doctor as himself. Howsoever that; I dare boldly aver this; that Becane, in comparison of Doctor Harris, is (in manner) but an Abecedary scholar in the variety of all good literature divine and human; in all the liberal sciences; and in all the learned tongues: as he shall find, to his shame, if therein he dare grapple with me. I must confess, and say with Saint Paul, I was a fool to boast myself. But the scurrilous disgrace of this seely jesuite have enforced me. 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: Extravag. 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 withal? As though such oversights in printing, are not usual? This jesuite himself, Exam. pag. 98. will have, an escape of far greater moment to pass in the printed books of Tertullian against Praxeas. His second untruth is; That I cited it so falsely, not of oversight, but of mere ignorance, and dullness. Alas for this feely ignorant, and (here) impudently lying jesuite! unto whom, upon pawn of all my books, I will undertake and perform it, to read Lectures out of the Canon law; in the study whereof I have spent more weeks, yea months, than this jesuite hath bestowed hours. His extreme ignorance in the Canon law, is made Here apparent in these 3 points following. First, in that he confoundeth the 6. book of the Decretals, with the Extravagants; whereas they are distinct parts of the Canon law: which law is divided into these 6. general parts; 1. The Decrees, gathered by Gratian. 2. The Decretals, compiled by Gregory 9 3. The sixth of the Decretals, made by Boniface 8. 4. The Clementines, by Pope Clement the fist. 5. The Extravagants of john 22. 6. The Extravagants common, made by divers Roman Bishops, after the sixth 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 apparent is in citing thus: Extravag. Cum inter joan. 22. Deverborum significatione. When as the Canon or chapped. Cum inter. is to be found, neither in that Title Deverborum significatione, nor in all the Extravagants of joan. 22. Now therefore the jesuit is to answer me, to those fine questions, touching the three points of his very grosle ignorance in the Canon law here manifested. 1 Whether the decretals & Extravagants be all one with him? 2 Whether Boniface and john 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 judge, whether any child could be more foolish in citing, than he; and how undeservedly he obtained his degree of Doctorship. The truth is, that place, viz. Extravag. joan. 22. cap. Inter nonnullos in gloss. was cited by me, to show, that Kings receive their power, none simply, of the Pope; but more than so, viz. of the Romish Bishop, as of Their Lord God the Pope. The jesuit, Eudaemon joannes, writing in defence of the jesuit-traytor- Garnet, saith, he could not find in any printed book of Extra. joan. 22. those words: Our Lord God the Pope. Yet afterwards finding those very words, he ingenuously confessed the same. I know not, neither do I much care, whether Becane have like ingenuity in him: but sure I am, these very 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 believe that our Lord God the Popo, etc. Is not this pretty heathenish blaspnemie? The heathen called their Emperor, Our Lord God Domitian. The Papists call their Primar, Our Lord God the Pope. English Concord. BEcane in his jar, and sixth Question, demanded, Whether the King by his Primacy, may call councils, and presede in them? And I, in my sixth Question, demand, Whether the Pope by his Primacy, may call councils, and press de in them? I instanced in two general councils; the one of Constance, wherein three Popes, john 24. Gregory 12. and Benedict 13. were deposed. The other of Basil, in which, Pope Eugen. 4. was deprived of his Popedom; and another chosen in his room. But this the jesuit silently passeth over, though it may happily rend the Pope's heartstrings in-sunder. English Concord. Becane in his jar, and 7 Question, demanded, Whether the King can make Ecclesiastical laws? And I, in my Concord, & 7 Question, demand. Whether the Pope can make laws Ecclesiastical, & disannul laws Temporal? Herein I produced 4 Ecclesiastical laws 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 only, The Bishop of the first Sea: neither let the Bishop of Rome himself, be called universe all Bishop. The second; Cyprian in Conc●lio Carthagi. Concil. Constantin. 6. cap. 36. Concil. Afric. ca ●2. That no Bishop should make himself Bishop of Bishops, or Papa, that is, Pater Patrum. The third; That the Bishop of Constantinople, should have equal authority, with the Bishop of Rome. The fourth; That they should not be received to the Communion of any within afric, who held Appeals lawful to any judgements beyond the Sea. Especially to Rome: for this Canon was made purposely, against Appeals to the Bishop of Rome. Concerning the Pope's power over laws Secular, I produced a currant general Axiom of theirs, viz. The fullness of the Pope's power surpasseth all positive laws: 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 rubric of that chapter). Thus, The law of the Prince, prejudicial to the Church: or the law of any Inferiors behoveful to the Church: doth not extend unto the Church, unless it be expressly approved by the Pope. Then I added thus: The reasons hereof collected out of the Canon law, by jewel, in his Defence of the Apology, are these; Part. 4. c. 21. Di. 7. Though the whole world should sentence against the Pope, yet the Pope's sentence should prevail; because he seems to have all laws, 9 q. 3. Neque ab Augusto. or rights, in the closet of his breast. And again: Therefore that which the Pope allows, or disallows, Dist. 19 cap. S● Roman, in Glossa. we ought to allow, or disallow. Whosoever then doth not obey the statutes of the Roman Church, is to be accounted an heretic. Further, Dist. 40. Si Papa in Gloss. That it is a kind of Sacrilege, to dispute of that which the Pope doth. Morcover, That the Pope hath a celestial arbitrament: whence it followeth, Extr● de trip'st. Epi. ca Quinto. in Glossa. that in those things which be willeth, His will to him for Reason is: Neither is there any who should say to him, Sir or Lord, why do you so? Lastly, That as the Pope by his own will only, can create a law: Felin de Relc●pt. so by his own will only, he can disper●● with the la. The jesuit, in his Examen, answereth nothing unto the laws Ecclesiastical, either of the universal Bishop, or of the Equality bet ween the Bishop of Canstantinople, and the Bishop of Rome: and yet those said two laws, expel the Pope with his Primacy, out of the Church, and shut up the Church doors against him (as they of Eden were against Adam) to prevent his future reentry. But because the jesuite doth make particular answers unto most of the remainder; I will set them down severally, and my Reply unto them; as followeth. BECAN. Exam. YOu cite out of the Council of African, Page 94. cap. 92. these words: Ad Transmatina indicia etc. Where upon you gather, that it is not lawful to appeal to the Bishop of Rome. But I, unto this day, never saw any Council of Aftick, cap. 92. which hath any such words. And it is manifest by the best Authors, that Appcales to the Sea Apesrolicait, were alwates la● full and usual. See the Council of Sardica, cap. 3. 4. & 7. and Henorius Emperor, in his Epistle to Arcadius, which is set down in the first Tome of the Council, among the Episties of Innocent the first. Dr. HARRIS Reply. WHereas he saith, he cannot find that 92. chap. or the words here specified; we have the jesuit confessing himself guiltic of his most palpable ignorance in the Canon law & councils. Their own Binnius, whose Edition (as they will have it) is the last, largest, and best Edition of the councils; in his first Tome, pag. 643. citeth the 92. ca Concil. African. sub Coelestino et Bonifac. in these very words: Ite placuit, ut Presbyteri, Diaconi etc. in causis quas habuerint, si de judicijs Episcoporum suorum questi fuerint, vicini Episcopi cos audiant, et inter eos, quicquid est, finiant adhibiti ab eis ex consensu Episcoporum svorum. Quod siab eye provocandum putaucrint, non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad Primates provinciarum suarum. Ad transmarina autem, quiputaverit appellandum, à nullo infra Africam in Communionem suscipiatur. If Priests, Deacons, etc. complain of the judgement of their Bishops, let the next Bishops hear their causes, etc. If they shall think meet to appeal from them, let them not appeal but only to the councils of afric, or to the primates of their own Provinces. But let not him be received of any within afric to the Communion, who thinks he should appeal to judgement beyond the Sea. These words the jesuit might have found in the Epitome of councils, written by their Carranza. Yea in their own Canon law, 2. q. 6. cap. Placuit ut Presbyteri, & 11. q. 3. ca Presbyteri. Therefore the jesuit, here, makes himself, together with his ignorance, very ludibrious. Touching the Decretal Epistles, and others mustered among them, they have been long since upon just demerit, branded as bastards. As for the Council of Sardica, Cardinal Cusanus, De Concord. lib. 2. ca 25. saith; That S. Augustine held not the Council of Sardica for a Catholic Council, but rather for a Council of Arrian heretics. And further, That the Fathers in the Council of Africa (in which Council Saint Augustine was present) in their letters to Pope Coelestin, wrote, that they never found this Constitution decreed in the councils of any Bishops. Wherefore, it may well be doubted, whether this be a Constitution of the Council of Sardica, or not. This answer may suffice the empty citing of an Epistle, and Canons of a Council. whereout when the jesuit expresseth other matter, he shall receive a further answer. BECAN. Exam. YOu cite these words of Cyprian, Nemo nostrum, etc. out of the Council of Constantinople, Page 95. 2. cap. 36. But neither are those words found there, neither was Cyprian present at any Council of Constantinople. Enery where you are rude, and a stranger. You have no knowledge of times or places; and yet suddenly you would be a Master. Dr. HARRIS Reply. INdeed, if I were so rude, and such a stranger in the Fathers and councils, as he showeth himself here to be, I might rightly be termed rude and ignorant. The very misplacing, and the twice setting down of the same Canon, and of the same Council for words so diverse, might easily have informed the jesuit, that it was the Compositors, or Transcribers, and not the Author's oversight. There is none that knoweth Becane and myself, but presume that I know as well as he, the times and places of all the councils put forth in print; and that I could not be ignorant of this, viz. that S. Cyprian was dead, a glorious Martyr, more than 50 years before any of the four general councils (much more before this sixth of Constantinople) was celebrated or called. But, silly jesuit, can not he find these words of Cyprian uttered by him, in any Council where he was present? Can he cite any Council but that of Carthage, where Cyprian was present? Or is he ignorant, that Cyprian was present at the Council of Carthage, and there uttered these words, Nemo nostrum Episcopum. etc. If he be so ignorant, let him hear Cyprian in these his own words. Superest ut de hacipsa re, singuli, quid sentiamus, proseramus, neminem iudicantes, aut à iure Communion is, aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrûm Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico timore ad obsequendi necessitatem, colleg as suos adigit: quando habet omnis Episcopus, pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suae arbitrium; proprium, tanquam judicari ab alio non possit, qui nec ipse potest alierum judicare. Let every of us utter what we think of this matter, judging no man, nor excommunicating any, who shall think otherwise then we do. For there is none of us, that makes himself a Bishop of Bishops; or by tyrannical fear forceth his colleagues to obey: sith every Bishop may speak freely what he thinks, judged of none, as he can judge none. Doth not the jesuit know even by the name Papa, that the Pope ambitiously makes himself Bishop of Bishops, in their popish Canons? and tyrannically by oath, enforceth all Bishops to the necessity of obeying him, to say as he saith, in their canonical obedience? If he know not, let Aeneas Silvius, afterward Pope Pius 2. school him in these words: Bishops contradicting the Pope, though they speak the truth, yet they sin against their oath made to the Pope. If this jesuite were not ignorant that Cyprian spoke those words in the Council of Carthage; what a frivolous Doctor is he, misspending the precious time about trifling escapes of the Printer, or Transcriber etc. viz. of the word, Constantinople, for the word Carthage? as though such escapes were not frequent in the Pope's Canon law. BECAN. Exam. YOu cite these words; Pag. 95. Plenitudo potestatis Papae, etc. with this citation; Extra de Constitut. Ecclesi. Sanct. Mariae, numero nono. Again, falsely and ridiculously. For neither are those words there, neither have you cited the place well. Thus you should have cited it, Extra de Constitutionibus. cap. Ecclesia Sanctae Mariae. Yet now at the last liarne somewhat, that you be not always a child, and blockish in citing. Dr. HARRIS Reply. THe jesuit here undertaking to be my Schoolmaster, proves himself to be a very blockish, and a ludibrious Teacher. To prove, not as he imagineth, The fullness of the Pope's power to surpass all Positive laws: but that The temporal laws, with, or against the Church, extend not to the Church without the Pope's express allowance; I cited the place rightly, thus: De Constitut. cap. Eccles. Sanctae Mariae. nu. 9 But the jesuit, after the depth of his shallow capacity, cities it thus: De Constitut. Ecclesia Sanctae Mariae, leaving out these words, numero nono. Whe● as those very words, if he had but any smattering skill, in the Commentaries upon the Canon law, might easily have informed him, that these words and syllables, viz. Lex praeiudicialis Ecclesijs, etc. were the words of Panormitan, writing upon that chapter, as indeed they are, thus; Paner de Const●r ca E. cl. Sá●●e marae. nu. 9 Lex Principis, praeiudicialis Ecclesiis, non extenditur ad Ecclesias, nisi express approbetur per Papam. Si verò est Constitutio laicorum inferiorum favorabilis Ecclesiis, non extenditur aliquo modo ad clericos, nisi sit approbata per Papam. The laws of Princes, prerudiciall to the Church, extend not to the Clergy, except the Pope expressly allow them. Though these words, Lex praeiudicalis etc. be not in the Canon, but in the Rubric of the same (and even that is enough to make this jesuit blush) yet the matter is fully set down in that Canon, De constitut. ca Eccles. S. Mariae. And the case was between john de Archea (who appealed) and the Church of St. Marry, touching certain possessions then in contioversie, before the judge of appeal: who, by reason of a certain statate of Rome, spoiled the Monastery of the said possersions, and transserred them to the Church of Saint Marie; giving corporal possession thereof. This cause being brought to the Pope, he sets down this decree: We, considering that layites having no power over the Church, or Churchmen, if they make a law which may restect the good of the Church is of no validity, unless it be established by the Pope's authority; do make void that which is done in prejudice of the Monastery and diffinitively do sentence, the possession to be restored unto it. These things being thus made plain to the jesuit, it is meet now he should answer how those laws, indeed anciently made, but lately revived, and reen forced by the Venetians, so exceeding prejudicial to the Church and Churchmen (as the Pope in his late excommunicating Bull expressly and his two Cardinals, Bellarminus and Baronius particularly, have set down) stand still in force, even to the expulsion, and extirpation thence of all Icsuits, without any hope of their return. Whether, because this said Canon hath lost his force; or for that the roating Bull hath lost his horns, and is now become no more feared, than a braying Ass? BECAN. Exam. Page 96. Out of Gratian 9 q. 3. Neque ab Augusto, you cite these words: Sirotus Mundus sententiaret, etc. Richard you presit nothing. Once again I wili teach you: thus you ought to have cited; cap. Nemo ludicabit, 9 q. 3. For the beginning of the chapter doth not begin with thes●●ord; Neque ab Augusto, as you dream, but with these, Nemo iudicabir. And yet the words cited by you, are not found there. Dr. HARRIS Reply. IT is not I, who (to prove, that if all the world would sentence against the Pope, yet the Pope's sentence should stand) cite 9 q. 3. Neque ab Augusto; but the incomparably learned Bishop jewel, as I expressly wrote in my Concord, page 8. Therefore the jesuit fond saith, that he will teach me to cite better herein, thus: cap. Nemo judicabit. 9 q. 3. because the chap. beginneth with these words, Nemo judicabit, and not with these; Neque ab Augusto. Wherein the jesuit bewrayeth his incredible rudenels & ignorance, who never read citations made in the Canon law, by words after the beginning, the midst, or later end of the Canon, but only in the beginning thereof. Therefore here I must take him to schooling, and read three lectures out of the Canon law (viz. out of the Decrees, the decretals, and the Extravagants) unto him, thus: In the Decrees, Dist. 12. ca No decet. verb. Discretione. and Dist. 11. ca Non nos. verb. quis entm: the Glosle citeth 17. q. 4. §. Qui autem. But those words are not the beginning of any chapter in 17. q. 4. In the decretals, De Electione, & Electi potestate, cap. Venerabilem. verb. Transtulit, The Gloss cireth 24. q. 1. §. Sedillud, and immediately after, 11. q. 1. §. Sedsi quis: but neither of those chapters begin with those words, Sedillud, or Sedsi quis. In the Extravagants of joan. 22. De verborum significatione, cap. Quia quorundam. the Gloss 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 have schooled this Becane herein sufficiently: but now falleth the jesuit into a desperate case; for he having found out the Canon, he cannot find out these words, Sitotus mundus, etc. I see I must take him to schooling once again, and teach him where he shall find those very words & syllables: viz. in the Gloss, verb. or §. Neque ab omni clero. The words of the Gloss are these: Argumentum quod concilium non potest Papam judicare, ut extra. de Elect. significasti. unde sitotus mundus sententiaret in aliquo negotio contra Papam, videtur quod sententiae Papae standumesset. ut 24. q. 1. Hac est fides. This argueth that the Council cannot judge the Pope. Therefore, if the whole world should give sentence in any matter against the Pope, the Pope's sentence must stand. Now may the jesuit run & cry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have found it; and withal, thank the learned Bishop jewel, for his citing of the Canon, viz. not by the first words of the Canon, but by the words following: whereby he pointed, as with his finger, the jesuit to the Gloss, where those words are written. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 96. YOu cite out of the Gloss, Dist. 19 cap. Si Romanorum, these words: That which the Pope alloweth, etc. Therefore, whosoever will not obey the stetutes of the Roman Church, is to be accounted an heretic. But the Gloss hath not these later words: 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. Here again, this unlucky jesuit shows naked his great ignorance, when he saith that those later words (or the substance of them) are not in the Canon law or Gloss, but are of my Gloss: he would have said Bishop jewels Gloss. Had not the jesuit been a very unlearned man indeed, the learned Bishop, directing him to the Gloss, verb. Reprobantur, might have taught him presently to have found those later words, or the very matter, viz. That it is heresy, wilfully to disobey, or oppose the statutes of the Roman Church. For in that very place, the Gloss citeth 24. q. 1. cap. Haec est fides, where S. Hierom is produced, asserting, That if any shall blame that, quod Papae judicio comprobatur; which the Pope alloweth; se non atholicum, sed haereticum comprobabit, he shall prove himself no Catholic, but an haeretick. The reason whereof the jesuit may read Dist. 22. cap. Omnes, in these words; Fidem violate, qui adversus Romanam Ecclesiam agit quae est matter fidei: For he violates the faith, who doth against the Roman Church, the mother of saith. It may be, the simple jesuit knoweth not, that by their Canon law, the Pope may make new Articles of faith, through his statutes. Let him therefore read, Extra. joan. 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 world, and Christ's Vicar, can make new Articles of faith: and there shall the jesuit find this case put; The Pope did newly in that Canon, statuere, ser it down, That Christ and his Apostles had somewhat proper, or in special. After which it is there thus resolved: That to assert obstinately, that Christ, & his Apostles had nothing (in special) in propriety, haereticum fore censendum, was to be accounted heretical, cum Decretalis exist, after the Decretal had gone forth, and not before. I will put a few more cases to the jesuit, to make him understand it better. Admit the Pope (as Nabuchodonoser did by his Image set up) at the lifting up of his Idol, the wafer cake, (which hath no more eyes to see, nor ears to hear, nor heart to understand, than Nabuchodonosers Image had, but will sooner putrefy then his) should command all Nations, kindreds, and people, to fall down, and worship it; and three were found, as those three children, who would not fall down, & worship it, should they not all three be reputed heretics? Admit that the Pope should statuere, establish, that Doctrine of Devils, 1. Timo. 4. verse 2. that is, should forbid eating of flesh in the Lent, as unholy; and one should, as one did, eat wilfully a pig in Lent, should not that one be, as indeed he was, burnt for an heretic? Admit, where Christ commanded even the lay people to read, and search the Scriptures, the Pope, job. 5.39. contrary to Christ, that is, in one word, Antichrist, should forbid all laity 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 mean the house of Inquisition, whence commonly such never return alive? Admit that the Pope (contrary to the laws of God and man, the laws of nature, of Nations) should statuere, set it down in his Briefs, that what subject soever, should take the Oath of Allegiance (but even so far, as to swear to maintain, and defend to his power, the life of his Sovereign against all foreign power) should swear against the Catholic faith; and any one wilfully opposing that stature made by the Pope, should take the Oath, as law full: should not he go for an heretic, unless the Pope dispensed with him to take it? By these palpable instructions, the jesuit may learn, that those later words aforesaid were not my Gloss (as he saith) of no value; but the capital Popish doctrine, most pernicious to Kings and States, Antichristian, disloyal, diabolical. By force whereof, if the Pope (as I said before) should statuere, set it down, that Becanus the jesuit, should go into England, to raise there sedition and rebellion, to contrive, and act a new GUNNE-POWDERTREASON, wherein to fold up in one sudden destruction, the King, Queen, Prince, Nobility, Communality, Bishops, judges, etc. as a thing meritorious, and the jeluite should wilfully refuse to do it, as a thing unlawful; he would be reputed and punished as an heretic; although he should have lost his life on earth, and hanged his soul in hell, by doing it. So far extendeth their blind obedience jesuitical, to the Statutes and authority Papal. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 97. Out of another Gloss, Dist. 40. cap. Si Papa, you cite these words: It is a kind of sacrilege to dispute of the Pope's fact. But, as unfaith fully as before. For the Gloss hath no such word, or rather the contrary; for thus it speaketh expressly: If the Pope's crime be notorious, and he beincorrigible, I believe that he may be thereof accused. It easily appeareth, that you never saw the Canons, or Glosses. You are better seen in fables. Dr. HARRIS Reply. BY this it is manifest, that this jesuit never saw, or ran over cursorily the Canons & Glosses, but is better seen in scurrilities. Otherwise, having the 40. Dist. ca Si Papa before him, in the very next page of the next leaf to the Canon Si Papa, and there in the Gloss, cap. Non nos. verb. quis enim; with the same view, he might have read these words: Semper praesumitur pro Papa, ut 93. Dist. cap. 1. unde sacrilegij instar esset, disputare de facto suo. Vel die quod facta Papae excusantur, ut homicidia Samsonis, furta Haebraeorum, et adulterium jacob. extra de divortijs. Gaudemus. The Pope is presumed always to be good, Therefore it were a kind of sacrilege to dispute of his fact; whose fact, viz. murder, is excused, as those of Samson; and his thefts, as the thefts of the Hebrews: and his adulteries, as the adultery of jacob. This stuff is plain enough: but it is too too filthy. Therefore with what face, or show of any little skillin the Canons or Glosses, could the jesuite deny the Gloss to have any such words, since the very words are there in the Gloss to be found? Again, considering it was the Bishop jewel, and not I, (as my printed book of Concord, pag. 8. showed) who cited Dist. 40 cap. Si Papa. he showeth himself to be of projected impudency, who durst so basely think and write of that most learned Bishop, viz. That he never saw the Canons, or Glosses. If the Gloss writ contrary, it writeth contrary to itself, and to the express words of the Canon itself, Simo papa; which are these: Papae culp as redarguere, praesumit mortalium nullus, quod cunetos ipse iudicaturus, a nemine est iudicandus; nisi deprehendatur a fide devius. No mortal man presumeth to reprehend the Pope's faults, because he is to judge all, and to be judged of none; unless he be found Apostate from the faith. The Gloss, in 22. q. 2. ca Non liceat, saith plainly (and not, as here, Credo, I believe or think) Nullus mortalium papam possit judicare. Extra de Elect. ca Innotuit. Dist. 40. Si Papa. No man living may judge the Pope. Heresy (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 he is Head of the Church, by the Canon law, he is the Church, and above general Counsels, Emperors, and all mortal men living. Therefore saith Innocent the Pope, Dist. 96. ca Satis evidenter: It is showed evidently enough, that the Secular power can neither bind, nor lose the Pope, plainly called God, by the godly Emperor Constantine: now it is manifest, that God can not be judged of men. And in 9 q. 3. Aliorum, he concludeth thus: God would have the causes of other men, to be determined by men: but he hath questionless reserved the Bishop of this Sea to his own judgement. He would have the successors of blessed Peter to owe their innocency to heaven only, and to keep a conscience inviolate to the trial of the most subtle Discussor. It is manifest, that the faithful every where, are subject to the Pope, when as he is designed Head of the whole Body. This being the main, and clear doctrine of the Romish Catholic faith; it is much to be feared, lest that the Pope reading what Becane hath here written (viz. That the Pope may be judged, and if he be incorrigible, deposed; not for Heresy alone, but also for other notorious crimes) will not only be much ashamed of him, as of an unlearned jesuite, and cashier him, as a miserable defender of him; but also, excommunicate him as an Heretic, and an Impugner of his Majestical Primacy: whose honour will soon be buried in the dunghill, If he may be judged for his crimes notorious. English Concord. BEcane in his eightth Question, demanded, Whether the King may confer Ecclesiastical Benefices? And I, in my eightth Question, demanded, Whether the Pope may confer Ecclesiastical Benefices? Here I did instance in the Collations of Ecclesiastical Benefices in France, made by the King of France, and not by the Pope: for proof whereof I produced the Epistle of King Philip the fair, to Pope Boniface the eightth, thus: Philip by the Grace of GOD the french King, to Boniface bearing himself for highest Bishop, etc. Let your greatest fooleshippe know that the collation or bestowing of the Church-livings do pertain to us by our right Regal; and that the fruits of them, during the vacancy, are ours. That the Collations made already by us, or hereafter to be made; are of force and validity: and we repute them fools, and mad men, who think otherwise. Unto this, the jesuite, in his Examen, answereth not one word. English Concord. BEcane in his jar, and ninth Question, demanded, Whether the King can create and depose Bishops? And I in my Concord, and ninth Question, demanded, Whether the Pope may create and depose Bishops? Herein I showed how blasphemously (against Christ, the sole head of the Church) these Pope's parasites writ of Papal 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 fullness, they all receive. Petrus de Palude: The Church hath not any power of jurisdiction but from Peter. From Peter after Christ, all spiritual power is derived. Bellarmine: The Pope alone is, jure divino, by God's word, or right divine; but Bishops, by the Pope's law, or by Papal ordinance. Hereunto the jesuite, in his Examen, maketh no answer; 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, stubborn Emperors, who will not obey the Pope's will, as it were * De Translat. Epist. ca Quanto. in Glosla. reason itself? 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 Temporal. Which said Treatise, by public edict in France, was first adjudged to be burnt; and so it had been; but for the restless importunity of the jesuits: yet afterward by public edict, was it, under a great penalty, forbidden to be bought, sold, or read; as a Trentise erroneous, seditious, schismatical, and pestilent. This also the jesuite, in his Examen, is content to pass by; for that belike, he would not stir up again that ill savour of Bellarmine's exceeding great disgrace therein. English Concord. BEcane in his jar, and eleventh Question, demanded, Whether the King may be judge of Controversies? And I, in my Concord and 11. Question, demanded, Whether the Pope may be judge of Controversies? For example, these Pope's following; Pope Zepherinus (or as some writ, Eleutherius) judge of Montanisme, of whom Beatus Rhenanus out of Tertullian against Praxeas, noteth thus: Episcopus Romanus Montanizat. The Bishop of Rome is a Montanist: or holds with the Heretic Montanus. Pope Liberius and Pope Leo, both Arian heretics judges of Arianisme: as appeareth by Alphonsus de Castro, in his book of Heresies, and by the Legend of Hillary. Pope Anastasius judge of Nestorianisme, who as the said Alphonsus there writeth, favouredthe Nestorian Heretics. Pope Honorius judge of the doctrines of Sergius the Heretic, of whom the Bishops in the sixth Council of Constantinople, action 13. writ thus: We have anathematized or cursed, or excommunicated Honorius, who was Bishop of old Rome, because be followed the opinion of Sergius in all things, and confirmed his impious doctrines. BECAN. Exam. Page 97 Out of Beatus Rhenanus, who wrote Annotations upon the book of Tertullian against Praxeas, you cite these words: Episcopus Romanus Montanizat, that is, the Bishop of Rome followeth the heresy of Montanus. I have often warned you of your deceitful Citations; but all in vain. Beatus Rhenanus, in his Annotations, hath not those words, but these. Rectissimè egit, etc. The Bishop of Rome did very well, who condemned that feigned Prophecy of Montanus. Which words are clean contrary to those former, unless in your Grammar, to receive, and to reject Montanus, signify the same thing. But I know the cause of your error. The Printer, or some other, (besides the Annotations of Rhenanus) had set down in the margin of Tertullians' book, certain short notes, which show the matters there handled. Therefore in a curtain place, he put these two words Episcopus Romanus, The Bishop of Rome: because the Bishop of Rome was there mentioned: and a little after he put apart this word, Montanizat, is a Montanist; because Tertullian defended the heresy of Montanus, which the Pope had condemned. You, hane no regard of truth or faith, conjoin those words thus: Episcopus Romanus Montartizat. I am asbamed of this Imposture or deceit. Dr. HARRIS Reply. IF there were but one dram of truth, faith, or modesty in this jesuite, he would not have written so falsely, deceitfully, and impudently, as here he doth: which I will make most apparent in this Strain, before I leave him. Tertullian, following Montanus, wrote his book against Praxeas: and in the beginning thereof, he writeth thus: Nam idem (Praxeas) tunc Episcopum Romanum agnoscentemiam prophetias Montani, Priscae, Maximillae, et ea agnitione pacem Ecclesiis Asiae et Phrygiae inferentem; falsa de ipsis prophetijs adseverando, et praecessorum eius auctoritates defendendo: Coegit, et literas pacis revocare iam emissas, et à proposito recipiendorum charismatum concessare. Praxeas compelled the Bishop of Rome (who at that time acknowledged, or approved the prophecies of Montanus, and in so doing brought peace to the Churches of Asia, and Phrygia: partly by affirming false things of those Churches, and partly by defending the authority of the Bishop's predecessors) to revoke his letters of peace, which he had sent, and to cease from his further communicating with Montanus. By which words of Tertullian, it is cuident that the Bishop of Rome did then approve, and by his letters maintain the Heretical Prophecies of Montanus. Beatus Rhenanus in his edition of Tertullian, besides his Annotations upon him, set forth his Marginal notes, over against the text, briefly expressing all-along the matters contained in the text; & over against these words of the text (The Bishop of Rome acknowledging the Prophecies of Montanus, and so bringing peace to the Churches) he put these two Marginal notes: viz. the former; Episcopus Romanus Montanizat. Because Tertullian said, The Bishop of Rome approved Montanus. The second; Autoritas Romanorum Pontificum. The authority of the Komane Bishops. Because Tertullian said, that the Bishop of Rome, when he did Montanize, by his letters sent, brought peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia. And hereto agreeth Rhenanus his Annotation upon these words of Tertullian, Episcopum Romanum. Attend summam Romani Pontificis autoritatem, etiam illis temporibus, dum aliquid recipit aut damnat. Observe here the great authority of the Bishop of Rome, even in those times, when hec did either receive, or reject any thing. To wit, because once he received Montanus, but afterward rejected him. So that it is most clear, that those words, The Bishop of Rome doth Montanize, is the very Marginal note of Beatus Rhenanus, conjoining all those three words, Episcopus Romanus Montanizat; without any separation of them, by comma, full point, or any the like, at the word Romanus: as is to be seen in the Margin, in all the editions of Tertullian, (even by Papists, as namely, in the Edition of Renatus Laurentius de labar, printed at Paris, cum privilegio, An. 1580.) where those marginal notes are set down. Their ownc Pamelius, in his late Edition of Tertullian, An 1608. leaves out those three marginal words; Episcopus Romanus Montanizat. And, in his 7. annotation upon those words, Episcopum romanum, showeth himself griened at, and much disliketh, that those said three marginal words, are extant in all former printed editions: for thus he writeth; Quare eo magis improbanda advocatio marginalis quae hactenus extat in excusis exemplaribus omnibus; Episcopus Romanus Montanizat. But if those margimall words, Episcopus Romanus, stood alone in the margin so full pointed, because the Bb. of Rome is there mentioned; & then the word Montanizat, set down in the margin, separate from the other two foresaid words, because Tertullian doth there Montanize, as this jesuit would have it; Pamelius in common sense, had no reason either to leave our, or dislike those three marginal words. judge now, gentle Reader, how either pitifully ignorant, if he never read those said three marginal words in beatus Rhenanus his edition of Tertullian: or if he did, how shamefully impudent this Becane here showeth himself to be, casting this aspersion upon me, that I deceitfully alleged those said marginal words, conjoining them which in printed books stand separated: and so applying that to the Bishop of Rome, which the marginal note assigneth to Tertullian. A more palpable untruth could not be vuered. Whereas he endeavoureth to iustific the same, by citing these words out of Rhenanus his annotations (Rectissime ergo egit Romanus Pontifex, qui illam confictam Montani prophetiam damnavit. The Bishop of Rome did well, in condemning that feigned prophecy of Montanus) & ask me, whether it be all one to condemn & approve Montanus, he doth manifest to the world, how exceeding shallow he is, not knowing whether he writ with, or against himself. Tertullian, writing very distinctly of two several times, saith; that the Bishop of Rome at the first approved Montanus; and accordingly sent letters to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, signifying his communion with Montanus, and so procuring great peace to those Churches. Whereupon, Rhenanus marginal note was, The Bishop of Rome doth Montanize. But Tertullian saith again, that he afterward, by the means of Praxeas, revoked his said letters, and rejected Montanus, Whereupon, even on the text word, revocare, Beatus Rhenanus his annotation is this: Rectissime ergo Ro: Pontifex egit etc. Therefore right well did the Bishop of Rome to condemn Montanus. Doth not this show apparently, that the Bishop of Rome was once a Montanist; but after, recanted? And doth not the jesuit feel this his own weapon retorted into his own heart? BECAN. Exam. Pag. Out of the Council of Constantinople you cite these words: Anathematizari curavimus Honorium etc. You follow the fraud of the Grecians, who, upon enny, inserted the name of Honorius, when as it is plain, or certain, (constat) that Honorius was not there condemned, as Bellarmin de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap. 11. proveth out of the Library ●●eper, Athanasius, and others. Dr. HARRIS Reply. IN asserting Honorius to be a Monothelit heretic, I do follow three general councils, 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 Emperor, to be seen 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 own Pontifical of the Pope's lives in Leo 2. besides many, as learned Writers as Bellarmine, by whom it appearech manifestly, that Honorius was an Heretic. Our English man Harding, in his book against Bishop jewel, page 131. of Pope Honorius, writeth thus: Now at length Ma. jewel, you say that which hath some face of truth; for Honorius indeed fell into the heresy of the Monothelits. And this is the only Pope, who may iastly be burdened with heresy. Pope Leo 2. in his Epistle to the Emperor, at the end of that 6. general Council, hath these words: We accurse Honorius, who hath not lightened this Apostolic Church, with Apostolic doctrine; but, by wicked treachery hath laboured to subvert the undefiled faith. In this my citation, I follow not (as this fulse jesuit saith) the Greek fraud; but the edition of councils, by their own Binnius, Tom. 3. thus: Concilium Constantinopolitanum tertium, sextum universal, in quo ducenti, octoginta, et novem Episcopi, sub Agarhone Papa, & Constantino Pogovato Imperatore An. 680. et 631. Pag. Binnij 67. act. 13. Impia execramur dogmata Sergij, Cyri, Pyrrhi et Theodori, quos Agatho Papa abijcit, utpote contraria rectae fidei sentientes, quos Anathemati submitti definivimus. Cum his verò simul proijci à sancta Dei Catholica Ecclesia, simulque anathematizari praevidimus Honorium, qui fuerat Papa antiquae Romae, eo quod invenimus per scripta quae ab eo facta sunt ad Sergium, quia in omnibus eius mentem secutus est, et impia dogmata confirmavit. We detest the impious doctrines of Sergius, Cyrus, etc. whom we have accursed; with these, we have also cast out of God's holy Catholic Church, and accursed, Honorius, who was Pope of old Rome; because we found by those things which he wrote to Sergius, that he was wholly of Sergius opinion, and confirmed his impious doctrines. Hear, if I would hunt after Butterflies, as this trifling jesuit doth, I could tax him for his oversight, or ignorance, in putting down Athanasius for Anastasius. But leaving this unlearned jesuit to correct his errors; unto Bellarmine, hcere objected against me, I say, that Anastasius writing of the Pope's lives, in the life of Pope Leo 2, setteth down Honorius among the heretics who were condemned by the sixth general Council. And for further answer, I refer Bellarmine unto Mr. Dr Whitaker, controvers. 4. cap. 6. and to Mr. Dr. Reynolds his Conference against heart, ca 7. Diuis. 2. who both, very largely and learnedly, have refuted all which Bellarmine hath written material for the cleared of Honorius. By these Pope- Heretics, the Christian Reader may learn, what a dangerous thing it is to make the Pope judge of all Controversies. And further, he may here observe, with what deep silence the jesuit letteth pass The Pepes, Liberius, and Leo, for Arrian heretics: and Pope Anastasius for a Nestorian heretic. So worthy a champion defender is Becane of the Pope's Primacy. English Concord. BEcane, in his jar and 12. Question, demanded, Whence the King hath his Primacy? And I, in my Concord, Quest. 12. demanded, Whence the Pope hath his Primacy? Whether of Christ, who said, joh. 18. v. 36.1. Pet. 5. v. 3. Ro. 13. v. 1. My kingdom is not of this world: or of Peter, Who forbade his fellow Presbyters to domineer over the Clergy; much more, over Kings. Or rather of the Devil, Mat. 4. v. 9 Luk. 4. v. 6 who said, I will give unto thee, all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them: for that is given to me, and I give it to whom I will. And even so said the devils heir, Pope Adrian: Whence hath the Emperor his Empire but from us? Behold, it is in our power, to give it to whom we will. By these sayings it is demonstrated, that the Pope hath his Primacy, not from Christ, but from the Devil. Yet here the jesuit hath not one word to answer for his Pope's Primacy. English Concord. BEcane, in his jar, and 13. Quest. demanded, Whether the King may compel his subjects to the oath of Primacy? And I, in my Concord, and 13. Quest. demanded, Whether the Pope may compel his subjects (that is, all Christians) to the oath of Primacy? Because, according to their Canon law, Dist. 81. ca Siquis. What Christian soever will not obey the Pope's precept (even to kill his Sovereign, and native King) runs into the sin of Idolatry & Heathenism. Especially the Bishops: who 〈◊〉 etyed to the Pope by oath, Aenae Sylnaus ad Mogunt. That if they gainsay the Pope, though they speak 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 command vice, or forbidden virtue, the Church were bound to believe virtue to be evil, and vice to be good. BECAN. Exam. Page 99 YOu cite, out of Gratian, Dist. 81. cap. Si quis, these words of the Pope: If any will not obey our precept, etc. You have not read this chapter: neither is the beginning of it, Si quis, but, Si qui. Neither doth the Pope there decree, that he incurs the sin of Idolatry, who will not obey him in killing his nature King, as you calumniate; but the Priests and Deacons, who after admonition, will not abstain from fornication: and also they, who will presume to hear those Priests and Deacons in their public Ministry, being interdicted to enter the Church. Consult with the Canon, and you shall find it. Dr HARRIS Reply. Ihave read that Canon over diligently, more often than Becan hath fingers on both his hands; wherein I find, that if unrepentant fornicators, Priests or Deacons, forbidden entrance into the Church, will yet presume to use their Ministry in the Church, the people are inhibited to hear them. And, whosoever will not obey that precept, incurs the sin of Idolatry, according to that of Samuel; It is the sin of witcherast not to obey, and the wickedness of Idolatry not to listen, or assent. So far reacheth that rule particular. Then followeth in that Canon, the general rule, in these words: Peccatumigitur Paganitat is incurrit, etc. Therefore, whosoever saith he is a Christian, and contemneth to obey the Sea Apostolical, incurreth the sin of Paganism. So that by this Canon, what Christian soever disobeyeth the Sea of Rome, commanding any thing (good or evil, as Bellarmine hath it) incurs the sin of Paganity; he must be reputed an heathen. If the jesuit knew not, that the Canon riseth ab Hypothesi ad thesin, from the particular to the general, he showed himself to be a very unlearned man: if he knew it, in writing thus, he showeth himself to be a brasen-faced abuser of his Reader. That the Reader may see the truth of this generality (a matter so nearly concerning the crowns and lives of Princes) I will produce, for proof thereof, two other places of the Canon law, wherein that foresaid general rule is thus set down. The former, Clementis de haereticis. ca Adnostrum. in Glossa. Peccatum; paganitatis incurrit, quicum Christianun; se asserat, sedi Apostolicae obedire contemnit. What Christian soever disobeyeth the Sea Apostolic, incurs the sin of Paganism. Where that Gloss, to prove that general, citeth Dist. 10. ca Nulli fas. Nulli fas est, velle, velposse, transgredi Apostolicae sedis praecepta. It is not lawful for any to be, either willing, or able, to transgress the precepts of the Aposlolick Sea. The second place is, Extravag. joan. 22. de verborum significa. cap. Cuminter nonnullos, in Gloss. Haereticus est ille, qui animo superbienti, dispositionem sedis Apostolicae, Articulos fidei non infringentis, servare, 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. He is an Heretic, who with a proud mind, contemneth to keep, and obey, the disposition or order of the Apostolic Sea, not infringing the Articles of faith: sith it is the sin of witchcraft not to obey; and the wickedness of Idolatry, not to hearken; and the voice of Paganism, to contemn to obey. Thus, by the express words of the Canon, the generality of this is apparent, viz. To disobey the Sea of Rome, commanding any thing which is not heretical, (for in matter of manners, saith Bellarmine, the Pope can not err.) is withchraft, Idolatry, Heresy. Therefore, if the Pope should command a jesuit, or the vilest slave in a kingdom, to kill the King, who retaineth his crown after the Pope hath excommunicated him, & deprived him of his crown: it is witchcraft, idolatry, and heresy, in that iesuit or slave, who wilfully refuseth to kill that King. The Mystery of Antichristian iniquity, as it is now revealed, proceedeth yet further, even to the lawful kill of Kings, by the vilest vassal, without any command of the Pope, or of any Superior, not only after such a King be solemnly deprived of his dominions by the Pope, but without that, after sentence declaratory only pronounced; to weet, of heresy, or any other crime of that King, containing the penalty of deprivation. For that is now an orthodoxal position of the Cacolike Romish faith, Printed Cum privilegio, and expressly maintained by Suarius in his book, with this Title, The defence of the Catholic faith, against the errors of the English sect, with the answer to the Apology of the oath of Fidelity, and the Preface monitory to the king, etc. The words of Suarius containing that Antichristian iniquity, Impiety, Impudence; are these: It is most true, Lib. 6. cap. 4. that the Pope may inflict the penalty of Deposition, and pronounce the sentence of Deprivation of the Kingdom of any King supreme in his temporals: after which just sentence so pronounced, whereby, ipso facto, he is deposed of his kingdom; If a private man shall kill the king, he doth it not by private authority, but in the virtue of the sentence, and consequently, as an instrument of authority public. When a king is deposed, than he is no king, nor lawful Prince. Yea, if such a king, after, Lawful deposition of him, persisting obstinate, doth withhold his kingdom by force, in this he gins to be a tyrant, because he is no lawful king, neither by any just title doth possess his kingdom. This more plainly appeareth in a king that is an Heretic: for by his heresy, forsooth, ipso facto, he is deprived in some sort, of his Dominion, and the propriety of his kingdom: because it either remaineth confiscate, or even by the very law is devolved to his Successor, if he be a Catholic. And yet nevertheless, he may not presently be deprived of his kingdom, but doth possess, and administer the same justly, until by sentence, at least declaratory, he be justly condemned of his crime. But after that sentence given he is altogether deprived of his kingdom, so that he can not with just title possess the same. Therefore from that time, he may be handled altogether as a tyrant, and consequently may be slain by any private man whatsoever. Now in the last point proposed, this is to be said. That after the sentence condemnatory of the king (for the privation of his kingdom) given by the Pope, or, which is all one, after the sentence declaratory of a crime, having such a penalty by the law imposed on that crime; certainly he which gave sentence, or to whom he committed it, may deprive the king of his kingdom, even by killing him; either if he can not otherwise deprive him, or if the just sentence extend to the depriving of him. Mark well, o ye Christian Princes, especially o ye Princes Protestant orthodoxal: do you behold (for it more nearly concerneth every one of you) into what, even the highest, pitch of traitorous impudence and impiety, this Cockatrice brood, and Generation of vipers, to wit, the jesuits, are mounted? when as in their treasonfull dogmatical positions, published in print to all the world, and most stiffly by them averred as doctrines of Catholic faith, they teach it to be lawful for any, the basest villain of a king to kill the king, being excommunicated, deposed, or otherwise declared to be so and so criminous. Moreover, they teach, that the said base vassal or villain, is, in such case, a more public person lawfully to kill the king, than the king or his judges are, to sentence that villain Traitor-Regicide. The time was, when Emperors were the sovereign Lords of the Bishop of Rome. Gregory the great, called Mauritius the Emperor, his Lord, and himself the emperors Servant: but afterwards the case was altered clean contrariwise; and the Pope became the sovereign Lord of the Emperor, and the Emperor the Pope's vassal. In the year 1133, when Pope Innocent the second, had set the Crown upon the Emperor Lotharius head, he caused the solemn manner thereof to be painted on a wall in his Lateran-Palace; and under the picture, these verses following, to be written: Rex venit adfores, iurans per urbis honores: Post homo fit Papae, sumit quo dance, coronain. The king, at Palace of the Pope, swears fealty; and than, The king, receiving Crown of Pope, made is the Popes sworn man. True it is, that by the Pope's Canon law, Dist. 63 c. Tibi Domino. et 22. q. 5. de forma in Glossa, the Emperors, as the Pope's vassals, must swear homage to the Pope, as holding their Crowns, and Empires of him: but it was never heard of, before these jesuitical traitors had so heretically dogmatized, that the Kings and Emperors hold their lives also of the Pope, as the basest villains that ever were, to wit, at the Pope's pleasure. Now judge, Christian Reader, what noble schoolmasters these jesuits are, teaching all Christian subjects the Art of killing their Kings. Saint john in his Revelation, Chap. 17. vers. 16. prophesied, That the King should hate the whore, the scarlet whore (died first in the blood of Martyrs; but now, in the blood of Kings) and make her desolate, and naked, and should eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. If ever there were just cause presented to kings to do it, surely now it is given them to the full. Prou. 8.15. The King of heaven, by whom they rule, and decree justice, stir up betimes their royal hearts, with united forces to constrain the Pope to renounce this his Antichristian bloody claim, or else to pull his triple Crown from his head, and to lay his Romish Popedom in the dust; choosing another Patriarch (if a Patriarch must needs be had) and bounding that new one, within the Ecclesiastical tedder only. That learned Gerson, in his book, De Aufeberilitate Papae, of taking the Pope of Rome, clean away, gave 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 forbidden virtue, the Church were bound to believe virtue to be evil, and vice good.) but most deceitfully. For Bellarmine doth not absolutely affirm that which you feign, but upon condition: that, grant one absurdity, another will follow. Bellarmine's words are these: It can not be, that the Pope should err, in commanding any vice, or forbidding virtue, because than he should err about faith. For the Catholic faith teacheth, that all virtue is good, and all vice is evil. But if the Pope should err, in commanding vices, and prohibiting virtues; the Church were bound to believe vices to be good, and virtues evil, unless it would sin against conscience. Dr. HARRIS Reply. THis jesuit makes Bellarmine write far worse, than as I produced him. For in my Citation, he spoke thus: If the Pope should command vice, or forbidden virtue; the Church should believe vice to be good, and virtue to be evil: but Becane brings him in writing more impudently, and blasphemously, thus: If the Pope should err in commanding vices, or forbidding virtues, the Church were bound to believe vices to be good, and virtues to be evil, unless the Church would sin against her conscience. Which is plain blasphemy, and for which Bellarmine incurreth S. Paul's curse directly, For he can not deny, but that the blessed Angels of heaven, and Apostles, were as free from error, in their Angelical and Apostolical doctrines of faith, and manners, as the Pope is: yet saith S. Paul, Gal. 1. vers. 8: If we, or an Angel from heaven, should preach unto you otherwise, than that ye have received, let him be accursed. But Bellarmine thus: If the Pope should preach otherwise, viz. virtue to be evil, and vice good (according to that of Esay, Chap. 5. vers. 20. Woe be to them, that speak good of evil, and evil of good) the Church ought to hold the Pope so blessed, as that she should sin, if she did not believe him so erring, and erroneously preaching; What is this else, but to give the holy Spirit of God, the Lie in his face? 〈◊〉 is here most absurd, in writing thus: Dato 〈…〉 do, sequitur aliud. If we grant one absur●●●, 〈◊〉 followeth another. For grant that one absurdity, that a blessed Angel of heaven should preach error: should this absurdity follow, That the Church were bound to believe him? No saith Paul; the Church were bound to hold him accursed. Further, it is apparently untrue (wherewith Becane doth here charge me) viz. that I said, Bellarmine did absolutely affirm the Pope to command vice and forbidden virtue: or that the Church should believe vice to be good, and virtue evil: for I cited it in a hypothetical or conditional proposition, thus: If the Pope should command vice, etc. and not by a categorical, or singly affirmative proposition, thus: The Pope doth command vice, and forbidden virtue, etc. It may be, Becanes learning extendeth not so far, as to know when a thing is uttered categorically, and when hypothetically; and so of ignorant simplicity, he falsely burdened me with it. If it were so, I will the rather forgive him; but then I would have him to go to school again, to learn the principles of Logic: if he knew it, and yet would write thus, he abuseth his Reader not a little. But I will leave this unlearned jesuite a while; and indeed I begin to grow very weary of him: with Bellarmine here would I gladly change a few words; and learn of him, whether the Church be bound in any case, to believe error in faith, or in the necessary precepts of manners? If he affirm it, he shows himself to be an Heretic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, condemned in his own conscience: if he deny it, then suppose the Pope should err in faith or manners, yet the Church should not believe him therein. By the rules of the Canon law, If the Pope err in faith, that is, if he be an Heretic, he should be deposed: but by Bellarmine's parallel, If the Pope err in faith, he must be believed. If this be not doctrine heretical, what can be heretical? Therefore to the everlasting shame of jesuits, let this heretical position of Cardinal Bellarmine, (which Becane seeks here to defend, but the very heathen would blush to assert of any) be engraven with a pen of iron in lead or stone for ever; viz. If the Pope should err in commanding vices, and forbidding virtues, the Church is bound in conscience, to believe vices to be good, and virtues to be evil. Go to now o Pope, and say, Soul thou hast enough: for now, do but command the bloody and traitorous crime of Regicide, that is, killing of kings, as a virtue, it is presently good; and the Church is bound in conscience, to believe it to be good. The like is to be said of Adultery, Incest, Idolatry, Blasphemy. What needs now the Pope to dispense with these sins, seeing that by his commanding of them to be done, he makes them even virtues? That which Bellarmine affirmeth here to be an absurdity and impossibility; their great learned Writers, Schoolmen, and Canonists (as, Ockam, Cusan, Antonin. , Turrecremata, Zabarella, Canus, Alphonsus, Hostiensis, and Panormitan) their Popish Counsels (as, the 5. Roman under Symachus, & Council of Basill) yea, the very Canon law, Si Papa. Dist. 40. grant, and dogmatize, to weet, That the Pope may err, not only in precepts of manners; but more than so, in doctrines of faith, and also be an heretic. Among the synodical Epistles in the Counsels of Basill, thus we read: Many Popes are said to have fallen into errors and heresies. It is certain, that the Pope may err. The Council hath often times condemned the Pope, in respect, as well of his heresy in faith, as of his lewdness in life. And touching the Canon law in this point, Panormitan de Electio. et Elect. potest. ca Significasti, writeth thus: The Council may condemn the Pope of Heresy, as in Dist. 40. Si Papa: where it is said, that the Pope may be an heretic, and may be judged, and condemned of Heresy. Who then could have thought, that Bellarmine would have been so shameless a flatterer of the Pope, as to write that the Pope can not err? according to that of Alphonsus against Heresies, Lib. 1. ca 4. Non credo aliquem esse adeò impudentem Papae assentatorem, ut ei tribuere hoc velit, ut nec errare, nec in interpretatione literarum sacrarum, hallucinari possit. I do not think, that there is any one so impudent a flatterer of the Pope, as to say, he can not err, or be deceived in interpretation of the Scripture. To conclude; I would learn of Bellarmine, what answer he will make to this question of Erasmus, writing upon 1. Cor. chap. 7. thus: If it be true which some assert, That the Pope can never err judiciously; what use is there of general councils, or of learned Divines, or Lawyers in those councils; wherefore lieth an appeal to the Council, or to the Pope himself better taught; wherefore should there be any Universities; or any in them, to busy, or disquiet themselves in the questions of faith; when as all men may learn the certain truth of one man only? how cometh it to pass, that the decrees of one Pope, are contrary to the decrees of another Pope? And further I will demand, why the Pope suffereth so many controversies to be undecided? for example, these three: 1. Whether the Virgin Marie were conceived without sin, or not? 2. Whether the Popebe above a general Council, or a general Council above the Pope? 3. Whether the Pope have supreme power in the temporals of all Princes, Kings, and Emperors, Directly, or Indirectly? especially, considering that the most learned Popish Writers, bitterly and irreconcilably dissent in these points. This jesuit Becane, Page 101. in the winding up of his most ignorantly-grosse, and unjust censures of my false citations, as he falsely speaks; First tells me, with a lying mouth, and a brazen face, that I never read the Authors which I have cited. But, the jesuit shall find & feel by this Reply, that I have read, and diligently perused them. BECAN. Exam. SEcondly, That I may know, if I have read the history, how that more than 400 false citations were by Bishop Eureux, noted to be in Plessaeus his book of the Eucharist: and that Plessaeus was publicly connicted of that crime, before Henry 4, King of France. Dr. HARRIS Reply. I Read that story over in French, from the beginning to the end, partially written against Plessaeus: wherein I find but 9 citations, whereof Plessaeus and the Bishop disputed before the King. Howsoever Plessaeus at that time (daunted, as may seem, by the Majestical presence of the King, who had then forsaken the Orthodoxal faith, which once he for a long time professed, and to his uttermost maintained; and whom then, notwithstanding outward shows of indifferency, Plessaeus found indeed, adverse to him, & wholly addicted to his Adversary) did not so well justify those citations of his, as either himself desired, or his friends expected: yet afterwards in his Book printed, he hath in particular, maintained his said citations: unto the which book I refer the jesuit. BECAN, Exam. Page 102. THirdly, Becane gives me his fatherhoods counsel, to be warned by Plessaeus harms: yet after his jesuitical lying manner, he tells me withal, That had my book been as large as that of Plessaeus, where there were 400. false citations in his book; according to the proportion, there would have been in my book, a thousand. Dr. HARRIS Reply. THe learned Bishop did not tax Plessaeus his citations, as this frivolous jesuit doth mine, for the oversights of the Composer, or Transcriber, mistaking one syllable for another, one word for another, one name for another, or one Canon for another; so that the substance of the matter, according to the meaning of the Author, or truth itself, were truly cited. Which grave and learned course, if Becane had kept with me, he should have found none, no not any one false citation of that kind; as this Reply doth demonstrate: wherein is justified the very substance of all, yea the very words and syllables almost of all the citations, set down in my book of English Concord. Therefore, with strange impudency, doth this jesuit say, that my false citations, in proportion, would have grown to a thousand: as though none to none had any proportion. Nevertheless; hereafter, because this trifling jesuit fowleth for feathers, that is, escapes in printing, through the composer, or Corrector; I will be Corrector myself, as my weighty business will permit. In the mean time, gentle Reader, vouchsafe to observe, what a wary course this jesuit in his writings taketh, duly proportioned to his very small learning and reading, viz. to use in a manner, none, or very few, citations of any kind; but only to set down, with his pen, whatsoever his empty brains conceive. After which course, it were no hard thing, to write a book, as large and as material, as commonly his are, every week throughout the year, one. Now the jesuitical Syrts are past: hereafter we shall ride in the calm of apparent uniform Concord touching the King's Supremacy; how soever this turbulent jesuit (like those restless wicked ones, spoken of by Esay, whose waters cast up mire and dirt) endeavour to trouble the waters, with the mire and dirt of his jesuitical discord: which, by this Reply following, is returned home, and impacted upon his own face. English Concord. IN these Questions, the adversaries dissent extremely: On the one side, Augustinus Triumphus, Aluarus Pelagius, Hostiensis, Panormitanus, Sylvester, Henricus Gaudavensis, Rodericus Sancius, Alexander Alensis, Celsus Mancinus, Thomas Bozius, Franciscus Bozius, Isidorus Moscovius, Laelius Zecchus, Cardinal Baronius, & lastly, Alexander Carerius; who in his book publicly printed, was not afraid to call Bellarmine, and all who took part with him, against the other forenamed; Impious Politics, and Heretics of our time. I say, in these points of the Pope's Primacy, and at this present time, the jesuits extremely dissent from the Sorbonists; and the Venetian and French, from the Roman Papists. On the other side, all Protestant-English Writers, with one uniform consent agree in the King's Supremacy; as they, who willingly have taken the Oath of the King's Supremacy, which is set down in these express words following, viz. I, A. B. do utterly testify, and declare in my conscience, that the King's Highness, is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm, and of all other his highness Dominions and Countries, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiasticll things or causes, as Temporal. And that no foreign Prince, person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath, or aught to have, any jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre-eminence, or authority Ecclesiastical, or Spiritual, within this Realm. And therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, Powers, Superiorities & Authorities: And do promise that from henceforth, I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the King's Highness, his heirs, and lawful Successors: And to my power shall assist, and defend all jurisdictions, Privileges, pre-eminencies, & authorities, granted, or belonging to the King's Highness, his heirs and Successors, & united or annexed to the Imperial crown of this Realm. So help me GOD, etc. But, by the laws of England, in these very words & syllables; Supreme jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, or Power Spiritual, is for ever united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this kingdom. These things then being so certainly and manifestly true; let Becan himself judge, if he will judge 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 Ecclesiastical and Spiritual? viz. which is in all things & causes, Ecclesiastical & Spiritual. 3 Whether the King by his Primacy, or Supremacy, may be called Primate of the Church? to weet, as one is called a King, of his kingdom: a Bishop, of his bishopric: or a bailiff, of his Bailiwick? 4 Whether by the same Supremacy or Primacy, he may not be called Head of this Church? that is to say, the only supreme Governor in all things and causes Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, & over all persons Ecclesiastical. 5 Whether that Primacy or Supremacy do not consist in Power or jurisdiction Ecclesiastical? to weet, which consisteth in all things Ecclesiastical, and over all persons Ecclesiastical; and which is termed by the express words of the laws of England, Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or power Spiritual; seeing that the Oath of Supremacy, respecteth the King's authority Ecclesiastical: and the Oath of Fidelity, his authority Civil. As our King JAMES in his Book, most accurately distinguisheth them. 6 Whether the King, by his Primacy or Supremacy, may not call councils, and presede in them? viz. as the only supreme Governor of this Kingdom, in all things & causes: & over all persons, Ecclesiastical & Spiritual. For do not all councils consist of persons Ecclesiastical? & are not things Spiritual & Ecclesiastical handled in Counsels? 7 Whether the King may not make Ecclesiastical laws? to weet, as the only supreme Governor in all things, & over all persons Ecclesiastical; according to that of Saint Augustine: Contra Crescon. lib. 3. c. 51. Herein Kings, (as it is from heaven prescribed unto them) serve God, as Kings; if in their kingdom, they command those good things, and forbidden those evils, which pertain not only to human society, but also to Divine Religion. 8 Whether the King may not confer Ecclesiastical Benefices? As the only Supreme Governor in all causes. & over all persons Ecclesiastical. 9 Whether the King may not make and depose Bishops? As the only Supreme Governor in all causes. & over all persons Ecclesiastical. 10 Whether the King may not compel his subjects to the oath of Supremacy? As the only Supreme Governor in all causes. & over all persons Ecclesiastical. 11 Whether the King, hath not his Supremacy by the right of his Crown? As the only Supreme Governor in all causes. & over all persons Ecclesiastical. As for Excommunication, if the jesuit mean by it Retaining of sins, that respecteth the jurisdiction internal: and all, both Protestant, and Popish Writers acknowledge, that our King challengeth no such power. But if he understand, the inhibiting from the Communion & other holy exercises performed by the Minister, and faithful people in the Church, then in England, where every, not only Archbishop, but Archdeacon, and his Official do excommunicate, we shall have (according to Becane his dispute here) so many primates of the Church of England, as there be in it Archdeacon's, or their officials. But here the controversy is of one only Supreme Primate, or Supreme Governor. Therefore this Question of Becane, touching the King's power to excommunicate, is very idle and frivolous. As touching the judge of Controversies, all Protestant Writers hold no mortal man to be judge of them. Notwithstanding, Hainrik Salobrig, and (long before him) jewel, in his Defence of the English Apology, Par. 6. c. 13. D●uil. 2. out of the Ecclesiastical Writers, especially out of Socrates, and Cardinal Cusanus, writ, That Christian Princes, with good commendation, have heard, and determined some Controversies of faith. According also to these words of Charles the Great, produced by the reverend Bishop of Ely, viz. We do decree, and by God's assistance have decreed, Tort Tort. Pag. 165. what is to be firmly holden in that cause, or Controversy. It was a cause of Faith, against Eliphandus, who asserted Christ to be the adopted Son of God. Lastly, who would here regard the naked names of , Genebrard, Pol. Virgil, and Thuanus, which Becane doth here muster? Are these also Adversaries to Becane? or do these, as Adversaries, extremely 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 we approve not that in the King which we detest in the Pope. But Caluin with us, and we with him, think, that those things belong to the King, in the Church Christian, which belonged to josias, in the Church judaical. And we desire no more. Now, having passed these Rocks, the remainder of our way is easy; and all Becans jars, hereafter objected against us, may, as it were with the blast of some few words, be eftsoons scattered, and brought to nought. For by this which is already demonstrated, it is most manifest, that all our English Protestant Writers, do fully and uniformly agree in the whole substance or matter of the King's Primacy or Supremacy; and that Becane, throughout his jar, striveth only about words or syllables. Against which kind of contention, St. Paul writeth thus unto Timothy: 2. Tim. 2. ver. 14. Protest before the Lord, that they strive not about words, which is to no profit, but to the perverting of the hearers. Unto all this, in my Concord, from page 12. unto page 19, Becane in his Examine. answereth not one word. ❧ Becans jar. The I. Question. Whether the King of England have any Primacy in the Church. 1. THE first jar or contention than is, concerning the name of Primacy. Many of our Adversaries admit this Name: but M. Richard Tompson had rather have it called Supremacy, than Primacy. His reason is, because Primacy doth signify 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, he hath not the Primacy, but the Supremacy. The words of M. Tompson pag. 33. of his book are these: Nos in Anglico nostro idiomate belliores longè sumus, quàm per inopiam Latini sermonis, nobis Latinè esselicuit. Non enim dicimus, The King's Primacy, Regis Primatum, sed The King's Supremacy, Regis Suprematum: Quo vocabulo nos quoque deinceps utemur. Multùm enim differunt Primatus & Suprematus. Illud enim Potestatem eiusdem Ordinis videtur significare, hoc non item. We in our English tongue, do speak much more properly, than we can do in the Latin speech, through the penury thereof. For we do not say, The King's Primacy, but The King's Supremacy: which word 〈…〉 For that Primacy and Supremacy do greatly differ: Primacy seeming to signify a power of the same Order, but Supremacy not so. 2. Out of which words, we gather two things. The one, that all Englishmen, who use the Name of Primacy, do either err or speak improperly, if we believe M. Tompson. For if they speak property; seeing that the word Primacy doth properly siguifie a Power of the same Order; they do plainly understand 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 do err, or speak improperly. 3. The other is, that a Conjecture may be made of the thing signified, from the word signifying. The word Supremacy is a new and lately invented word, unknown to the Ancient Fathers, not used in Scriptures, unheard of in the Christian world. Moreover, what doth it signify? The Supreme power (forsooth) of the King in the Church? Wherefore this is new also. Surely, if the ancient Fathers, either Latin or Greek, had known this power, they would have found out at least some word, whereby to have expressed the same properly. But this it seems none of them did. English Concord. Page 20 IS Becane the jesuite become a captious caviller at syllables, Pri. and Sapre? Our Sovereign Lord K. james, translated the english word Supremacy, a Apol. ●ur. fid. pag. 54 into the Latin word Primatum; and Mr. Thomson translated the same English Supremacy, into his Latin word Suprematum. Here is full agreement in the thing itself; and will the jesuit strive about words, or diu●rs names of the self same thing? Certainly, a Christian king, is neither Presbyter Priest: nor b August. Q ex viroq, Testa. mixed. Q. 101 chief of Presbyters, that is, Bishop: nor chief among the Bishops, that is, Archbishop: nor chief of Archbishops, that is, Patriarch: nor chief of patriarchs, to weet, Pope; and in that sense he is no Primate, or hath Primacy; but he is the only Supreme governor of all Presbyters, Bishops, Archbishops, patriarchs, and Popes; within his dominions; whose supreme government, we call in English Supremacy, or (after the Latin word, which our king used) Primacy; and acknowledge the same, by our oath, thereof taken. But now let us attend these two goodly consequences which the jesuite maketh. 1. R. Thomson hath devised a new Latin name, to express the self same thing, and the self same English name of the same thing: Therefore the thing itself is new. The Fathers of the Nicene Council devised a new name, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to express the Deity of Christ, or Christ in respect of his Deity. Therefore is Christ his Deity new? or Christ in respect of his Deity, new? Take heed Becane of such a consequent. Thus rather perhaps the sequel would run more roundly: The name (jesuits) is new; Therefore deservedly may the jesuits be called, as blasphemous, so new, sectaries. Indeed, if the ancient Fathers had acknowledged the power of Universal Bishop, they would have found, at least, one word, whereby to have expressed the same properly: especially considering that (if we will believe 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 Universal Bishop; is all one, and the same, as to be the king of pride: Lucifer, who set himself before his brethren: 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 only the Bishop of the first Sea; but let not the very Bishop of Rome, be called Universal Bishop. Let Becane tell me which of the ancient Fathers, either acknowledged the Pope's supreme power over the whole Church; or in propriety of speech, and, as proper unto him, called the same Primacy: touching which, Chrysostom, as he is cited in the Canon law, Dist. 40 Multi. writeth thus: Whosoever shall desire Primacy in earth shall find confusion in heaven: neither shall he be numbered among the serwants of Christ, who doth handle, or contend for Primacy. His second consequence is this: Mr. Thomson devised a new word or name, whereby to express in Latin more fully and properly (as be took it) the English word Supremacy: Therefore whosoever do not call Supremacy, in Latin, Suprematum, speak improperly. Fie! how hang these together? Forsooth, please it the jesuits, as scattered broomeshaggs. To conclude. Becane himself, Quest. 12. page 43. brings in Mr. Thomson speaking thus: Primacy is a royal good thing, or the Prerogative royal, which can not be taken away by Ecclesiastical censure: neither is it absurd, that an heathen king should be Primate of the Church. Therefore, according to Becane his dispute here, They, who ascribe Primacy to the king, and call him Primate of the Church, err not, but speak properly. BECAN. Exam. Page 106 YOu say this strife is about the name. It is so. I urge nothing else. But of they strine, as you say; where is the concord which you promise? In the very beginning you despair of concord. And of you cannot dissolve the strife about the name, what shall become of the thing itself? Dr. HARRIS Reply. I Did not say, our Writers did strive about the namer but I asked the jesuit, why he would brawl about the name, when the thing itself was fully agreed upon. Here then in the beginning of this jesuits examination, we have him taken in a gross untruth. For in my English Concord, chap. 1. I proved an uniform consent of all, not only in the matter, that is, the kings Supreme Government, over all persons, and in all Causes Ecclesiastical, or civil within his dominions; but also in the very English name thereof, to weet, Supremacy: unto which self same thing, and self same name of the same thing, all our Protestant English Writers have sworn; and in our public prayers in pulpit, we solemnly profess our allowance thereof, and our concord therein, as being our King's most just title. As for the Latin 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 king's Supremacy, in Latin Primatum, and the king in respect thereof, Primatem. How hard then is this jesuits forehead, affirming that I granted discord in the name to be among us? Indeed Mr. Thomson in regard of the Papists [who understanding no Primacy but Sacerdotal, that is, Episcopal (for by their Canon law, all patriarchs are Primates, and all Primates patriarchs, & so all Primates Sacerdotal) clamour that we, ascribing Primatum Primacy to our King, yield him jurisdiction Sacerdotal, that is, Episcopal:] to reform their misconceit therein, wisheth there were made some Latin word, as Suprematus, or the like, to express fully our English word Supremacy; thereby to cut off all Popish and childish cavils, and to let them understand, that we by Primacy (after the Latin word, as it is now translated, or Supreme Government of the Church, called in our English tongue Supremacy) mean not Ecclesiastical Supreme government Sacerdotal or Episcopal; but only Regal. In England our two archbishops are called Primates, as being superior governors Sacerdotal over all the Bishops, and other inferior clergy men, within their Archbishopriks', in causes Ecclesiastical: but because our king is supreme governor, even over those archbishops, and all other persons Ecclesiastical and Temporal, and in all causes Temporal and Ecclesiastical within his dominions, we call in English, that his supreme government, not Primacy, but Supremacy; as if it were, Supre-Primacy, or above Primacy. Therefore I had just cause, to ask the jesuite, why his frivolous fatherhood would contend about names, when there was, and is, so full agreement in the very thing itself? In regard whereof, S. Paul depainteth this Becane (as he showeth himself here to be) in his orient colour thus: 1. Tim. 6.4 He is puffed up, and knoweth nothing; but doteth about questions, and strife of words: whereof cometh envy, strife, railing, and evil surmising; every word falling so pat upon the jesuits head, as it S. Paul had pointed him out with the finger. Indeed Becane in ask me, how I will concord them in the matter, when I see, and grant variety of the names, proveth those words of S. Paul, to fit him well, viz. That he is puffed up, and knows nothing. For here he knoweth not (which country swains 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 do commiserate his fatherhoods ignorance herein, I will vouchsafe to teach him this one lesson; taken out of their own 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 Patriarch, is one and the same, as the law faith, the difference is only in the name of Pignus and Hypotheca, in Latin: in English, of pledge, and pledge: and so of these two words in Latin; Primatus, and Suprematus; in English, (as we in England understand it) Supremacy and Supremacy. And the said Canon law, Dist. 99 ca de Primatibus, in the very text itself, 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 patriarchs have divers names, but one office: so the king's Supremacy may, in Latin, have divers names; but it is one and the self same Regal office. BECAN. Exam. Page 106 But if Thomson be heard, They who say the king hath Prima●●●, Primacy of the Church, signify that he hath power of the same order with Bishops and Pastors. But this is a great error, not only in the word, but in the thing itself. Therefore they err not only in the word, but in the very thing, who speak so. What answer you to this? you plainly dissemble. Dr. HARRIS Reply. I Answer plainly and truly, first, that Mr. Thomson said that the word Primatus did signify power of the same order with Bishops, only in the Papists sense and understanding; but nothing less than so, in the Protestant's sense, who mean by Primatus, Primacy, power Regal only and not Episcopal: In whose sense, Mr. Thomson himself calleth that Regal power, Primatum; as was showed by Becane himself, producing Mr. Thomsons own words, Q. 12. Pa. 43. Therefore they who speak so, err, neither in word, nor in the thing itself. Secondly. I answer plainly without dissimulation, that the jesuits mouth here runs over with a palpable untruth; since it is most certainly true, that not any one Protestant English Writer, calling the kings Supremacy, in Latin, Primatum, signifieth, or would have signified thereby, that the king hath power Sacerdotal with Bishops and Pastors. Indeed, the Papists did, and do seek thereby openly to scandalise us, as though we ascribed to our King & Queen, power Sacerdotal or Episcopal in the Church: which moved Queen Elizabeth, of blessed and famous memory, in the later end of her Injunctions, to command this explanation following, to be published in Print, with this Title: AN ADMONITION TO SIMple men deceived by the malicious. Her Majesty forbiddeth all her subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse, and malicious persons, which most sinisterly and maliciously labour to notify to her loving subjects how by the words of the oath of Supremacy, it may be collected, that the Kings or Queens of this Realm, possessioners of the Crown, may challenge authority and power of Ministry of Divine offices in the Church: wherein her said subjects be much abused, by such evil disposed persons. For certainly her Majesty neither doth, ne ever will challenge any other authority, then that which was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. That is to say, under God to have the Sovereignty & rule over all manner persons, borne within these her majesties Dominions & Countries, of what estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be; so as no foreign power shall, or aught to have, any superiority over the. And if any person, that hath conceived any other sense of the form of the said Oath, shall accept the same Oath with this interpretation, sense, or meaning; her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such, in that behalf, as her good & obedient subjects, and shall acquit them of all manner penalties contained in the said Act, against such as shall peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take the same Oath. What could be written more plainly and fully against this jesuit, not only to stop his mouth herein, but also to take up, at once, his whole jar following; even by the very roots? BECAN. Exam. Pag. 107 THose words of mine (Thomson devised a new name of this thing Supremacy, Suprematus: therefore the thing is now) I did not call a consequent, but a conjecture. Again, you are contrary to yourself, reasoning thus: The name of jesuit is new: therefore the thing is new. If the consequent hold in this, why not in the other, etc. And further, it is ridiculous to compare one Thomson, with so many Fathers of the Nicen Council, and to affirm that lawful for him, which was lawful for them. Dr. HARRIS Reply. HEre have we the jesuit lying in his byrdlime: Wherein, the more he struggleth, the worse he is enwrapped; and whence he seeks to go out, by going out of his wits, saying it was his conjecture from no consequent of reason. As though every conjecture reasonable, doth not lean upon some reason probable. If therefore his conjecture was grounded upon no reason, it followeth, that he with his conjecture, was unreasonable. But with what face (unless he be extremely ignorant in the very petite rules of Logic) can he deny it to be a consequent, standing upon two Propositions, reduced by himself into form enthymematical. The later (the Conclusion) inferred upon the former, containing the Medium in it, viz. a new name imposed, with the particle-note of inference or consequence, viz. Igitur (therefore) & having his forerunner-watch-word colligimus (we gather) giving warning of a consequent to follow. Now then, draw out this reason into his full syllogistical form; it will run, and can run no otherwise, than thus: What thing soever hath a new name imposed upon it, that thing is new. Hence the jesuit assumed thus: But the King's Supreme power in the Church, hath a new name, Suprematus, imposed upon it. Ergo, the King's Supremacy is new. And I thence assumed thus: But Christ, in respect of his Deity, had in the Nicen Council a new name, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, imposed upon him. Ergo, Christ, in respect of his Deity, or Christ's Deity, was then new. The jesuit, being invery great straits, and not able to bear the stroke of this argument, (for, the former, or Mayor proposition, is his own. The later proposition, called the Minor, or Assumption, he durst not deny. The form is rightly syllogistical. To deny the Counclusion, is against all rules dialectical. To grant it, is heretical.) creepeth into a bench-hole, and then laugheth, & saith: It is ridiculous to compare one Thomson, a private man, with so many Fathers in the Nicen Council, representing the Church; that it should be as lawful for Thomson, as for them, to impose a new name. Can any man imagine, that Martin Becan, a father jesuit, and a public Reader of Divinity, should be so unlearned a slug, as he palpably here shows himself to be? Truly, if a Cambridge Sophister had answered so, he should have been either corrected in the Schools, or hissed out of the Schools. For, let the like arguments be framed thus: Every man is a living creature. The king is a man. Therefore the King is a living creature. And thus: Every man is a living creature. The King's scullion is a man. Ergo, the King's scullion is a living creature. If any silly fellow using Becanes words should with Becan answer thus; It is ridiculous to compare the King's scullion, with the King: should he not, as a ridiculous ass, be ludibriously exploded? These, as the other, syllogisms, respect not Quis; who is a man, or who gave the new name: but Quid; whether he be a man; whether it be a new name imposed. Nay, rather thence the argument runneth upon the jesuit, with greater force, thus: If the imposition of a new name upon a thing, by a private man, shall infer the thing to be new; much more shall the imposition of a new name upon a thing by public authority, conclude that thing to be new. Now it is time that I answer his Question here proposed, viz. Why I use that consequent against the jesuits (thus: The name of the jesuitical Sect is new. Therefore that Sect is new.) which myself misliked? I answer, If he had well observed those my words before going, viz. ●llud fortasse rectius: he should easily have perceived, that I misliked that consequence, as it is indeed most childish and ridiculous: yet by the way of Sarcasmus, ironically I used it, to thump jesuits therewithal; because their Sect, & the name of their Sect, is new indeed. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 108. THe name of jesuits, is as ancient as the name of Christians. By both those names, one and the same thing is signified. But the name of Caluinists, Hugonots, etc. is new. Herein peradventure the comparison is fit, That as those Fathers denised a new word, or name, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to abolish the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Arians used: so Thomson devised a new name, Suprematus, to abolish the name Primatus; which the King, Burhill, and other Academiks' use. And again, as the Nicen Fathers reputed all for hereiticks, who used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so Thomson should account those to be heretics, that use the word Primatus. But what Concord is this? Rather a huge jar. Dr. HARRIS Reply. THe uniform concord, in the thing itself, & name of the thing, hath been heretofore in this book demonstrated sufficiently. The jesuits eyes therefore seeming to see here an huge discord, are, as Samsons foxes; tied together by the tails, within his head: but separately set in his face, looking asquint; which appeareth the rather to be true, because he seems here to behold things, and like, which are eucry way unlike. As first, those Fathers did not devise a new word, for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was long before: only they ascribed it as a new attribute to Christ, in respect of his Godhead: but Mr. Thomsons word, Suprematus, is span new. Secondly, the Fathers did not give both those name, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto Christ: but Master Thomson calleth the King's Supreme Government of this Church, both Suprematum, and Primatum. Thirdly, the Fathers held them for heretics, who did use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Becane here saith: but Mr. Thomson holdeth our King, the Bishop of Ely, and others, to be orthodoxal professors, who use the word Primatus. So that here at enothing but dissimilitudes, unless it be in this; that as the Fathers devised a new name, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abolish that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Arian heretics ascribed unto Christ: so Mr. Thomson devised a new word, Suprematus, to abolish the other word, Primatus, as the Popish heretics do now ascribe it, to the Pope. But what more do I espy in this jesuit here? Truly, if he be not a very unskilful linguist in the Greek and Syriack tongues, I behold in him Heresy and Blasphemy. Heresy in that he holdeth them heretics, that say, Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, consubstantialis, of the same substance with the Father. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is unitas substantiae, the unity of substance. viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is consubstantialitas, or substantiae unitas, consubstantiality, or unity of substance. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The very identity of substance, without any difference, variance, or distinction. His Blasohemy, in challenging, to themselves, I mean the sect of jeluits, the name of jesuits, that is to say, saviours from sins: which is the most proper name of the Lord Christ; according to that saying of the Angel: Mat. i v. 21. Thou shall call his name JESUS (in Syriack, jeshua) for he shall save his people from their sins. And according to that of St. Peter: Neither is there Salvation in any other. A●. 4. v. 12. For among men, there is given none other Name under heaven, whereby we must be saved. Therefore, what horrible and detestable blasphemous caitiffs are these jesuits, to appropriate this name, the name of saviours, unto themselves! Our Lord jesus, is called Christ, passively, because he was anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows. So then, in that ointment, he had fellows, or partakers. The Oil was first poured upon the Sacrificers head: but afterward, it ran down to the skirts of his clothing. Therefore saith St. 1. joh. 2. ver. 20. john, Ye have an ointment from that holy One. Then, as our Lord jesus, our Head, because he was anointed, was called Christ, that is to say, Anointed: so his members the Saints, because they also are anointed with the same oil, though not in the same degree; are called Christians, that is to say, Anointed. But our Lord Christ, was called jesus, or jeshua, actively, because he should save his people from their sins. And only he called jesus, or jeshua, because There is no Salvation in any other. For that among men, there is given none other Name under heaven, whereby we must be saved. Therefore, there is but only one jesus or jeshua in name, or in deed, by whom God's people are saved from their sins; so all the members of Christ, are called people Saved, and not one of them, saviours from their sins. But the word jesuits, according to the Syriack language, signifieth in English, saviours: as though they were saviours of their people from their sins, as Christ is the Saviour of his people from their sins. By plain narration of which certain truth, grounded out of the express words of the Scripture, every Idiot may perceive, how blasphemous this Sect of jesuits is, in assuming unto all men of their Sect, and to none but of that Sect, the name of jesuits, that is, saviours of the world. Unless it be by way of contrariety, as Mountains, because they move not, are called, Montes, a non movendo: so they are called jesuits, saviours of the world; being in very truth, the most notorious, and infamous Destroyer's of the world, of Kings and kingdoms, fight manfully under the banner of their Lord God, Antichrist the Pope: who, by St, john, Reue 9 ver. 11. is rightly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But now, it is high time to see, how this jesuit, in the profundity of his ignorances, and absurdities, against all common sense, reason and divinity, would have these following Parallels to meet together. 1 The name of jesuits, but of 79. years standing. The name of Christians, being of standing almost 1600. years. Are of the same Antiquity. Explication. Ignatius Loyala, the first Author of the Sect of the jesuits, and the first imposer of the name of jesuits upon that Sect (as Becane in his Examen, Pag. 14. confesleth,) did not associate his fellows, whom he afterward called jesuits, till the year 1534. that is, 79 years past; but the Professors of the Gospel, Act. 11. ver. 26. were about the year of Christ, 40. first called Christians, viz. 1573. years past. 2 To be anointed, as all Christians are: To be saviours, as only Christ is. Is one, & the same thing. 3 To be called by a name common to all Christians in the world: To be called by holy a name common to no Christian in the world, but to them only who are of the Sect of jesuits. Is all one. 4 To be called by a holy name, imposed by the Apostles, warranted by Scriptures, given according to the profession of the public Christian faith: To be called by a name of blasphemy, imposed by that monster Ignatius Loyola, according to their destroying profession, directly against the Scripture, which condemneth all Sects, & Sectaries, with their Sect names. 1. Cor. 3. v. 3.4. etc. Is even the self same. 5. Sectaries, to take voluntarily, unto themselves, names and titles of Schism or Sect; as Dominicans, Franciscans, jesuits, etc. Orthodoxal professors, by their hateful and heretical adversaries, to be termed malignantly in scorn, by Sect-names which they detest: as Caluinists, Hugonots; &c. Is all one self same thing. Who ever wrote so unlearnedly, and so absurdlic, as this jesuite Became here doth? I much marvel, that his Superiors suffer him to blur papers, and to publish them abroad, in this so learned Age. But before I part here with the jesuite thus, he mustacknowledge, that [whereas in my book of Concord, I proved out of Pope Gregory the great, the name, and title of their Popish Primate to weet, Universal Bishop, to be an arrogant, profane, sacrilegious, Antichristian, Luciferian, and Apostatical name, given to him, and taken by him, against their own Canon law; And whereas also, out of, and by virtue, of their Canon law, I wrapped-up their Primate in the dust of hellish confusion, because he desireth, and ambitiously challengeth a Primacy in earth, above all Princes, Kings and Emperors upon earth, even in their temporals, their Crowns, and Kingdoms, and, as the case is now, their very lines] he hath not here one word to say, for his Lord Godthe Pope, in this his desperate case; and in the jesnits accurate Examination (for so he would make us belicue) of my Concord book. Gentle Reader, I have been the more prolyx here, in my Reply against the jesuits Examen, in this first chapter, because it giucth such light to the remainder, as dispelleth the foggy mists, which this jesuite endeavoureth to raise, whereby to make our uniform agreement, in truth, touching the king's Supremacy, to be a seeming discord. So that a short Reply to all the rest, will be sufficient; with reference unto this, yea even to this one distinction of Regal, and Sacerdotal, rightly understood. ❧ Becans jar. II. Question. Whether that this Primacy, which the King hath in the Church, be Ecclesiastical, or Spiritual? 1. THis is now another jar. Under King Henry the 8. and King Edward, this Primacy was always called Ecclesiastical and Spiritual; as it appeareth out of Doctor Sanders, whose words are these: calvinus Henrici Primatum Ecclesiasticum oppugnavit. Caluin did oppugn King Henry's Ecclesiastical Primacy. Again: Episcopus Roffensis, quòd Heurici Primatum Ecclesiasticum nollet confiteri, ad mortem producitut. The Bishop of Rochester, because he denied King Henry's Ecclesiastical Primacy, was brought forth to die, etc. Andagaine: Multi in custodijs propter negatum Ecclesiasticum Regis Primatum detenti. Many were kept in prison, for denying the King's Ecclesiastical Primacy. In like manner: Henricus mandavit ut filius in fide Catholica educaretur, excepto Primatus Ecclesiastici titulo, quem ei reliquit, King Henry commanded that his Son (Edward) should be brought up in the Catholic faith, excepting the title of Ecclesiastical Primacy, which he left unto 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 fearfully with stand the Spiritual Primacy of the Child King, nay they absolutely subscribed thereunto. 2. Under Queen Mary that succeeded to her Brother King Edward in the Crown, this Title of Primacy was taken away in a Parliament held at London, as witnesseth jacobus Thuanus in the 9 book of the History of his time, in these words: Antiquatus ijsdem Comiths Primatus Ecclesiastici titulus. The title of Ecclesiastical Primacy was abolished in that Parliament. The same was again restored under Queen Elizabeth, as testifieth the same Author in his 15. book etc. 3. But now in these our days under King james this matter is called into question; Some not daring to call it Primacy Ecclesiastical and spiritual, but only Primacy belonging to Ecclesiastical and Spiritual matters: amongst whom is M. Doctor Andrew's, or the King's Chaplain, 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, quàm debemus. Prior ille Regibus omni iure, postertor hic Pontifici nullo iure debetur. Neither do we attribute one Primacy, concerning spiritual matters unto the King, nor do we take from the Pope any other Primacy, concerning temporal matters, than we ought to do. The first is due unto Kings by all right, the later no way pertaineth to the Pope etc. I, when I first read these words in the Chaplains book, did think that he had taken these two, towit, Primacy spiritual and belonging to spiritual; as also these other, Primacy temporal, and belonging to temporal, for one and the same thing. But now it seems that the Defenders and Interpreters of the Chaplain, to wit, M. Tompson, and M. Burhill, do take it otherwise. For so writeth M. Burhill, pag. 55. of his Book, concerning this point: Non dicit, Primatum spirituatem, sed Primatum quoad spiritualia deberi Regibus omni ture. He (the Chaplame) doth not say, that Spiritual Primacy, but Primacu belonging to Spiritual, is due unto Kings by all right etc. And theeag une, pag. 133. in fine: Etsi enim Regi tribuimus Primuth in Ecclesia, non tamen Primatum spiritualent aut E●●●siassicum ei tribuimus; sed potius Primatum quoad les & personas spirituales & Ecclesiasticas. For although we give unto the King Pri●acy over the Church; yet do we not give unto him Primacy spiritual or Ecclesiastical; but rathor Primacy belonging to things and persons spiritual and Ecclesiastical etc. And M. Tompson, pag. 31. of his Book, also saith: Non dixit, Primatum Ecclesiasticum, aut Spiritualem, quasi formaliterintelligat; sed quoad Spiritualia, idest, obiectiuè & materialiter. The Chaplain said not, the Primacy Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, as though he under stood it form ally; but for so much as it belongeth to Spiritual, that is to say, obiectively and materially etc. In which sense the same Author pag. 95. saith. Dicimus Regem gubernare quidem Ecclesiastica, sed non Ecclesiasticè We say indeed, that the King governeth Ecclesiastical things, but not Ecclesiastically. 4. So as if you ask in England, whether the King hath Primacy Ecclesiastical or no? It will be answered thus: King Henry, K. Edward, and Q. Elizabeth had Ecclesiastical Primacy: K. james hath not Primacy Ecclesiastical, but only so far forth, as it belongeth to Ecclesiastical things. Hath then his Majesty that now is less than they had? So it seems. Is then the King's 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 devise, or work be of men, it will be dissolved. English Concord. THE Primacy, or Supremacy Regal, Page 14 under K. Henry 8. K. Edward 6. Q. Elizabeth, and K. james, hath been, is, and will be one, and the same: That is to say, Supreme Power Regalin the church, jewel. Defons. par. 6 ca 9 Duasi. 1. et 2. whereby Kings may, not Burn incense, as Ozias did nor rush upon Episcopal function, nor preach the Gospel, nor administer the Sacraments to the people, nor bind, nor lose (The which with some of our Writers, spoke of by Becane in this Question, is, to govern Ecclesiastical things, Ecclesiastically:) but execute those things only, which belong unto them, as kings, to perform that kingly function therein, which, David, Solomon, Ezechias, Tortura Tort. pa. 381 josias, and other of the most noble, and most religious kings, have done, and which was ever lawful fora king to do: or particularly, if you had rather, thus; The right and power by Regal authority, to make Church laws: as, that GOD should not be blasphemed a Dan. 3. 29 That God should be pacified in a fast b jona. 3.7 ; and honoured in a festival day c Ester 9.26 ; and all such, as we read to have been made, in the Code, authentics, and Capitulars, by Constantine, Theodosius, justinian, and Carolus Magnus. Moreover, to delegate such as should judge of the laws so made. d 2. Chr. 19.8 Further to bind his subjects by oath to keep those laws e 2. Chro. 15 14. et 34. 32 , yeain * Deu. 13 10 Leurt. 24.23 matter of religion; and by Regal authority, to punish the transgressors of them. To call councils of Synods by his authority f 1. C●ton. 13.3 ; for reducing of the people to God's worship h 2. Chr. 19.4 , and purifying of the Templepolluted. Touching persons; To administer justice unto all, of all sorts i 2. Chr. 29.5. ; who should be (To speak as the Scripture doth) The head of the Tribe of Levy k 1. Sa. 15.17 , no less then of the other Tribes: The king, no less of Clerks, then of Laikes. To deprive the high Priest (if he do deserve) of his high Priesthood l 1. Reg. 2.27 . In matters of Religion; To break down the high places: To abolish strange worship m Exo. 32.10 : to break in pieces the brazen Serpent, which Moses erected n 2. Reg. 18.4 In matters of Order; To ordain such things, as pertain to the comeliness o 2. Chro. 24 12 Socrat. lib. 2 ca 17 of Gods' house; and to suppressefrivolous, and unprofitable questions. These, by Dinine right, are the rights of Regal Primacy. To weet, whereby the king may; 1. Be called p Tort. Tort. p. 339 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Supreme head of the Church. 2. Call councils, and presede in them. 3. Make Laws Ecclesiastical. 4. Constitute, and depose the High Priests. 5. Bind his subjects by oath, to keep the laws by him made. To conclude, hereby may the Adversaries see that Regal Primacy is founded in the Scriptures, and propagated from the first religious kings, under the old, to the first religious Emperors and kings, and so to our Sovereign Lord King james, under the new Testament; and in that long distance of time, nothing impaired, or diminished. What then, never to decay? I doubt it not. What's the reason? Hear it out of God's book (not out of trivials jesuitical) q If it be of God, Acts 5.39 you can not dissolve it. Go now Icsuite, and play with your sooleries, and very childish questions. In the mean time, let me ask and answer in your own words: The Primacy jesuitical, hath it less 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 near his end? I do not doubt it. What's the reason? Hear it from the jesuits trivial. That which suddenly came (for we know well the swaddling clouts of Loyola, the jesuits Sire) is soon gone. BECAN. Exam. Page 112 THE Primacy or Supremacy under King Henry, King Edward, and Qucene Elizabeth: was Spiritual and Ecclesiastical; but under King james, it is not so (and what it will be is uncertain.) Here is a jar. Dr. HARRIS Reply. IN my Concord book I showed, in general and in particular, the Regal Primacy under K. james to be the self same, which was under K. Henry, K. Edward, and Q. Elizabeth; adding that it so would continue, as certainly it will, during this orthodoxal Religion among us: which I hope shall continue so long as the sun and moon endure; though the jesuitical, and all other Papistical bowels burst thereat. I shewod it in general; for that, the Supremacy than was, and now, no less, is, The kings Supreme power, in, and over, all causes, and all persons (within his kingdom) Spiritual or Ecclesiastical; and therefore in the self same laws of this kingdom, then, and now in force, called The kings supreme Power Spiritual or Ecclesiastical. In particular, I demonstrated the same, by setting down the most material points, out of the express words of Scirpture, wherein the kings said Supreme power Spiritual or Ecclesiastical consisteth: in which said, both general, and particular points, as there they are set down, all English Protestant Writers with full consent agree, without any jar, or difference whatsoever. If this shallow jesuite had had any sound matter in him, in this his Examen, he would have answered to the matter, especially to those material points founded upon the Scriptures; and have proved, that either those particular points belong not to the office of Regal Supremacy: or else that we Protestant Writers, jar in some one or more of those said material points gathered by the R. Bishop of Ely, and there set down; as not warranted by holy writ to belong to kings; but this jesuite passeth them over, with Noli metangere, and only sets before the Reader his twice sodden joathsome Colewoorts viz. That Mr. Burhill writeth thus: We do not give unto the king Primacy Spiritual or Ecclesiastical, but rather Primacy in, and over, causes, and persons Spiritual or Ecclesiastical: whereas Mr. Burhil in his Appendix to the confutation of Eudaemon, Page 283. cuts this jar all in sunder, writing thus: In the 21. chapter of my book against Becane, I purposely and plainly taught, how the said Regal Primacy may be called both ways, to weet, Primacy Spiritual and Ecclesiastical: or, Primacy in matters, and over persons spiritual or Ecclesiastical; and that they who call it spiritual Primacy, mean nothing else then we; who, in regard of the cavillations and calumnies of the Adversary (by Spiritual power, under standing nothing else, but power Sacerdotal, or Episcopal) call it Primacy in, & over causes and persons spiritual or Ecclesiastical: And that in the very thing, there is no dissent at all among us. What could be spoken more fully and plainly, to put to silence the lying and jarring lips of this jesuit? BECAN. Exam. Pag. 114. IT is your private fancy: none but you will say, that the King hath, or that himself challengeth power, to appoint, or depose summos Pontifices, the highest or chiefest Bishops, who should rule over all the Christian world, and who dwell out of his kingdom: as he hath in his Preface monitory, protested. Dr. HARRIS Reply. BElike the jesuit hath not read this Question in Saint Augustine, and the answer unto it: Quid est Episcopus, nisi primus Presbyter, hocest, Summus Sacerdos? What is a Bishop, but the chief Priest? And accordingly, Lactantius (lib. 4. ca 30.) calleth every Bishopric, Supremum Sacerdotium, the highest Priesthood. If the jesuit could understand Greek, I would produce Ignatius ad Trallianos, putting the question, and making answer unto it, as Augustine did, thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. What other thing is a Bishop, but one having principality and power over all men? Belike the jesuit will be bold with Ruffian, and tax him for calling Athanasius (who was no Pope) Pontificem maximum, the highest Bishop. But than comes in Hierom speaking of every Bishop, and dogmatizing thus: Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet. The safety of the Church, dependeth upon the dignity of the highest Priest. With us in England, are not only Bishops, but Archbishops also, even primates, that is, patriarchs, over whom the King in his Supremacy, is Supreme Governor: whom, as he may nominat and appoint; so, upon their deserts, he may depose, as Solomon did Abiathar. In the mean time, 1. Reg. 2. ver. 27. the King alloweth not that any Bishop, especially the Bishop of Rome, should rule over all the Christian world. This jesuit, bringing in our King here denying that he will meddle with the matters of other men, not his subjects; as on the one side, he deservedly commendeth our gracious King therein: so on the other side, he justly condemneth that busy-body the Pope, intermeddling in matters of the King & his subjects, endeuc●ring impiously and impudently, to avert his subjects from swearing allegiance unto their Sovereign; against the law of Nature, & Nations, against the law of God and man: therein showing himself indeed to be that wicked man, that son of perdition, that very Antichrist, described by St. Paul, 2. Thes. 2; especially, considering, that neither our King, nor the meanest vassal or villain of our King, is the Pope's subject. For, by the right and ancient division of Provinces, this Realm of England, was not under the Bishop of Rome. Pope Innocent, 400. yeeresafter Christ, confesseth, that he had not sufficient authority to call one poor Britan out of this Realm. The case was this: The Bishops of Africa, prayed Innocentius, cither to send for Pelagius the Britain, or to deal with him by letters, to show the meaning of his lewd speeches, tending to the derogation of God's grace: To whom the Bishop of Rome answered thus: Quando, etc. When will he commit himself to our judgement, writ I what letters I will, See B. Bil. Pag. 320. whereas he knoweth he shall be condemned? And if he were to be sent for, they may better do it, that are nearer to him, and not so far distant as I am. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 115 IF these propositions be equivalent, viz. The King hath not Primacy Ecclesiastical: The King cannot execure offices Sacerdotal or Episcopal: than it followeth, that they who deny the King canexeci●te officas Sacerdot all, deny the King to have Primacy Ecclesiastical or Spiritual. And they who hold, that the King hath Primacy Spiritual, affirm, that he may execute offices Episcopal. This is rather to increase, then to take away the jar. Dr. HARRIS Reply. Here the jesuit playeth the wrangling Sophifter: & his Elench is (as the School termeth it) A dictosecundum quid, addictum simpliciter. For, these words, Primaeus Ecclesiasticus, do not simply (but, secundum interpretationem vel sensum, according as some Writers mean thereby) signisie Primacy Episcopal, and not Regal. In which sense, all Protestant Writers deny the King to have Primacy Ecclesiastical. Others, by those words, Primatus Ecclesiasticus, mean Primacy Regal, or not Episcopal. In which sense, all English Protestant Writers, ascribe unto the King, Primacy Ecclesiastical: and, as Master Burhill writeth, may well call it Primatum Spiritualem, Spiritual Primacy. So here the jar is taken clean away; and the jesuit is sully answered in all objected by him in due place. The rest, which against his own, and all good method, he iumbleth here together, hotch-potchwise, as, The King to be no Head, nor to call councils, etc. shall hereafter, in their due place, receive also their full answer. ❧ Becans jar. III. Question. Whether the King, by virtue of this Primacy, may be called Primate of the Church. Master Henry Salclebridge doth absolutely affirm it. For thus be writeth pag. 140. Dico, Regem Angliae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Primatem esse. I say, that the King of England is Primate of the Church of England. Nay, he will have this point to be so certain, and out, of all doubt, that he thinketh, whosoeur should deny it to offend against the public profession of England. For so he saith pag. 177. Angliae Regen Anglicanae Ecclesiae Primatem esse, in professione publica Anglicana Veritasis, sacris litter is nixae, ponitur. That the King of England, is Primate of the Church of England, is founded in the public English Profession of Truth, grounded upon the sacred Letter. 2. M. Tooker. and M. Burhill do absolutely deny it. For thus writeth M. Tooker pag. 3. Olere autem malitiam, ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud videtur, cùm Regem Caput Ecclesiae, Primatemque consingas. It may seem to savour of malice, and cry out upon your sauciness, when as you feign the King Head, and Primate of the Church, etc. And Ma. Burhill, pag. 133, Nec primatem quidem omnino Regem nostrum dicimus; multò vetò minus Primatem Ecclesiasticism, Neither do we at all, call our King Primate; and much less Ecclesiastical Frimate, etc. 3. Heer-hence do I frame a twofold Argument. One out of M. Tookera words in this manner: He 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 be Primate of the Church, doth offend against the public Profession of the Truth received in England. But M. Tooker denieth the King to be Primate of the Church of England. Ergo, he offendeth against the public profession of the Truth received in England. So (I wis) one Mule claweth another. 4. But now it may be demanded, whether of them doth judge more rightly in this case, M. Salclebridge, who affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church, or M. Tooker, that denieth it? This controversy dependeth upon 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. Therefore, because he hath once affirmed the King to have the Primacy of the Church, he consequently anerreik, that the King is Primate 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 Chaplain hath a Bishopric, Ergo, he is a Bishop. 5. Now M. Tooker, he thinketh the contrary. For pag. 6. of his book he expresty saith: That the King hath the Primacy of the Church; but yet he 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 he denieth these two consequences à Coniugatis, to weet. I. The King hath the Primacy, Ergo, he is Primate. 2. The Archbishop is Primate, Ergo, he hath the Primacy. And perhaps he will deny these in like manner. I. The Chaplain hath a Bishopric Ergo, he is a Bishop. 2. M. Tooker is a Dean, Ergo, he hath a Deanery. English Concord. Pag. 29 WHy should I school an Ass? with whom, gently to claw, and curstly to kick, Mule-like, is all one? Or why should I rub your memory, to recognise these your own words: james, the most renowned & potent King of England, Refut. Apol. & Praef. monit. Regis, pag. 17. in his Apology, and monitory Préface to the Emperor, etc. endeavoureth to prove, that himself in England, and every King in his kingdom, is Head, or Primate of the Church. There, you confound Head & Primate, as one thing: here, by a twofold question, you sepatate them, as diverse things. So the Mule scratcheth himself. The King doth make no express mention of the word Primate: yet, (as you say) he endeavoureth to prove, and proveth demonstratively, that he is Primate of the Church. Therefore, as the King, we, and your lelfe, understand it; it is all one, to have the Primacy of the Church, and to be Primate of the Church. Sith then, weeagree in the thing, why do you wrafig be about the name, here, of Primate, as before of Primacy? Doctor Tooker, and Master Burhill, lume openly professed, subscribed, and sworn, that the King is the only Supreme Governor in, and over, all causes, and persons, Eoclesiasticall within his Realine: that is, ●h● Hainrick, and Thomson, and yourself understand it, in one word, Primate. But Tooker, and Burhill, deny the King to be Primate of the Church. They do so, & that rightly: to weet, in your popish sense, of Supreme Primate of the Church Sacer do tall or Episcopal. By which distinction well understood and used, it appeareth, that among us, there is no jar at all, touching the Supremacy, or Primate. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 120 YOu call me an Ass, because I said the English Protestant Writers jar in this point. If I be an Ass, by contend you with me? Have you learned to strine only with Asses? Belike you thought you had to do, with English Predicants. I am not of that Tribe. Neither am I contrary to myself for I do not distinguish Primate and Head of the Church; but I show the English Writers to dissent in both. And that is very true; because some afsirme, and others deny, the King to be either Primate, or Head of the Church. Dr. Harris Reply. TO his quest. I answer thus: By God's grace, I have learned to dispute, and to grapple with the most learned jesuit in the bunch. And I am sorry that it was my ill hap, to meet with such a slug as this Icsuit is. But sich it fulleth out so, I must take up this burden, and proceedin answeting (as Solomon saith) a fool in his folly, lest he be proud. I know by their books, many jesuits to be very learned: and I know many English Preachers, in learning, to be nothing inferior to their chiefest jesuits. Therefore this jesuit Becane, without all truth, and good manners, sets the Ass' ears upon so many learned English Preachers: but they will nothing less than fit them, he must resume the ears to himself, and carry them about with him, as his own. Touching his assertion, I did not say that he distinguished the Head, and Primate of the Church, as two things diverse, but that he confounded them as one. Hcere, as one that is at daggers drawing against himself, he confesseth, he did not, nor doth, distinguish them: and yet here, with two disjunctive particles, he separateth them. Indeed, with the Papists, what is the Papal Primate of the Church, but the Supreme Head of the Church? Therefore justly I found fault with the jesuit, for making two questions of one. viz. I. Whether the King be Primate of the Church? 2. Whether the King be Supreme Head of the Church? and not thus rather, according to his words and meaning: Whether the king be Head or Primate of the Church; or Head, that is, Primate, etc. But in this his Examen, the jesuite doth increase (and not lessen) the jar with himself. BECAN. Exam. Page 121 I Do not inquire what Tooker, and Burhill have professed or sworn of the kings Supreme Government: but what they have written of the Primate of the Church. Both of them deny that the king may be called Primate of the Church; Hainric saith be may be so called. There is the jar. Dr. HARRIS Reply. TRue it is, in our English tongue, as we do not call the kings Supreme government of this Church, Primacy, but Supremacy: so do we not cell the king, Primate Ecclesiastical, or Primate at all. But in respect that the English word Supremacy, is translated into the Latin word Primatus; as we in Latin ascribe unto the king, Primatum Ecclesiasticum, or Primatum, in omnibus causis, et supra omnes personas Ecclesiasticas, Primacy Ecclesiastical, or Primacy, in and over, all Causes, and persons Ecclesiastical: so we in Latin call the king Primatem Ecclesiasticum, Primate Ecclesiastical, to weet, of his foresaid (Regal, not Episcopal) Primacy or Supremacy Ecclesiastical, that is, in and over all ecclesiasticals: which Mr. Burhill is so far off to deny, that he hath expressly allowed them, who assert it. So that here is nothing but empty striving about words, which the Apostle condemneth. I will therefore leave this jesuite, snatching at syllables, and catching of flics; I say, I will leave him so striving, and with are him thus reasoning. BECAN. Exam. Page 121 〈…〉 Doctor Tooker, and M. Burhill disputing against me, who denied the King to be Primate of the Church; do deny it in that sense, wherein I said the King usurped the Primacy of the Church. But I did not mean that the King usurped the Primacy of the Church Sacerdorall: for I elsewhere confess that the King disclaimeth it, Therefore they, denying the King to have Primacy Ecclesiastical, do not mean that he hath not Primacy Sacerdotal. Dr. HARRIS Reply. WHo taught this unlearned jesuite to dispute from all particulars? Concerning the general, do all disputers, at all times, reason according to the meaning of the Adversary, which often times they understand not? Touching the Minor, or later proposition, or Assumption of Becane; who would not think his meaning to be, that the king by his confession disclaimeth all Primacy sacerdotal, that is, Episcopal, archiepiscopal, or patriarchal? for all Bishops, Archbishops, and patriarchs are Priests, and therefore their Primacy Episcopal, etc. is Sacerdotal: but this jesuite meaneth nothing less. For by Primacy Sacerdotal, he meaneth here only the power of inferior Priests or Presbyters, in Court internal only; who have no jurisdiction in Court external, as though all our dispute were not of Primates,- and Primacy? As though any inferior Priests, who were not Bishops, have at any time, been called Primates? feeling that by the Canon law, Primates & patriarchs, are all one: as though Primacy with the Papists, doth not respect the external Court only. These are as plain, as the nose on Becanes face. Therefore his face is hard, who abuseth his Reader so grossly. But I'll return this his argument upon his own head thus: If Dr. Tooker, and Mr. Burbill deny the King to be Primate, or to have Primacy in that dense than Becane saith The King usurpeth Primacy; and Becane saith The King usurpeth Primacy Sacerdotal, that is to say, Episcopal: Then it followeth that they deny the King to be Primate, or to have Primacy Episcopal. But the first is true, according to Becane; viz. That the deny, as Becane meaneth; and Becane meaneth that the King usurpeth Primacy Episcopal. Therefore the later is true also, viz That Dr. Tooker and Mr. Burhill, denying the King to be Primate, or to have the Primacy; deny him to be Primate, or to have Primacy Episcopal, as all Protestants do. So that here is among us all, a full and settled Concord; and the jesuits jar, as empty chaff, is blown clean away. ❧ Becans jar. FOUR Question. Whether the King, by reason of his Primacy, may be called Head of the Church? THis Title first began to be usurped of King Henry the 8. as all Authors, aswell our own as our adversaries do testify. For thus writeth jacobus Thuanus in his first book of the Histories of his times: Henricus post divonium, se Caput Ecclesiae constituit. K. Henry after his divorce (from Q. Katherine) made himself Head of the Church etc. And Polydore 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 mean while (to wit after his foresaid divorce) a Council was held at London, wherein the Church of England took to itself a form of power, never heard of before. For that King Henry was appointed Head of the same Church etc. Genebrard also in the fourth books of his Chronologic hath these words: Henrieusanno 1534. in publicis Comitijs se caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae appellavit. King Henry in the year of our Lord 1534. in public Parliament, called himself Head of the Church of England etc. Also Doctor Sanders in his book of the Schism of England, saith: Exqu● licendiformula, primam occasionem sumptamatunt, ut 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 etc. And again, in the same book: Proponebantur eis nova Comitiorum Decreta, & iubebantur jure iurando affirmare, Regem Supremum Ecclesiae esse Caput. The new Laws or Statutes of the Parliament were propounded unto them (to wit, to the King's subjects) and they were commanded to swear, that the King was head of the Church etc. john Caluin in like manner upon 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 graviter semper vulneravit. Erant enim blasphemi, cùm vocarent eum summum Caput Ecclesiae sub Christo. Those who so greatly did extol K. Henry of England, were men void of consideration. For they gave unto him the chief power of all things: and this point did ever gall me grievously. For that they were blasphemers, when they called him the chief Head of the Church under Christ etc. 2. The same Title did K. Edward Son to King Henry, and his Successor, usurp, as it may be seen by his Letters to Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury, which begin thus: Edovardus Dei gratia Angliae, Franciae, & Hyberniae Rex, supremum in terris Ecclesiae Anglicanae, & Hybernicae, tamm causis spiritalibus quàm temporalibus Caput; Reverendo Thomae Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, salutem. 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 Ecclesiastical as temporal: to the Reverend, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, greeting etc. The same Title also did Bishop Cranmer give unto the said King, as appeareth by his letters written to other Bishop's subject unto him, thus: Thomas permissione divina Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus, per Illustrisimum in Christo Principem Edovardum 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 part sungimur, mandamus, ut Imagines ex. Ecclesijs cuiusque dioecesis tollantur etc. We Thomas by God's permission Archbishop of Canterbury, being sufficiently and lawfully authorized by our most gracious Prince in Christ, King Edward the 〈◊〉, supreme Head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland, do in his majesties 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 every Diccesset etc. And Doctor Sanders also in his book of the Schism of England saith thus: Quamprimum visum est Henrici octavi mortem diwlgare; statim Edonardus Enrich filius, nonum aetatis annum agens, Rex Angliae proclamatur, & sumurn Ecclesiae Anglicanae in terris Caput, proximè secundum Christum constitutel it etc. As score as it was thought good to divulge King Henry's death, by and by Edward his son, being of the age of nine years, was proclaimed King of England, and ordained supreme Head of the Church of England on earth, next under Christ etc. 3. Queen Elizabeth, although she were a woman, yet she thought herself no way inferior to her Father or Brother, She therefore would be also called supreme Head of the Church of England. For so writeth jacobus Thuanus in his 15. book of the Histories of his time. Elizabetha, recep to à Patre & fratre titulo, Ecclesiae Caputper Angliam coepitappellati. Queen Elizabeth having received the (former) Title from her Father & brother, began to be called Head of the Church throughout England etc. 4. But now advyes, under K. james, this title is put in Repardie. The Chaplain (to wit M. Doctor Andrew's) doth admit the same in his Tortura Torti: but M. Tooker, and M. Burhill do reject 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 savour of malice, and try out upon your sausines, when as you feign the King to be Head and Primate of the Church etc. And in like manner doth M. Burhill pag. 133. reprehend a certain person of over much, want onnes and boldness, for calling the King, Head, Pastor and Primate of Bishops. 5. In his debate and jar 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 murmur streadly. If he rerect it, what then will the Chaplain say? Perhaps this contention may be mollified, if the King, as he gave to the Chaplain the Bishopric of Ely: so he would give to M. Tooker, and M. Burhill two other Bishoprics. For then, lest they might seem ungrateful, they would easily grant this Title to the King, and far greater too. English Concord. Pag. 32. THe Head, Regal Primate, and th'alone Supreme governor in all things, and over all persons Ecclesiastical, in the Church of England; signify one, and the self same thing: wherein, all our English Protestant Writers do uniformally accord; and so do openly and publicly profess the King's royal Title of Supreme Head under Christin England. Here therefore the jesuite contends for nifles. And this he might have learned of the R. Bishop of Ely; Tott. Tort. pag. 338. et 339 who doth not only admit that Title, but also foundlie proveth the same by Scriptures, and Fathers, in these words: Now to bring this name of Head unto the King, from Gregory, or any other, needs no wondrous Art. The Holy-ghost in this word was our guide. The Prophet Samuel speaks thus to his King: 1. Sa. 19.17 When thou wast little in thy own eyes, wast thou not made the Head of the Tribes of Israel: of wth tribes, the Tribe of Leny was one. Theriore the K. is head of the levitical tribe; in the which Tribe was the high Priest Abimelech under the king his head. Wondrous ignorance it is to deny this; not wondrous Art to prove this. Moreover: Chrysostom, a Bishop of the. Catholic Church (no less godly, and learned than Gregory) called Theodosius, not only the Head, but also the Top, or Crown of the head, even of all men upon the earth. I think there was then a man upon earth, who was called the Bishop of Rome. Agreeable hereunto writeth Dr. Tooker, Duel. pag. 4 thus: The Bishop of Ely doth with us, and with Chrysostom, so acknowledge the king to be Head, and top of the Head; that he under standeth him to be governor of the Church, under the Primary head Christ. See you not hereby (jesuite) how impudently you lied, when you wrote thus: But now this Title of Head, is endangered under King james etc. Dr. Tooker, and Mr. Burhill will not have the King to be called such a Head of the Church, as you Papists dream the Pope to be: viz. Unto whose motion, (as say the Clementines) all are subject. From whom, as from an Head, taken up into the fellowship of the individual unity, God doth pour out his gifts in the whole body b De Elect. et Elect. potest. ca Fundamenta. From whom all Bishops descend, as members from the Head: c De Minist. et ordin. li. 2 who can do all things, that Christ can do: d Hoftiens. de Transl. Epi. ca Quinto. who hath the same Tribunal and Consistory that Christ hath. e abbot de Elect. c. Venerabilem. But is the jesuite amongst the Prophets? It may be, among the false Prophets. What, doth he measure our Writers (who had rather lose their heads, then, in the Papists sense, to ascribe unto their King, the Title of Supreme Head) with the met-wand of Papal parasites? In that jar of Cardinals, about the Pope's Primacy, to weet, whether it consist in the Temporalties of Kings, Directly, or Indirectly: what will Pope Paul 5. do? If he admit that Primacy Direct; Bellarmine will murnur: if he refuse it, what will Baromus, and the Canonists say? If the Cardinals would bestow the Popedom upon Bellarmine, he would grant unto the Pope, this, and a far greater Title Directly. But have the Papists any greater Title than this papal, to weet, of the Head bf the Church? It seems so: because according to his Parasites, these following are Catholic Axioms. First, The Pope can dispense above right, or law, and can make justice of injustice: and can make no sentence a sentence, and can create somewhat of nothing. a De Trans, Epi. Quanto in glosla. Secondly, The Pope is the true (Sovereign) Lord of Temporalties: so that he can take away from one that which is his own: and that act of his holds for good, though he sin. Princes are not Lords, but Tutors, Procurators, and Stewards. b joh. de patis. de poorest. Pap. et Reg. Thirdly, It is heretical to beliene, that Our Lord God the Pope, the maker of this and that decree; can not decree as he hath done. c Extrau. loan. 22. ca Cum inter nonnullos in Gloss. Is there any thing more? Yes, above God, and power divine. They have persuaded the Popes, that. Fourthly, The Popes may do all things, even what they list, even things unlawful; and that they are More than God. d Francis Zibarell. Which made e In Polycratico. Camotensis long since write thus: The Pope's command the Angels: They have power over the dead: They offer violence to the Scriptures, thereby to gain fullness of Power. The Pope is become intolerable: no Tyrant did ever equal him in pride & pomp. Behold here the Roman Head, how glorious, pompous, and (if he had rather have it so) how tyrannous it is. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 128. IF the name, Head of the Church, & Primate of the Church, signisit the same thing; then Tooker and Burhill, who deny the King to be Primate, not only Ecclesiastical and Sacerdotal, but also in any other sense what soever: deny also in the same sort the King to be Head. Dr. HARRIS Reply. DOctor Tooker (as in my Concord, and in this 4. Question, out of his express words was showed) did, together with the R; Bishop of Ely, acknowledge, the King to be Supreme Head of this Church. Pag. 284. M. Burhill, in his Appendix, writeth thus: If any of us call the King Head of the Church in his kingdom, that manner of speech, hath good reason, and sense orthodoxal. I did not reprehend any man as audacious, because, according to our meaning, he calls the King, Caput, Pastorem, et Primatem, Head, Pastor, and Primate. The jesuit told us before, Exam. pag. 321. that he regarded not what they have sworn, and professed publicly, but what they have written: let him therefore read this which they have written, to make him ashamed of his shamelcsse untruths. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 128 WHat will you say to the Bishop of Ely, who in his Torture: Toni, pag. 331. saved: It is a monstrous body, that hath more Heads than one. And pag. 389. The Church is one body, and there is but one Head of one body. That one Head is Christ, & not the Pope. Whence it followeth, that your English Church is more monstrous than ours. For you have two Heads of diverse kinds, i Sacerdotal, and Regal. We, but of one kind, that is, Sacerdotal. You make as many Heads, as there be Christian Kings over their Dominions; but we, two oncly in all Dominions Coristian. viz. Christ, and the Pope. Dr. HARRIS Reply. THe unlearned jesuit, presumptuously here entereth the combat with the most learned Bishop; a pygmy with a Giant: but it seemeth he under standeth neither the R: Bishop, nor himself. The R: Bishop is so far off from denying our King to be Head of this Church; that he hath not only asserted it, but also proved it our of the Scriptures, and Fathers, as hath appeared: but heutterly denieth, that either the King, or Pope, or any other, but the Lord JESUS only, is Head of the Church, in the Popish sense; viz. such a Head, by whom all the body boing coupled and knit together, by every joint for the furniture thereof, Eph. 4. v. 16. according to the effectual power which is in the measure of every part, receiveth increase of the body, to the edifying of itself in love. For suchan Head, Pope lo made Peter, & so himself, Epist. 89. and every Pope; writing of Peter, as taken upinto the fellowship of the Individual unity: writing, I say, not only of God inspiring, but De inspirant Petro, of Peter inspiring. So that no good thing passeth from God, the fountain of all good things, but by participation with Peter. As though he were Emmanuell. Such a Head, as is also the Head of faith; and therefore the author of faith: because the head is the author and original of all sense and motion; which are derived thence into the rest of the members. Such a Head, whose body is the whole Church. Such a Head, as is the rock and foundation of the Church. Such a Head of his Church, as he is the Bridegroom of his Church. If the Church have but two such Heads, it cannot choose but be a monstrous body; as the reverend Bishop inevitably hath concluded against the Church of Rome. Where the jesuit saith, that Christ, and the Pope, are both of one kind; and Christ, and the King, are of diverse kinds: I answer him, that the King doth resemble Christ as Head, much more than the Pope doth. For both the Scriptures, and ancient Fathers, call Kings, Heads of the Church, and Viears of GOD, within their Dominions: but no Scripture, or ancient Father for the space of five hundred years at least, after Christ, called the Pope of Rome, as by his proper Title, either the Vicar of GOD, or Head of the uniners all Church. Hear is matter for Becane to work upon; or rather a bone for Becane to gnaw upon. Yet our Kings, God's Vicars, and Heads of the Church, do not take upon them to be Heads-Bridegroomes: Heads-Rocks: Heads-Foundations: Heads-Authors of faith: Heads-Originalls of all life, sense, and motion of the Church. They rather detest, from their souls, the Luciferian, and Antichristian pride of the Romish Bishop, challenging to be such an Head of the Church. But what will the jesuit say, to three Popes at onces Had the Church of Rome then but two Heads? It were hard to justle out Christ, as no Head: and it is no easy matter, to shape one Head of three Popes (and those Antipopes) shoveled together. Or were there so many Pope-Heads then, quot sunt in Mitra Pontificia coronae, as there be crowns in the Pope's Mitre? BECAN. Exam. Pag. 131 YOu cite Clement, asserting all to be subject to the motion of the Papistical head of the Church. Why do you not add the place where Clement saith so? I think you never saw Clement. You make too much haste. And you perceive not that you cite these words in prejudice of your King. Because the words, All are subject to the motion of the Head, signify nothing but this, that all are subject to the command of their Superiors. Dotario you exempt any from the government and motion of your Head in England? Peradventure yourself, and such like Predicants. Dr. HARRIS Reply. I Did not imagine the ignorance of this jesuit to have been such, that, when I had set down the express words of the Canon law, so trivial, as being notoriously known by the meanest students of that law; he could not have readily found the place where those words are written. But sith I see the case of his ignorance to be so pitiful, I will supply his want of skill. Let him therefore turn to the Clementines of Pope Clement the 5. Title 3. De Haereticis. cap. Ad vestrum, and there, upon the Text-word, Ecclesiae, in the Gloss, (which is cited by the learnedst Canonists for good Canon law) he shall find written these very words and sullables: Omnes igitur sunt subiecti motioni illius (Papae): et sunt in illo, quasi membra de membro. de Elect. Significasti. All are subject to the motion of the Pope, & are in him, as members of the member the Head. Becane dare not deny this to be catholic and Canonical popish-doctrine: not withstanding, it may be, he further desireth to hear a Text-Canon of another Author of Canons, touching this motion Papal, & the strange subjection thereunto. For this, let him turn to Dist. 40. cap. Si Papa. There shall he hear Boniface the Martyr uttering these Text Canonical words; If the Pope, negligent of the salvation of his own sonle, & of others, should draw with him, by heaps, innumerable people, to be tortured with him by many plagues, or hellish torments eternally, they all must be so subject to that his drawing motion, that he may not be rebuked of any of them for that motion. Or admit the Pope's motion were, to forbid virtue, & to command vice: then (as saith Bellarmine) the whole Church, must be so subject to that motion, as to believe, that vice is good, and virtue evil, unless they will sin against conscience. Is not this lowly good infernal subjection? far be it from any of us to acknowledge any subjection to any such motions of our Kings or Queens. But why doth the jesuit presume, to tell the meaning of that Author, whom, as he here confesleth, he knoweth not? Let him learn more modesty hereafter; and in the mean time know, that for members to be subject to the motion of their Head (for example, the Church of Rome to their Pope-Head) is, not only to obey the command of their head (as if the legs should move, when the head would have them move) but to receive the virtue of motion from the head, without which, they cannot move at all. Hence it is, that in great distemperatures of the head, as Apoplexies, or the like, the members are void of all motion. And so it fareth with the Church of Rome, and their Pope-Head: from whom, as from their Head (so saith their Canon) even their Head of faith, GOD poureth out his gifts (the gifts of motion) into all the members. Yet in such sort, as that without partaking of the Pope-Head, GOD (saith Leo) poureth no gift or grace into any member. God for bid we should acknowledge the King to be such an Head of motion, or we be subject to any such motion. His Majesty detesteth any such claim: and we dearest all such subjection. So little is the King prejudicated by this quotation. Touching the scornfully objected exemption of our Predicants from the King's command: were your popish shavelings borne in England, the Seminary Priests, and jesuits, as loyal and obedient to the King, as our English Preachers are; the crown would stand upon the King's head with more safety, & his subjects should eat the labours of their hands, and drink the water of their own wells with more security. Were your Priests & jesuits or confounded, none would hurt or destroy in all the mountain of God's holiness. None would hatch the Cockatrice eggs, or weave the Spiders web, of Gunpowder treasons, and milhons of other traitorous complots, and bloody conspiracies. You, you are they who in very deed trouble Israel, and bring the whole Christian world into combustion. It is a statute enacted in the heavens, that every soul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 13. ver. 1. (as saith Chrysosntome writing upon those words) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; be he an Apostle, or Evangelist, or Prophet, or any other, Peter, Pope, or whosoever: should be subject to the higher Powers for conscience sake. But by the Pope's statute or Canon, the vilest shaveling Priests aforesaid, are so exempted from subjection to the highest Powers, Kings, and Emperors, that they are not bound to obey them or their laws, for Conscience, but only for Order sake. Therefore they are not bound to give, neither will they give, to Caesar, that which is Caesar's, viz. Tribute; for, Tribute belongs to him: nor Custom; yet Custom is due to him. They will not, as Saint Paul did, stand at Caesar's judgement seat, to be tried there: much less will they, as Christ did, present themselves to that tribunal which hath power given to it from above, to be condemned there. Some kind of reason they may have for it; as this: They hold with Antichrist, why then should they follow Christ? Touching the popish Layicks, If (as the jesuit here saith) all the King's subjects within his Realms, are bound to obey the King; why do they disobey him, even in the face (being open and professed wilful Recusants) to come to Church, there to hear God's word truly preached, and his Sacraments duly administered? to pray to God, & to praise God in the congregations of his Saints? Why do they (against the law of God, of Nature, of Nations, and of their King) refuse to testify by oath their Allegiance to their Sovereign? Why? unless it be for that they want motion; as having no virtue of motion thereunto, derived unto them, from their Pope-Head: or else, because they take themselves to be the subjects of the Pope, and not of the King. And this is indeed Prejudicial 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 under stand: That you may understand them, I will cite them whole as they are: The Sacrament of this office etc. They are Pope Nicolas words, and contain these three things. 1. That Christ placed the Sacrament of Preaching the gospel, principally in Peter, when he saw the vessel let down from heaven, and when it was said unto him, Rise Peter, kill and cate. 2. That God would have the virtue, and effect of the gospel, to be powered upon the Gentiles from Peter, as from a Head. 3. That God took Peter into the Jellowship of individual unity, by communicating his name, and dignity to him, for he would have Peter called the rock, and foundation of that Church, whereof he is the rock and foundation. What gather you hence against the Pope? nothing as all. Only you bewray your dullness, and ignorance berein. Dr. HARR IS Reply. I Gather hence, that the Pope is very Antichrist, showing himself as God. The Scripture saith, that, by preaching the gospel, 1. Cor. 3.7. Paul may plant, and Apollo may water, but this God only gives the increase; that is the virtue and effect of preaching. But here Peter, to weet, the Pope, is said to give the virtue and effect of preaching. The Scripture, 1. Cor. 3.11 yea the Canon law, saith, that there is no foundation, or rock of the Church, but only Christ jesus. But here the Pope challengeth, not only 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. He will not give 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 individual unity. The individual unity, 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 have I gathered, out of the blasphemous assertions of this jesuit here, and out of their Canon law, enough for this one time, and to much for Becane to answer all his life time, against their Pope-Head. But how doth the jesuit gather, that the Sacrament of preaching was principally constituted in Peter, when, after the vessel let down, it was said unto him, Rise Peter, kill and eat? seeing that Christ before his passion, did constitute the Sacrament of preaching, equally and with the self same words, in all his Apostles, saying, Gopreach the gospel to all the world. By virtue whereof, the rest, as well as Peter, did preach the Gospel: but this vision, and this speech to Peter, was after Christ's ascension: not to constitute the Sacrament of preaching the Gospel principally in him; but to reform the error 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 emboldened to preach the Gospel to Cornelius a Gentile; but not to kill Cornelius, as Cardinal Baronius expounded those words against the Venetians. If the jesuite had cited the whole words of the Canon, as he promised to do, he might have learned by those words of the Canon, Dexteras Societatis: the right hands of Fellowship; that the Sacrament of preaching the Gospel, was as principally constituted in Paul towards the Gentiles, as it was in Peter towards the jews. As touching me, I had read that Canon often: but I purposely cited, out of it, those words only which show, what a blasphemous Head the Church of Rome hath, who challengeth to be assumpted into the fellowship of the individual unity, in such sort, that all gifts and graces of God, are powered upon 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 evince the Pope to be such a blasphemous Head indcede. Notwithstanding, I must give the jesuite leave to hold on his course, viz. to wound his Pope, when he seeks to heal him; to disgrace me without cause, and to belly me, without blushing. BECAN. Exam. Page 133 YOu cite out of Durand truly, that all Bishops descend from the Pope, as members from the head. Which is nothing else but this: that they all receive from the Pope jurisduction of the external Court. Which, as English Academics say, is in li●e sort given by the king, to the Bishops in England. Therefore here is the jar between you, and the Academics. Dr. HARRIS Reply. IN England, the King doth but nominate some to be Bishops; They are chosen by the Dean and Chapter. The King approveth and ratifieth the Electiò: but they are consecrated Bishops, only by Bishops. And thereupon, without any grant thereof from the King, they have, ipso facto, Episcopal function and jurisdiction in external Court. Whereby it is apparent, even by this jesuitesinterpretation of the words, that our Bishops do not descend from our King, as the Romish Bishops descend from the Bishop of Rome; who receive the gifts of the Holy-ghost, and the virtue and effect of their preaching from the Pope; and so descend from him, as members from the Head: which Pope (saith Bellarmine) is the only Bishop iure divino, by the word of GOD: and all the rest of the Bishops, Archbishops, patriarchs, are but his Curates, iure human●, by the wordor inspiration of the Pope. inspirant Petro (as Leo saith) The Pope breathing on them the Holy-ghost. All English Academics would detest such descending of our Bishops from the King; who giveth unto our Bishops chosen and consecrated, their Baronries, and jurisdiction coactive by corporal or temporal mulcts (which is Dr. Tookers meaning herein) but not jurisdiction merely sacerdotal or Episcopal; viz. to excommunicate, to give Orders, to confirm etc. And so here is still the Concord maintained. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 134. THE rest which you cite out of Hostiensis, and the Abbot, you neither cite well, nor understand. It irketh me to warn you so oft, and to obtain nothing. Dr. HARRIS Reply. Truly I understand, that Martin Becane is a very unlearned, and slug jesuite, as shall in this place, manifestly appear. In the mean time, I pray you Christian Reader to observe how the case is now altered, touching the Popish Headship, from that it was heretofore: for even as Antichrist groweth on to his height of impudence, and impiety; 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 he is grown to be the Supreme Head, equal with Christ, as having the same Tribunal and Consistory, that Christ hath, and being able to do all that Christ can do. To prove this, I cited the words of the two most famous, and judiciously learned Canonists, that ever were; Cardinal Hostiensis, and Abbot Panormitane: and in the margin of my book, 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 jesuite hath no other thing to answer but this; you do not cite those words well, nor understand them. Whereof (Christian Reader) be you judge, after that I have produced at large their own 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 firmavit Hostiensis in cap. Quanto, De Translatione praelatorum; ubi 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 Germans. The Pope might do it, upon great cause, because be can do whatsoever God can do. Otherwise, Christ had not been a diligent father of his family, if he had not left one, in his own stead on earth, who, as causes require, can do all, that Christ himself can do. This rule hath Hostiensis confirmed in cap. Quanto. de translat: Praelat. where it is said, that seeing there is but one, and the self same Consistory of God and the Pope, The Pope can do all things that Christ himself can do, except sin. But Hostiensis improperly excepted sin, because sin falleth not under power, but rather under impotency or weakness. By these their words thus at large set down, it appeareth, that I cited the words well, and knew what I cited; even 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 slug jesuite is so unlearned that he understandeth nothing, which hath any sound learning, or judicious reading in it. ❧ Becans jar. V Question. Whether the King's Primacy do consist in any Power, or jurisdiction Ecclesiastical? HERE now, is there a great jaure and debate amongst our English Adversaries: nor can the same be easily understood, unless it be first well distinguished. Ecclesiastical Power is threefold as the Divines do teach. One of Order; another of interior jurisdiction; the third of exterior Inrisdiction. To the first belongeth to effect or consecrate, and to administer Sacraments: to the second to govern the Church in the interior Court, or Court of Conscience; and to the third, belongeth to govern the Church in the exterior Court. Now certain it is, that the King hath not the Power of Order, by reason of his Primacy. For this doth M. Tooker confess page 14. where he saith: Reges non habent potellatem administrandi Sacramenta. King's have not power to administer Sacraments. It is also certain that be hath not jurisdiction of the interior Court, or Court of Conscience. For this in like manner doth M. Tooker confess pag. 63. Omnis jurisdictio (saith be) in foro interiori Sacerdotum est, nulla Regum. All jurisdiction in the interior Court (or Court of Conscience) belongeth to Priests, not ance way to Kings, etc. 2. All the question than is, whether the King hath jurisdiction Ecclesiastical in the exterior Court or no? About this point are the Englishmen at a great jar and variance amongst themselves: some affirming it, some denying it, others distingnishing. M. Tooker affirmeth it pag. 305. in these words: Qui habet plenissimam & amplissiman iurisdiction●min foro exteriore, potest candem dare & auferre. Rex eam habet. Ergo potest eandem dare & auferre. Totum hoc liquet ex V. & N. Testamento. He that bath most full and ample jurisdiction in the exterior Court, can give and take away the same (at his pleasure.) But the King hath this jurisdiction. Ergo, he can give and take away the same. All this is manifest out of the old and new Testament etc. With him agreeth also M. Salclebridge pag. 140. Regesoleo sacro uncti, capaces sunt jurisdictionis spiritualis. Kings (saith be) anointed with holy oil, are made capable of spiritual jurisdiction etc. And then again in the same place out of the Laws of Eng. Rex (saith be) est persona mixta, utpote qui Ecclesiastican & temporalem jurisdictionem habet, & quidem Supremá. The king is a person mixed, to wit, that hath both jurisdiction Ecclesiastical and Temporal, & that in the highest degree etc. And yet more p. 144. Perleges Ecclesiasticas in hoc Regno approbatas, unus Sacerdos duo beneficia habere non potest, nec Bastardus Sactis initiari. Verùm Rex, Ecclesiastica potestate & iurisdictione, quam habet, in utroque, dispensate potest. By the Ecclesiastical Laws 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 jurisdiction And Power Ecclesiastical, which he hath, can dispense in both etc. 3. M. Tompson, and M. Burhill do absolutely deny it: M. Thomson, pag. 80. of his book writing thus: Primatus Ecclesiae non est definiendus per jurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam, sed per gubernationem supremam. The Primacy of the Church, is not to be defined by jurisdiction Ecclesisstical, but by supreme Government, etc. And again, pag 95. Diximus, Regem gubernare quidem Ecclesiastica, sed non Ecclesiasticè. We have said before, that the King indeed doth govern Ecclesiastical things, but not Ecclesiastically. And why I pray you? Because, for sooth, be hath not jurisdiction Ecclesiatically, but onoly Temporal. And heerounto agreath Must. Buchill, pag. 234. granting this negatine proposition. Rex (saith he) nullam habet jurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam, nec in foro interiori, nec inexteriori. The King hath no jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, neither in the interior, nor exterior Court, etc. 4. Now my Lord of Ely, he distinguisheth in this case, as may be seen in M. Tookers' Book, pag. 305. in these words: Habet Rex omnem jurisdictionem spiritualem, in foro exterioti, exceptis quibusdam Censuris. The King hath all inrisaction spiritual in the extoriour Court, except is certain Consures, etc. So as now to this question (to weet whether the King, as he is Primate and Head of the Church, have any jurisdiction Ecclesiastical or spiritual in the exterior Court,) we must answer thus: First with M. Tooker, and M. Salclebridge, That he hath most ample, most full, and supreme jurisdiction. Secondly, with my Lord of Ely, That he hath indeed some, but notall. And lastly, with M. Burhill, and M. Thomson, That he hath none, no not any one jot at all. English Concord. Pag. 38 THese are the very express words of the law of England, which is now in force. Star. 1. Elzab. That Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which was exercised heretofore, or lawfully might be exercised, by any spiritual or Ecclesiastical power, to visit the Ecclesiastical state & order, also to reform, & to bring into order, and to correct Ecclesiastical persons, all errors, heresies, schisms, etc. is for ever united, and annexed to the imperial Crown of this kingdom: whereby the King of England, through his full power, by his Letters Patents, may assign & authorize such persons being natural borne subjects, as he shall think meet, to exercise & execute under his Highness, all manner of jurisdictions, privileges, and pre-eminences, in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, within his highness Dominions. Now all Protestant English Writers, in the Oath of Supremacy which they have taken, Lorament. Primate. in Apol. Reg. pag. 56. have openly testified, & in their conscience declared, that they will with all their power, aid & defend all jurisdictions, Privileges, and preeminences united and annexed to the Crown of this kingdom. Wherefore, all plainly agree in the thing itself. But that, which the jaws of Engl. call Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, & define to be the supreme Governmet in all Ecclesiastical things, & over all Ecclesiastical persons, M. Thomson would rather call, Supreme Government. The R: Torture. Tort. p. 151 Bishop touching this matter writeth thus: This I urge, that the jurisdiction which Abbesses have with you, is ordinary spiritual jurisdiction. For the Abbot hath ordinary: & in her administration, the Abbess is equalled with the Abbot. And what should let it? Because they cannot exercise censures, excommunicate? But excommunication doth not directly belong to the key of order. In 4. Sentem. Dist. 18. q. 2. art. 2. Aquinas asserteth this; Excommunication is no act of the key directly, but rather of the external 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 communicated 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 approving his opinion therein (Although we ascribe not to our King power of Censure) and therein you give much more to your Abbesses, than we to our Prince. Ma. Burhill demes the King to have any jurisdiction in the outward court, to weet, Sacerdotal. So the King of England hath all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, that is, Supreme and Regal (whereof only our controversy is): but no Sacerdotal, no, none at all; and yet without any jar whatsoever. But oh Becane, can you without blushing (if there be but a grain of pudency in you) obstinately detract from most religious Kings all supreme jurisdiction, properly Regal, when women (of whom St. Paul, 1. Tim. 2. v. 12. I permit not a woman to use authority over the man) with you, are capable, Fran. Steph. D' Aluin de Potestat. Episc. Abbatú Abbatiss. ca 2.3. 4.11. etc. and partakers of Spiritual jurisdiction, Sacerdotal, or Episcopal? viz. Of power to excommunicate Clerks, to absolve, to visit, to institute, to present to Benefices, Prelatures, & dignities Ecclesiastical: yea of having all administration as well spiritual as temporal, but only of those things of order, whereof a woman is incapable. Lastly, all those things which Salobrigiensis doth here recite, touching Kings anointed with sacred oil, etc. Mixed persons, etc. which may dispense against laws Ecclesiastical, are transcribed out of the express words of the common laws of England: which, in this kind of argument, might have satisfied to the full. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 139 THomson saith expressly, that The Primacy of the Church, is not to be defined by Ecclesiastical jurisdiction: but the law of England doth so define it. Thomson saith, that The King doth govern Ecclesiastical things, but not Ecclesiastically: therefore his jurisdiction is not Ecclesiastical. Burhill detracteth from the King all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the outward Court, that is, as you say. Sacerdotal: but Tooker faith, that All jurisdiction of Priests, is in the inward Court. The Bishop of Ely saith, The King hath no jurisdiction Ecclesiastical of the outward Court, but only power of Censure. And saith again: The King hath not power of censure. But Hainric, and Tooker say, The King hath all supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The English law saith, The King hath all manner Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The Bishop of Ely saith, He hath some Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but not all. So the King hath jurisdiction Ecclesiastical; with Tooker, Supreme: with the law, all manner: with the Bishop, some, but not all: with Burhill, and Thomson, none, none at all. Is this your English Concord? Dr. HARRIS Reply. THe fool will always be playing with his babble; some fools with variety: but this clay-witted jesuit, plays with his down right repetitions of the same things in the same words; whereas heretofore, he hath received in my English Concord, a full, clear, and solid answer, to all, and every one of these particular seeming jars; but in truth no jars at all. Wherein is manifested our good Concord, even in all those seeming jars. In short, thus: Master Thomson denieth the King's Supreme Church government to be called Primacy, or the King Primate; as Papists understand it, to weet, Episcopal: but he himself calleth the King's supreme Church government, Primacy, and the King in respect thereof Primate; as the Protestants mean, to weet, Regal. So Dr. Tooker, denied the King to be called Head of this Church; that is, Episcopal, or Papal: but Doctor Tooker acknowledged expressly, that the King is not only the Head, but also the top of the Head of this Church; to weet, Regal. And in that sense, saith Ma. Burhill, they say well, who call the King, Caput, Appendix pag. 284. Pastorem, et Primatem, the Head, Pastor, and Primate of this Church. Doctor Harris saith Ma. Burhill denieth the King to have Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the outward Court, viz. Sacerdotal; that is, in Dr. Harris meaning, not Presbyterial, but Episcopal (according to that of Lactantius, who called Sacerdotium, summum Episcopatum. Sacerdotal, that is, Episcopal, archiepiscopal, or patriarchal.) And Dr. Tooker saith, that all jurisdiction of Priests, that is, of Presbyters, or lowest Priests, or all jurisdiction Presbyterial, is in the inner Court. Is here any jar? The Bishop of Ely saith, The King hath power of Censure, to weet, Regal, and Ecclesiastical (as plainly appeared, when Solomon deposed Abiathar the high Priest. And again, he saith, The King hath not power of Censure; that is, Episcopal, as Excommunication. Or in short thus: The King hath some Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, viz. Regal. And the King hath not all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, viz. Episcopal. Dr. Tooker, & Hainric say, the King hath all supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. i. Regal. And our English law saith, The King hath, not (as this jesuit writeth) all manner of jurisdiction Ecclesiastical (for that would include both Episcopal, and Presbyterial, or in Becane his sense, Sacerdotal) but all manner of supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, that is, Regal. Ma. Thomson saith, The King hath no Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or Primacy (for Primacy and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, are all one with Ma. Thomson) Episcopal: but Ma. Thomson saith: The King hath Primacy, or Supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, Regal. So the King hath all, and all manner Supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, Regal: and, The King hath not all, The King hath none, none at all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, Sacerdotal, or Episcopal. The King doth not govern Ecclesiastical things, ecclesiastic, that is, Episcopally, or Sacerdotally: The King doth govern Ecclesiastical things, Regally. Is not here a plain Concord, and uniform agreement? The Christian harmony whereof, this jesuit cannot dissolve, though all his jarring heartstrings would burst in-sunder. But whereas this jesuit saith, that M. Burhill affirmeth the King to have no Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, none at all, in Court either inward or outward; he showeth himself to be past shame, in his gross untruths: for M. Burhills express words in his a Pag. 285. Appendix are these: Quomodo nullam, nullam penitus huiusmodi jurisdictionem Regiesse aio his verbis; ubi propositionem qua hoc asseratur, falsam esse pronuntio? How do I say, that the King hath none Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, none at all, in Court inward, or outward, when I pronounce that proposition to be false, wherein this is asserted. So the jesuit brings in Ma. Burhill affirming that, which he expressly denith. The particular manner, and material points, of this Supreme Government Regal and Ecclesiastical, are set down by our gracious King james: by Queen 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 uniform consent. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 141. IF supreme jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, that is, Primacy of the Church, was exercised under Queen Mary, and might lawfully be executed by the Pope: than it followeth, that it was lawfully separated from the Regal Crown. For, if it were by Divine right united unto it, it could not be separated from it, and lawfully exercised. Dr. HARRIS Reply. IF the heavens fall, we shall have store of Larksheads. We will as soon grant that the heavens may fall, as that the Pope might lawfully exercise supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction within this kingdom. If Queen Mary would wilfully & superstitiously renounce that Supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which was due unto her, as Queen of England, by the law of God, and the law of this kingdom; yet it follows not, that the said supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, was not by divine and human right, united to the Crown. The public worship & service of GOD, was under the law, united to the persons Levitical, & to the place where the Temple was: yet jeroboam, who made all Israel to sin (as Quecne Mary, more bloody than he, made all England to sin) changed both persons, and place, by whom, and wherein, God's divine public worship was then to be performed. Hear than is nought else, but Becanicall folly, or foppery jesuitical. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 145 THat which you cite from the Bishop of Ely, and assert here yourself, viz. That we give more to an Abbess, (namely power to excommunicate) than you to the Queen, is not true. You ascribe all to the Queen, which you do to the King, as to have Primacy, to be head of the English Church, etc. Abbesses with us, have not power to excommunicate, as Elizabeth with you, had. Hear what our Canons think of this matter: It is plain, 33. q 5. ca Mulierem that the woman is subject to the dominion of the man (or her husband) & hath no authority. For she cannot teach, nor be a witness, nor judge, how much less may she command, or reign? De sentent. Excommunicationis cap. De monialibus. And again: If Nuns or Monialls, lay violent hands upon themselves, their Converts, or Clerks: they ought to be absolned by the Bishop of that Diocese, wherein their Monasteries are. Hence the canonists gather, that Abbesses cannot absolve (and therefore cannot excommunicate) their Monialls. And this is observed in our practice. See Suarez. Tom. 5. d. 2. Sect. 2. et 3. Dr. HARRIS Reply. THE reverend Bishop of Ely, asserted, the Abbesses with Papists to have or dinary jurisdiction spiritual, and therein to be equal with abbots: and that nothing hindered, 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 down the particulars of that ordinary spiritual jurisdiction of Abbesses, viz. (To excommunicate, absolve, visit, institute, confer benefices, present to Benefices, Prelatures, and Dignities Ecclesiastical: and to have all Administration of the Monesteriall Monialls, or Nuns; as well Spiritual, as Temporal; but only those things of order, whereof a woman is incapable.) ex Tractatu doctissimo, out of the most learned Treatise, of Father Stephen Dr. Aluin, entitled thus: A Treatise of the Power of the abbots and Abbesses: printed at Parise 1607. authorized solemnly to be printed; and in very singular manner allowed with high commendation, by the Divines of Parise, deputed for examination of all books to be printed there. In my margin notes I directed the jesuite to the particular chapters of that Treatise, where the said Stephen doth not only assert those particulars; but also solidly and indiciously prove the same, by the Canon law, and best Canonists writing comment, upon that law. Notwithstanding, this jesuite, 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 us have no power to excommunicate. Did ever any jesuite so unlearned as this Becane is, and here shows himself to be, write with pen? Stephen D'Aluin, doth not only say it, but from sound premises conclude it. The jesuit, leaving the premises unanswered, or untouched, denieth the conclusion; and sinking under the burden of the respondent, will rather play the opponents part, and so objecteth these two empty Canons nothing to the purpose. 23. q 5. cap Multerem. The former is of private women, that they should be subject to their husbands: and not usurp authority over other men, as, to teach them publicly, to judge them, to rule, or reign over them, to weet, as the Gloss expounds it, in temporals. If this Canon should be understood generally of all women (for Abbesses are not there once mentioned) than Mathilda Countess, of whom the Gloss in L. vlt. cod. de Arbit. maketh such honourable mention, could not command or judge them, who were her subjects as Countess: nor Q. Mary (so much commended by all Papists) might reign, as Queen, over her English subjects. By what right or law then, did she shed innocent blood 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 jerusalem? Angel: in rep. quam. cod. de fidei come. et in L. Foeminae F. de reg. iur . et in L. cum praetor F. de iudic: saith that He saw a certain Queen, named joan, sitting in the Regal seat, and giving sentence of death, against them of Balso. The latter Canon saith, that Monialls, or Nuns, De senten, Excoman. ca De Monialibus. laying violent hands upon Clerks, should or might be absolved by the Bishop; which is true, when either the Abbess is not exempted, from jurisdiction Episcopal, as many of them are not: or, when the Pope doth not give, or derive from himself as Head, ordinary Spiritual jurisdiction to the said Abbesses, as to many of them he doth; for than it is a ruled case, especially amongst the Canonists, (though peradventure this silly jesuit be ignorant thereof) that they may, by virtue of that ordinary Spiritual jurisdiction, excommunicate, absolve, institute, visit, etc. those Ecclesiastical things only excepted, which pertain 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. Sylvester verb. Abbatissa. and Dominicus Soto in 4. Dist. 20. q. 1. art. 4. deny to Abbesses Ecclesiastical jurisdiction or dinary: yet they acknowledge the same, as delegated unto them from the Pope. But the Canonists proceed further: for they hold, that the very dignity of the Prelature, and excellency of the offices of Abbesses, doth give unto those Ecclesiastical women, to weet Abbesses, Spiritual jurisdiction, not only delegated, but even ordinary, over their Monialls or Nuns: and this they gather out of the Canon law. De Maior. et Obed. cap. Dilecta. where Pope Honorius 3. commands obedience to the Abbess of Brubigen: who had suspended Clericos suae jurisdictioni subiectos, ab officio, et beneficio; The Clerks under her, from their office, and benefice. This is a more plentiful and sound answer unto these two Canons, so fond objected, than the jesuite deserveth, and so we may leave him here. But because this point now in hand doth so nearly touch the King's Supremacy, or his Supreme jurisdiction Spiritual and Ecclesiastical; to stifle this jesuite herein, once for all, and ever hereafter, I will proceed to the further declaration, and demonstration hereof; wherein I will observe this course following: viz. to prove out of the Canon law, or Canonists ancient and modern, or both, First in general, that all Laics, Males, or Females, are capable of jurisdiction Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, in the outward Court; even 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 jurisdictionis 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. ut Extra. de. Indi. Decernimus, imo, ut ibt dicitur, prohibetur praelatis, ut talia Laicis non committant: tamen Dominus Papa, qui habet plenitudinem Potestatis, posset committere ut Excommunicarent. Bar. A laic, (to weet, male, or female, for some of the Canons here cited by the Gloss concern the males; but others, especially the last, concern the females directly, as that, 2. q. 5. Mennam) may suspend, and excommunicate clerks, by command, or commission from the superior, especially of the Pope. viz. by Spiritual power delegated: because excommunication is not of Order, but of jurisdiction in the outward Court. Dist. 96. c. bene quidem, in the Gloss. §. Praeter. Romanum. Papa quamlibet causam Ecclesiasticam, committere potest laico. The Pope may delegate to a Laic spiritual jurisdiction of external Court, whereby to hear and determine any cause Ecclesiastical. 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 own right or power, excommunicate a Priest; but by, power delegated from the Pope, he might well do it. 2. Of Laik Females. Caus. 2. q. 5. ca Mennam. in gloss. verb. Arbitrio. Delegatur hic laico, spirituale negotium. The case was this; Menna a Bishop, was accused before the Pope of certain crimes, whom (after that by his oath he had purged himself) the Pope dismissed, and absolved: notwithstanding, afterwards, the Pope committed to Brunichilda, Queen of France, full jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, to convent before her the said Bishop, for the said crimes, to purge himself with two other compurgator-bishops joined with him, by their oaths; so far forth as she thought good; provided, that she did not exceed the extent of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction; viz. to urge him to his said purgation, or the exact manner thereof, by applying unto him, hot burning iron, or the like: for such corporal tortures, and only such, the Pope in this Canon inhibited. All which is expressly set down at large in the very text of the said Canon. Secondly, in more particular manner, that both Laik male abbots, and also Laik female Abbesses, are capable of, and may, and do, execute ordinary jurisdiction Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, viz. to excommunicate, absolve, institute, suspend, visit, etc. All which belong, ad Spirituale forum contentiosum. To the Spiritual jurisdiction of outward or contentious court: as appeareth by Extravag. commun. De Praebendis. ca Execrabilis. verb. visitare. in glossa. And first for abbots. Decretal. de Praescriptionibus. Tit. 26. c. Auditis. Tanto tempore probantur per testes ab Abbatibus de Hevenscham, pleno iure possess: ut videantur in eyes, Episcopale ius legitime praescripsisse. Quod si constiterit, absoluatis Abbatem ab impetitione Episcopi, super Ecclesijs memoratis, adiudicantes ill as Abbati, pleno iure subiectas, et Episcopo super ill is, silentium imponatis. Circa cognitionem quoque causarum matrimonialium, et Capellani suspensionem in praedicta villa, et inter dictum capellarun, vos super his, ius Episcopale adiudicetis eidem Abbati. The abbots of Hevenscham seem lawfully to prescribe Episcopal jurisdiction in certain Churches: if that be so, let the Abbot and not the Bishop, govern those Churches Pleno iure, that is, by right of jurisdiction, Spiritual, Ecclesiastical, Episcopal, evenin causes matrimonial, suspensions, & interdictions. The gloss of which Canon, §. Ius Episcopale; writeth thus: Hic manifest patet quodiura Episcopalia praescribuntur, cognitio causarum matrimonialium, tantum de iure communi spectat ad jurisdictionem Episcopi, quam praescribit Abbas. Hence it is manifest that abbots may prescribe Episcopal jurisdiction, etc. Clementin. de reb. Eccle. non alienand. or. Monasteriorun. verb. Proprij. in. gloss: Abbates exempti habent Episcopalem jurisdictionem. abbots exempt have Episcopal jurisdiction. et cap. De statu Monachorun. ca Attendentes. verb. Alia. in gloss. Illa ergo non corriget ordinarius loci, sed Abbas, vel Prior, cui subsunt. In exempt Monasteries, let not the Ordinary of the place, but the Abbot, or Prior, correct faults done there. To be brief: abbots, by the Canon law, May Absolve an Excommunicate Monk: (and therefore excommunicate him) Dist. 90. c. Si quis. verb. Prioris. in gloss. Abbas potest absoluere monachum suum, inijcientem manus in monachum suum, vel alterius. May Dispense concerning Orders. 20. q. 4. Monachun. verb. Remittatur. in gloss. Abbas dispensare potest circa ordines. May Give or confer the less orders. Dist. 69. Quoniam. verb. lect or is in gloss. Abbas minores or dines hody conferre possit. May Visit his subjects mediate and immediate. extra. commun. de cencibus c. vas. verb. Abbates in glossa. May Bless & consecrated Ecclesiastical things & persons. Sexti. de Privilegijs. Tit. 7. ca Abbates. Addition. I. in glossa. Et faciunt haec pro Abbatibus qui benedicunt calices, patinas, vestes sacerdotales, cruces et similia. Nam si benedicant personas, fortius et res. According to the Canonists, not only abbots, but also Prior's cloister, in their absence, have ordinary jurisdiction, Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, as these modern, Victorinus, Mansus, Auersanus, and Monachus Cassinensis, the Abbot of Saint Sepherine at Naples, cap. 2. de. modo procedendi in Causis. Regula. N. 4. have largely written and proved. When the Abbot is away, the Prior hath authority in Court both secret, and contentious, to hear confessions, to visit etc. Specula. in Tit. de offic. ordin. si. const. per text. in cap. Duo extra. eod. tit. Abbas. in tract. de forma procedendi. in cap. Irrefragabili eod. tit. et in cap. Cum contingat. De foro competen: And is ordinary judge there; as Petrus Follerius in the last part of his practik criminal, hath clearly proved and fortified. Now touching Abbesses. I. Out of the Canon law. Decretal. de maior. et obed. Tit. 33. ca Dilecta. verb. jurisdictioni. in gloss. Abbatissa potest suspendere ab officio et beneficio, Monach as sum as, et clericos suae jurisdictioni subiectos, secundum quod hic satis innuitur, si inobedientes fuerint. Habet enim administrationem temporalium et spiritualium. Item ratione suae administrationis, post suam confirmationem potest conferre Ecclesias, et beneficia, et constituere clericos in Ecclesijs sui Monasterij, sicut Abbates. Abbesses' may suspend their Nuns, & also clerks which are under them, from office and benefice, if they be disobedient; for she hath administration of things spiritual and temporal therein: and by virtue of her administration, she may collate Churches and benefices, and institute clerks in the Churches of their Monastery, as abbots may do. Out of the text of this Canon. Dilecta. Panormitan noteth, that an Abbess is capable of spiritual jurisdiction, and may exercise that jurisdiction over her Nuns. Decretal. De statu Monachorun. Tit. 35. cap. 8. Ea quae. Haec autem omnia etiam in Monasterijs quae non habent Abbates proprios, sed Priores: nec non in Monasierijs monialium● oad articulos Abbatissis, et monialibus congruentes praecipimus observari. We will have all these things observed in the Monasteries of Monks and Nuns. In which Constitution, because it speaks expressly of administration, as well spiritual as temporal; as well of Abbots, as of Abbesses: by that very extension the Abbess is equalled with the Abbot, in the administration of his Monastery, as well spiritual, as temporal. Whereupon Panormitan noreth, Quod Dispositum in Monachis, et Abbatibus, extenditur ad Abbatissas et Moniales. That which belongeth to abbots in their Monasteries, appertains to Abbesses in theirs. The same Panormitan, in Decretal. Tit. 10. De his quae fiunt à praelat. sine consens. capital. ca Continebatur. n. 4. writeth expressly, That an Abbess hath as free administration of her Monastery, as an Abbot hath. But an Abbot hath ordinary spiritual jurisdiction in his Monastery, as all Canonists agree. Flaminius Parisius, De Resig. Benef. 1.3. q. 12. n. 3.5. 8. et 14. proveth at large, That an Abbess may have a Praelature, and dignity, with administration, and a right to visit, even without the Monastery; which right she may also commit to others. And the Bishop Bitontine, very lately holdeth and proveth the same in his works dedicated to Pope Clement 8. See the very Text. Sext. de Elect. ca Indemnitatibus, proving the same. Barthol. in l. 1. cod. de dign. lib. 12. n. 4. saith that Abbesses have dignity, with administration, not only over their Nuns, but also without, for that they have Castles, etc. as abbots have dignity, with administration. Sext. de Privilegijs. ca Apostolicae. And therefore, by a ruled case among the Doctors, grounded upon ca Attendentes in Clementin. 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 cloister, by a certain right, constitutions, and rule of S. Benedict, from whence all the rest, in a manner, are drawn, as also by custom, have authority and power ordinary, spiritual, and Ecclesiastical, over those that are under them. And cap. 3. sect. 8. That Abbesses, & Prioresses, ex cardin. concil. 17. cal. 4. bj. cap. Dilecta, and the Gloss. adjoined, have all administration, as well spiritual, as temporal, of those monasterial Nuns; save only of those things whereof a woman is uneapable, to weet, of Order. Now, touching the power which Abbesses have to excommunicate. Because Tho. Aqui. in 4. sent. dist. 18. q. 2. art. 2. in corpore, writeth thus; Excommunicatio non est actus clanis direct, sed magis exterior is judicij: Excommunication is not an act of the key directly, but rather of external court. Navarre, lib. quinto, consil. 1. de sentent. Excom. concludeth; that a woman by privilege, may also excommunicate. Tabiena and Arnilla, verbo Abbatissae. nu. 3. besides Panormitan, Astensis, and others, That an Abbess may command the Priests, her subjects, to excommunicate their rebellious & obstinate Nuns, or to absolve them. Whereupon, Steph. d'Aluin, cap. 3. sect. 12. concludeth those: Proinde omnis habens jurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam, et si non habeat clavem ordinis, potest excommunicare ex D. Thoma. Therefore all having Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, may excommunicate, according to Tho. Aquin. Now, that they have Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, witness Panormitun, in ca De stat. Monachor. jason, 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 abbots have, Abbesses have the same. And again, Panormitan, Arnilla, & Flaminius writ, That Abbesses exempt, have right or jurisdiction to visit the places, and persons subject to them; and that they have Clerks subject unto them, Pleno iure, that is, under their government, as well Ecclesiastical, as Temporal. Now say Card. Parisius, and Flaminius: Out of the right to visit, or from visiting by herself, or her deputy, followeth her jurisdiction, to deprive, depose, correct, punish, and chastise. And to have them subject to her, Pleno iure, by full right, doth plainly import jurisdiction, Deprivation, Visitation, and Correction. To conclude this point: If private men and women be capable of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction; If Abbesses have and execute the same, in collating Benefices, instituting, suspending, depriving, visiting, judging crimes, and imposing and receiving purgations of Bishops; lastly, excommunicating, and absolving; according to Popish Canons, Canonists, Custom, and practise among them: with what face doth this jesuit, or any other Papist, scandalise our Kings, or Queens, for taking, or us for ascribing unto them, Supreme Ecclesi. jurisdiction: yet not that, whereby our Kings or Queens may institute Clerks, excommunicate, or absolve them: oras King james, and late Queen Elizabeth have in their writings published to the whole world. Therefore, most impudently false is the jesuit here, asserting that Queen Elizabeth had power to excommunicate. Touching Suarez, let this jesuit know, that Steph. D' Aluin, hath refuted in this point, a far greater, & better learned man then Suarez is, to weet, Franciscus a Victoria, in his Relect. 2. de potest. Ecclesiae; and showed the practice of the Church to be, as here hath been declared. Christian Reader, I have been much here in this point, because it is of that moment, and so remarkable: for recompense, in replying to the remainder of Becanes Examivation, I promise to be short; the rather, because in truth, it is but froth, not deserving any other answer at all, but that which is already set down in my English Concord. ❧ Becans jar. VI Question. Whether the King of his own Authority can assemble, or call together councils? 1. NOw follow the jars and debates of our Adversaries, concerning the Offices and Functions of the King's Primacy, and they are six in number, which may be disputed of. The first is, of assembling, or calling together of Synods. The second, of enacting of Ecclesiastical laws. The third, of conferring or bestowing of Benefices. The fourth, of creating and deposing of Bishops. The fift, is about Excommunication. The sixth and last, is about the decision and determining of Controversies. The question than is, whether these offices belong to the King's Primacy? I will speak a word of each in order. 2. First, it may be demanded, whether the King by virtue of his Primacy, may of his own authority, call or assemble together Synods, & therein sit as chief & head? This was certainly persuaded that it might be done, in the time of King Henry, K. Edward, and Queen Elizabeth: but now under King james, the matter is called into question. M. Salclebridge pag. 121. affirmeth, that be can dot it, in these words: Christiani Principes in Regnis suis cum laud, propria auctoritate Synodos convocarunt, Constitutiones condiderunt, causas audierunt & cognoverunt. Christian Princes have with great praise assembled Synods by their own authority, in their Kingdoms, have made Constitutions, heard and examined causes etc. And again, pag. 146. Rex Angliae potest Synodos indicere omnium Ordinum Oecumenicas, et in ijsdem praesidere. The King of England, saith he, may assemble General councils of all Orders or degrees, and therein sit as Precedent or Chief, etc. And pag. 155. he saith in like manner, Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate, deiure, Synodos convocarunt. The Kings of England, have by their own supreme authority, and by right, assembled Synods, etc. 3. Now Ma, Tooker in this point is very variable: one while contradicting himself, another while others. And this is manifest out of the diverse testimonies he produceth. The first is pag. 37. where he hath these words: A quibus magis aequum est indici Concilia, quàmabillis, penes quos semper fuit authoritas ea congregandi? Cùm autem communiter triplex ponisoleat Concilium, Generale, Provinclale & Dioecesanun; Concilium Generale solius Papae jussu celebrari vultis, sed nequeillud nisi ab Imperatoribus & Regibus simul consentientibus hody indici debet. Provinciale à Metropolitano cum suis Suffraganein. Dioecesanum ab Episcopo cum Curatis, Rectoribus, & Clericia Dioeceseos, etc. By whom is it more fit that councils should be assembled, then by those in whose power hath always authority been to call them together? For whereas commonly there be three sorts of councils, General, Provincial, and of a particular Diocese: the General Council, you will have to be celebrated only by commandment of the Pope; but yet not so neither now adays, unless Emperors and Kings do agree thereunto also. A Provincial Council is to be assembled by the Metropolitan and his Suffragans: that of the Diocese by the Bishop thereof, together with the Curates, Rectors, and Clerks of the same Bishopric, etc. Out of which testimony was may gather, that the King of England cannot assemble a Council of kiss own authority. Not a General, because that belongeth to the common consent of Kings and Emperors. Not a Provincial, because that pertaineth to the Metropolitan. Not of the Diccesse, because that belongeth to the Bishopot thereof. What then, I pray you, is left unto the King? 4. Another testimony hereof is out of the same Ma. Tooker, pag. 41. in these words: Abundè liquetex Concilijs ipsis, & historia Ecclesiastica, Provincialia Concilia & Nationalia ab Imperatoribus ac Regibus fuisse congregata. It is abundantly manifest out of the councils themselves, and the Ecclesiastical Histories, that Provincial and Nationall councils have been assembled by Emperors and Kings, etc. This now is plainly repugnant to his former testimony. For there he affirmeth, that Provincial councils are to be assembled by the Metropolitans thereof: here be saith, that they must be assembled by Kings and Emperors. There, is distinguished only a threefold Council, to weet, General, Provincial, and that of the, Diocese: here now, is added a fourth, to weet, Nationall. 5. His third testimony is set downs pag. 42. where he proposeth this question: Quoigitur iure tantam sibi porestatem arrogat Pontifex solus? Num divino? By what nigh then, I pray you, doth the Popechallenge unto himself alone so great power? Doth he do it by divine right? etc. And a little after he addeth: Erat Apostolorum omnium, non unius tantummodo, & indicere Concilium, & statuere cum verborum solennitate; Visumest Spiritui sancto & Nobis, etc. It belonged to all the Apostles, not to one alone, to assemble a Council, and with solemnity of words to ordain; It seems good unto the Holy Ghost, and us, etc. As if he would say; That as by divine right, not S. Peter alone, but all the Apostles together with equal power did assemble the first Council at jerusalem, and therein decreed that law, about eating of blood and strangled meats: so in like manner, by divine right, not the Pope alone, but all Bishops, with equal power, must assemble councils, and decree Ecclesiastical laws. Surely, if it be so, then without doubt it follows, that the power to call or assemble councils, doth not belong by the law of God, to secular Kings and Princes, but to the Apostles, and their successors, etc. 6. His fourth testimony is pag. 63. where he saith: Mixtum autem ius, & resultans ex utroque, & iure Regio & Episcopali, est Legum sanctio & Synodorum indictio, & praesidendi in ijs praerogativa, & controversiatum decisio, aliorumque actuum, qui his finitimi sunt exercitium: quae ferè ab origine Primatus Regij descendunt, & communicantur Sacerdotibus, etc. The decreeing or enacting of laws, the assembling of Synods, and Prerogative of sitting therein as chief or head, as also the exercise of all other offices in this kind, is a certain mixed Right, proceeding from both Kingly and Episcopal power: which things do in a manner come down, or descend from the origen of the King's Primacy, and are communicated or imparted unto Priests, etc. This now again, as you see, is contrary to that which he said next before. For there be will needs have the assembly of Synods or councils to belong by divine right to the Apostles: beer, for sooth, he will have the same chiefly to belong to Kings, and from them to be derived unto Bishops. These things do not agree one with another. English Concord. HItherto, the contention hath been Grammatical about words and names: 1. Whether that supreme government of the King in the Church of England, which all our Writers do profess, aught to be called Primatus, or Suprematus; Primacy, or Supremacy? 2. Whether he that holdeth that supreme government in the Church, of that his Primacy may be called Primate of the Church, or Head of the Church, or the only Supreme Governor of the Church? 3. Whether that Supreme government, or jurisdiction, which is in all Ecclesiastical matters, and above all Ecclesiastical persons, aught to be called the Supreme government of the Church, or the Supreme jurisdiction Ecclesiastical? These foolish and unlearned questions, 2. Tim. 2.23. Saint Paul forbiddeth, unworthy of Divines: but, as it should seem, not of a jesuit. Let Becane tell me ingenuously, whether these six offices only appertain to the Papal Primacy? Or whether there be not sixty times six which may be called into question? Let him tell me, whether these offices do properly pertain to the Primacy of Peter, and so to the Bishop of Rome? Let him show me, 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 ever Peter did exercise such offices as primates of the Church: That is to say, let him manifest out of the Scriptures, what Council Peter summoned as Primate of the Church; what Ecclesiastical laws he made; what benefices he collated; what Bishops he created, or deposed; of what controversies he was supreme judge. These things if the jesuite cannot show, he is a prattler and no disputer: for all, yea the meanest of Bishops in the kingdom do excommunicate; are therefore all those Bishops, Primates and Supreme governors in the universal Church throughout the whole kingdom? our question is of one only Supreme governor of the whole Church in the kingdom. Make exception but of Excommunication alone, and Hainricus by many express authentic writings, hath demonstrated, that Christian Princes have with singular commendation, 1. Called councils. 2. Made Ecclesiastical laws. 3. Conferred benefices, although this seemeth too gross and greasy, whereof to make a part of Primacy. 4. Created, and deposed Bishops. 5. Taken up and ended controversies. But so granted, that no mortal man can be judge of all controversies, especially of faith. That Christian Princes of their own authority, and with commendation have summoned councils; both Hainric and Dr. Tooker do expressly write in plain words. Neither is Dr. Tooker in this point either against himself, or against Hainric. When that first council was assembled at jerusalem, whether did reign Christian, or Pagan Princes? how idle is this? when the question is only about Christian Princes. what; is there no difference here betwixt a jesuite and a Sophister? But if Peter was then the sole Primate of the Church, why did he not alone call that Synod? and why did james sit Precedent in that Council? what mean these words? Visumest nobis, it seemed good unto us: 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, be Supreme judge of all controversies, what mean these words? Visum est spiritui Sancto, It seemed good to the Holy-ghost: and not rather it seemed good to Pope Peter, the Supreme judge of all controversies. This is a great mystery: as if no mortal man but only the Holy-ghost, could be Supreme judge of all controversies in the Church. And why may not provincial councils becalled by the Metrapolitan, Novel. constit. 123. leg. 13. et 133 Franc. and Dioecesan, by the Bishops by virtue of Ecclesiastical laws made by Christian Princes? especially seeing (as Dr. Tooker rightly affirmeth) their indiction primarily appertaineth to the King, and from him may be derived to the Bishops. These things do excellently agree together. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 152 YOu say our English Writers touching the King's Supremacy, differ only in words or names. An ingenuous confession: whence I conclude, his Supremacy to be verbal, and titular only, and not real. 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 asleep, or to extinguish, this Nominal jar. Dr. HARRIS. Reply. I Say, as I have abundantly proved in this Reply, and in my English Concord, that all our English-Protestant-Writers do with full and uniform consent, agree in the real, , and substantial Supreme Government of the King in all Causes, and over all persons, Ecclesiastical, or Civil within his Dominions, next under Christ. Further, that all the said Writers sully agree in the very name of that Supreme Government, to weet, the English name, Supremacy. Moreover, that all the said Writers, in the sense of this real thing, and of the name of this real thing, call the same Supreme Gonernment, in Latin, Primatum, Primacy: and jurisdictonem Spiritualem vel Ecelesiasticam; Spiritual or Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Again, that all the said Writers, call, and acknowledge the King to be really, Supreme Governor, in all Causes, and over all Persons, Ecclesiastical or Civil within his Dominions, next under Christ And in this sense, all the said Writers call the King, Supreme Primate and Head of this Church, as hath been showed expressly out of their own writings. Whereby appears, that in very truth, here is no English jar among our Protestant Writers, Real, or Nominal. And so, these fig leaves, wherewith Becane endeavoureth to cover the shameful nakedness of the Popish sort, denying to acknowledge the King's Supremacy aforesaid, are removed and taken clean away. But alas for for this silly jesuit, who is confined now, in his English jar, to jar Nominal only, and not Real: and hath no other twig to hang by, but this scattered consequent, viz. The Protestant English Writers express the self same substantial thing, to weet, the King's Supremacy, with variety of names, and phrases. Therefore the thing itself is not real, but nominal. Our Academian schoolboys, would, & deservedly might, hiss this jesuite with his consequent out of the University Schools, as exceeding foolish and childish. Thus rather would the argument proceed; The jars of some Writers, about a thing or matter, are Nominal only, and not Real. Therefore their consent is real, and the thing itself Real. Touching Rochester-Bishop, inculcated by this jesuite; our King in his Apology, pag. 121. according to the public Records, writeth thus: Roffensis in carcerem conject us est, priusquam in judicium 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 Virgin Cantiana ill is temporibus forte inciderat, adeo ut propter ●elatas Pseudoprophetiae illius frauds, reus iudicatus sit Maiestatis, ob non detectam coniurationem. The Bishop of Rochester was imprisoned, and condemned, not only for acknowledging the Pope's Supremacy: but also, for gain saying the lawful succession of the King's 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 Sovereign? Who can deny that it is treason, for any subjects, to deny their Sovereign to be their lawful Prince? But, since every lawful Christian Prince, is Supreme governor of his own subjects in things Spiritual and Temporal, or, which is all one, is Custos utriusque Tabulae, Keeper of both Tables: to deny that of their Sovereign, is to deny him to be their lawful Prince. Assuredly, to acknowledge the Pope's Supremacy here, as now it is defined, and converted from Spiritual to Secular; is to acknowledge the King to hold his kingdom of the Pope in Chief, and that also at his will and pleasure, as it is plain by their Canon law, and Canonists: yea, to hold their lives also, as Tenants of Life, at the Pope's will, by jesuitical doctrine, as before in this Reply, and in Becano-Baculus was expressly showed, and proved demonstrativelie. And what is this else, but apparently to deny the King, and to assert the Pope to be their Sovereign 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 said oath) of his subjects against the Pope usurping his right: 2. King. ca 11. v. 4 as well as jehoiada the high Priest did of the men of juda, for joas their King, against Athalia that usurped his state? Queen Elizabeth, in her Explanation of the Supremacy, caused these words to be printed, and published to all her subjects, viz. That if any her subjects, would accept the oath of Supremacy, with this interpretation, sense, & meaning; viz. That the K. or Q. Majesty of England under God, is to have sovereignty and rule, over all manner of persons, borne within her majesties Realms, Dominions and Countries, of what estate, Ecclesiastical or Temporal, soever they be, so as no foreign Power shall, or aught to have, any superiority over them: her Majesty is well pleased, to accept every such in that behalf, as her good and obedient subjects; and shall acquit 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 under our K. james, & was of force under 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 Traitors for not acknowledging their King's Sovereignty; and for acknowledging the Pope's Sovereignty over their King, in his prerogatives Royal, Crowns, Kingdoms, and life itself. BECAN. Exam. Page 154 YOu ask whether those 6. offices, viz. to call Counsels; make Ecclesiastical laws, confer Benefices, create & depose Bishops, excommunicate the stubborn, & judge controversies Ecclesiastical; did properly belong to Peter's Primacy? or which of whose offices ho exercised as Primate? But this is not to the matter. The Question is here, whether your Writers agree that your king, as supreme Governor, may do those offices? I say they jar therein. Do you help them? Touching the power total Counsels, D. Tooker jars with himself & with Hainric. For Tooker saith that the calling of Counsels doth primarily belong to Kings, and from them is derived to Bishops. And yet he saith: That the Apostles called Counsels by Divine right. Therefore not from Kings right. Therefore by Divine right, the Apostles successors, that is, Bishops, and not Kings, have power to call Counsels. And this is against Hainric and Tooker himself. Dr. HARRIS Reply. OUR gracious King james in his book of Apology etc. vindicated and proved his rightful Supreme Power, or Government in all Causes, and over all Persons Ecclesiastical within his Dominions. Upon that, this jesuite Becane inferred, That then our King had power to call councils: To make Ecclesiastical laws: To create and depose Bishops: To confer benefices: To judge Ecclesiastical controversies; 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 chief Primate, and Head Pope- Peter, did never (as Primate) challenge to himself, or execute any of those offices; and for that neither in Scripture, nor any Ancient Father, is found any of those offices properly to belong to Peter, as Primate, or Head of the Church. The jesuits forces being too weak to grapple with Hainric therein; Hainric took up Becane his own description. And thence irrefragably concluded, our King to be Primate and Head, that is, Supreme Governor of this Church. Which is all one, as if he had taken from Becane his own cudgel, and beaten him sound black and blue therewith, as became Becano-Baculus to do. Yet Christian Reader, consider what just cause Hainric had, and I have here, to urge the jesuite, to show, especially in this particular, what general Council cell Peter did call, as Primate; or what Scripture or Ancient Father did attribute to Peter, as Primate, any power to call general councils. All the jesuits in the world, with all the learning and reading they have, can not show 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 have, out of the Scriptures, and Ecclesiastical Histories demonstrated, that the most religious; both, Kings under the Law, and Emperors under the Gospel, have called general Counsels, for which they are, generally, greatly, and worthily commended. The jesuite knowing this to be most true, and not able to answer it, runs 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 Pope's liver, as no jesuitical Dictamne can draw it forth. In this one point of Regal Supremacy, the jesuite can not produce any two of our Writers, who do not fully agree. As for Hainric and Dr. Tooker, they both writ uniformally, that it belongeth to orthodoxal Kings and Emperors, when any such are, to call councils. Here therefore the jesuite, being at a nonplus, and brought to his shifts, feigneth a jar between Dr. Tooker and himself. Well, then belike when Bellarmine in his writings differeth from himself, that is, at least an hundred times, those discords must be styled, Popish jars: but how doth Becane prove that Dr. Tooker is in this point against himself? Forsooth because he faith, that the Apostles (viz. when there was no Christian Emperor) by divine right, called a Council. Then the argument runneth thus: All the Apostles jointly in time of Persecution, lawfully called one Council only, of some few persons within one City. Therefore, in time of Peace, not Christian Emperors, but only, and all, Bishops in the Christian world, jointly must call all general councils, throughout the whole Christian world. What cable, strong enough, and long enough, can the jesuit get, from all the jesuitical crew, so to tie these together, that the consequence may hold for good? For here is a manifold Non sequitur; 1. From one particular act of Apostles, to a general rule of all Bishops. 2. From times of Persecution, to times of Peace. 3. From times when there were no Christian Emperors to call councils, unto times when there were some to call, and indeed did call, all & every one of the most renowned general and orthodoxal councils, to weet, the first six of them. Becane dare not say, that the 4. first general councils (which Pope Gregory the great esteemed as the 4. Evangelists) were unlawfully, or against divine right, indicted or called; yet were they all called by Emperors, and not by Popes. viz. The first Nicen Council, by Constantine the great: The first Council of Constantinople, by Theodosius the first: The first Council of Ephesus, by the Emperor Theodosius the second: The first Council of Chalcedon, by the Emperor Martian. Unto which councils, the Emperors by their Letters, called as well the Popes of Rome, as other Patriarches. If Pope Leo the first, had known any such divine right, of calling general councils to be in him, and not in the Emperor, he would neever have stooped so basely, as suppliant upon his knees, to entreat the Emperor, and the Empress, by himself, and by others, to call a general Council: for what else had this been, but treacherously to request the Emperor to bereave him of his Divine right (as Becane here calls it) and by usurped power, to be practised by the call of general councils, to extinguish that Divine right, & Popish Primacy. That is, to extinguish their Catholic faith. For now the Papal Supremacy, is the very capital and main point, of their Catholic faith. To shut up this chapter, & question: Becane sitting upon his Cathedral Tripos, should here determine these two Questions following. First, whether Bishops only, or Archbishops only, or only patriarchs (for these may not be confounded as one and the same) be the Apostles successors? Or whether Patriarches be successors of some of the Apostles; and Archbishops of othersome: and Bishops successors of the lowest, or third rank? And whether one kind only of these successors, or all three kinds, may call general councils? Secondly, whether all the Bishops in the Christian world, as the Apostles successors, must jointly, as all the Apostles did, call general councils? or (because that would now prove tootoo troublesome) how many of them may serve that turn? ❧ Becans jar. VII. Question. Whether the King can enact Ecclesiastical laws, or no? 1. It is clear, that K. Henry the 8. did, as well by himself, as by his Vicar General (Cromwell) enact Ecclesiastical Laws. For so saith Doctor Sanders, in his book of the Schism of England: His diebus vigilantissimus hic Ecclesiae Pastor Henricus quo in posterum sciretur, quae cui rite nupta e●●et, legem ediderat perpetuam de Nupt. is, Comitiorum etiam auctoritate confirmatam, qua statuebatur, ut si quae personae in Levitico 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 Levitico non prohibita contractis, carnali copula easdom consummaverint, hae posteriores quas firmasset copula, non priores illae, quas solus consensus statuisset, ratae atque legitimae haberentur: adco, ut cùm olim juris 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 uxorem Annam Clivensem, cuius nuptias, non solo consensu, sed septem etiam mensium concubitu firmaverat, eo solùm praetextu reiecit, ipsaque vivente aliam superinduxit, quòd alteri, nescio cui, consensum antea praebuisse fingeretur. Huius ergo legis tantopere postea puduit ipsos Potestantes, ut mortuo Henrico, eam ipsi revocaucrint, atque irritam fecerint, etc. In these days, the most vigilant Pastor of the Church, K. Henry, that it might be known to posterity, what woman were lawfully married to another, enacted aperpetuall law concerning Marriage, authorizing the same by public Decree of Parliament: wherein it was ordained, that if any persons, not prohibited in the Levitical law, should contract martage by only consent, and by words de praesenti, no carnaell copulation following the same; and that the said persons, or either of them should after ward contract with another person not prohibited in the Levitical law, and consummate the same by carnal copulation; that then these later contracts, which were consummated by carnal copulation, not the former, that were agreed upon by only consent, should be accounted for good and lawful. In so much, that whereas the rule of the law of Nations in old time was, That consent, not carnal copulation did make the marriage lawful; now here after by the law of K. Henry, it began to be arule, That carnal copulation, not consent did make marriage lawful. And yet for all this, the lawmaker himsolfe K. Henry, did, against his own proper rule and law, reject Anne of Cleeve his wife, whose marriage was not only contracted by consent adone, but consummated also by seven months carnal copulation, upon this only pretence, that she had gives her consent to another before. I know not whom; and upon this fiction he married another, she yet remaining alive. And of this law afterward the Protestants themselves were so much ashamed, that after K. Henry's death, they recalled, and disannulled the same. 2. Concerning his Vicar general (Cromwell) thus writcth also the said Doctor Sanders in the same book. Septembri mense, authoritatesua Vicaria, Canon's quosdam Ecclesiasticos quos Iniunctiones vocabat, sigillo Vicariatus sui munitos Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Abbatibus & reliquo Clero praescripsit; in quibus praeter caetera, iubebantur Parochi sub gravissimis poenis, ut Orationem Dominican cum salutatione Angelica, Symbolum item fidei, & decem Decalogi praecepta, aliaque huiusmodi, Anglicè in posterum in Ecclesijs docerent. In the month of Septemb. K. Henry's Vicar General, by the authority of his Office, prescribedcertain: Ecclesiastical Canons, which he called Injunctions, signed with the seal of his Office of Vicar General, to the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and the rest of the Clergy: where in among other things, the Pastors of Churches were commaund●d, under most setere punishment hereafter to readin their Churches, the Lords prayer, the ave Mary, the Creed, & ten Commandments in English, etc. 3. Now, our English Adversaries, that wite in these dates of the King's Supremacy, doc not agree in this point. For that some of them say, that the enacting or decreeing of Ecclesiastical laws, doth by divine Right belong unto Bishops; others say, that it belongeth to Kings and Emperors. The first apinion holdeth Master Tooker. pag. 42. of his book, where be saith, that the Apostles, in the first Council at jerusalem did enact this Ecclesiastical law: Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis, nihil ultra imponere vobis oneris nisi haec necessaria: ut abstineatis vos ab immolatis simulachrorum, & sanguine, & sussocato. It hath seemed good unto the holy Ghost, and to us, to lay no further burden upon you, than these necessary things: that you abstain from the things immolated to Idols, and from blood, and that which is strangled, etc. And this, saith he, the Apopostles did by divineright. The other opinion holdeth Ma●ster Thomson, pag. 80. where he affirmeth, that Bishops, and councils cannot enact or decree any Ecclesiastical law, which hath the force of la, unless Kings and emperors consent thereunto. His words are these: Decreta Conciliorum & Patrum, Ecclesiasticis Censuris, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantùm stetliIent, nisi legum vim Caesarea auraipsis afflasser. The Decrees of the councils & of the Fathers, had been held but only for ecclesiastical censures, and penalties, unless the emperors favour had imparted the force of laws unto the said Decrees, etc. 4. Hear now the jar is evident. For without doubt, that ecclesiastical law, which the Apostles decreed, had the force of a law: for that so much is gathered out of these words; Visum est, nihil ultra imponere vobis oneris, nisi haec necessaria. It hath seemed good, to lay no further burden upon you, than these necessary things, etc. But this Ecclesiastical law had not it force from any favour of the Emperor, seeing that neither Tiberius, nor Pilate, nor Herod, nor any other secular Prince, which than lived did by his favour, authorise the force of the law; but that it came from the Apostles themselves. For that they, by their Apostolical authority and power, which they had received from Christ, did decree, and promulgate that la. And the same power and authority have Bishops now adays, not Kings, nor Emperors. English Concord. Pag. 48. DIstinguish but the times (as St. Augustine teacheth you) namely, the times of the Church's peace, wherein reigned Christian Princes; and the times of persecution, wherein Pagan Kings had the Sovereignty) and you shall rightly understand the Scriptures. Of the peaceable times of the Church so writeth Dr. Tooker, pag. 42. It belonged to King David, Solomon, jehoshophat, and josias, to give laws to the Levites, and to the whole congregation of Israel. And in the same place he writeth again of the times of persecution: Erat Apostolorum omnium, etc. It was not one, but all the Apostles, which both called the Council, and decreed with like solemnity of these words Visumest Spiritui sancto, et nobis. It seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to us. Ma. Thomson (speaking of this matter) doth not deny that the lame Apostolical law had any force, without the favour of Caesar, as though there had never been law in the Church, without the aforesaid approbation of the Emperor; but only, that without it, they had no force under pain of corporal punishment: as is most plain by the tenor of his words. So that here is no jar or dissension among the English Writers, as he affirmeth; but only a dreaming dorage of the jesuit, who childishly sporteth himself, with a fallacy of Equinocation; especially, when he endeavoureth to match in equal rank, the laws and Canons of Bishops, with the lacred decrees and Constitutions of the Apostles. Well wrote Saint Augustine: D●N●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 refusal. And in another place; Iread other Writers, Epist. 19 ad Hiero. Dist. 9 Ego●oht. how much soever they excel in holiness or learning; so, as I do not therefore think it truth, because they thought so; but because they persuade me by other canonical 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 judicandi, not as bound to believe them, but as free to judge them. And unto this purpose he writeth in another place: Neither will I object the Council of Nice unto thee, Count Maxinn. l. 5. c. 14. neither must thou object the Council of Ariminum unto me: let matter with matter, and reason dispute with reason, out of the authorities of holy Scriptures. The jesuit, I hope, will not deny, that all the Apostolical Sanctions were given by Divine Inspitation: and dareth he affirm so much of all Ecclesiastical Canons of Bishops, yea though the Pope's Holiness have breathed upon them? yea, of the Council of Trent? Against which, the Ambassadors of the French King, Anno 1562 who was there present, protested in this manner: Minus legitima, minusque libera, etc. All those councils were ever accounted less free, and therefore not so lawful, when they, who were assembled (not led by the holy Ghost) spoke after the pleasure of some other, to weet, the Pope. And the University of Paris, Anno 1517. in their appeal against Pope Leo the tenth, and his Council assembled at Rome, wrote in this sort: Leo Papa dicimus in quodam coetu, etc. Leo the tenth, in a certain Assembly, in the City of Rome, we know not how gathered together, yet we are sure not in the holy Ghost. And is Becane the jesuit ignorant, in what pleasant manner Cardinal Cusan brake this jest upon Eugenius the Pope? saying: De còcord. lib. 2. ca 20. How can Pope Eugenius affirm this thing to be true, because he will have it so, and for no other cause? Ac si inspiratio ipsius Sancti spiritus, etc. As if the mind of the holy Ghost, were in the power of the Bishop of Rome; and must then inspire, when the Pope will have him inspire. To conclude this Question, I desire the jesuit Becane, in the behalf of Ma. Thomson, to yield a sound reason, wherefore the Bishops, in the first Council of Constantinople, did in this humble manner entreat Theodosius the Emperor: Rogamus clementiam, etc. We beseech your clemency, that by the letters Patents of your Piety, you would confirm, and cause to be ratified, the decree of this Council. BECAN. Exam. Page 162 THe Apostles by divine right might make laws. Which right cannot be proved to have been transtated from them to Kings or Emperors, but to Bishops, successors of the Apostles, with whom, as with the Apostles, the Spirit of truth remaineth for ever. Therefore the Bishops and their Laws or Canons (even in England) are no less divinely inspired, than the Apostles, or their Laws or Canons Apostolical. Which if you deny, the Archbishop of Cauterbury, or certainly the Bishop of Ely, will cause you to be punished therefore. You are abashed to speak any thing of King Henry 8. his law, touching the lawful marriages in degrees not prohthited, which carnal knowledge followed. Dr. HARRIS Reply. WHat modest Hearer will not be abashed, and what Christian heart will not tremble, to hear these blasphemies uttered by the jesuite? The Apostles were Gods chosen penmen to write the Scripture, as they were immediately moved by the Spirit of God, 2. Pet. 2.19 21 without possibility of error. They were Gods immediate instruments, either jointly in Council, or singularly alone, to set down Laws and Canons, Essential parts of that Scripture, whereof we read thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. Tim. 3.16 1. cor. 15.15 The whole Scripture is glven by inspiration of God. The Apostles were such chosen witnesses to testify God's truth, Gal. 3.8 that if an Angel from heaven should testify otherwise than they did, he must be accursed. Are all Bishops, or any one, two, three etc. Gods immediate penman to write portions of holy Canonical Scripture? Are all the Laws and Canons made by Bishops in all councils, essential parts of Canonical Scripture, given by inspiration of God? Are all Bishop's God immediate chosen witnesses to testify the truth, so without all possibility of falsehood, that the Church's faith should depend thereon so sure, that if an Angel of heaven testify other wise, than they have preached or written, he should be accursed? Then must writings, testimonies, and laws heretical, go for Scripture Canonical; and so Divine Scripture must be heretical. Is not this blasphemy? And this necessarily followeth from the jesuite his premises here, to weet, That all Bishops, and the laws and Canons in councils, and other writings made by Bishops, are and were inspired by the spirit of truth without error, as the Apostles, and their Canons and writings were. Ten seucrall provincial Synods gave consent with the Arian Heretics. And whereas in the first and most famous general Council of Nice which maintained or thodoxally Christ his Godhead, there were but three hundred and eighteen Bishops; In the heretical Council of Ariminum, which stood for Arius against the Godhead of Christ, there were eight hundred Bishops. Which made Augustine, contra Maximinum lib. 3. cap. 14. writ thus: Not ego Nicenam Synodum tibi, nec tu mihi Ariminensem, etc. Neither may I, by way of prejudice, object the Council of Nice to thee; nor you to me, the Council of Ariminum: out of the authorities of Scripture, let matter with matter, cause with cause, and reason encounter with reason. The spirit of truth had so forsaken, and the lying spirit of heresic had so possessed in a manner all the Bishops in the Christian world; that, as Hierom against the Luciferans saith, Ingemuit totus orbis, et Arianum se esse miratus est. The whole Christian world groaned, and marveled that it was become Arian, or holding with that arch-heretic Arian. If any councils; surely the former, and general with their Canons, were of Divine inspiration. But saith Augustine against the Donatists, lib. 2. ca 3. Ipsa plenaria Concilia saepe priora a posterioribus emendantur. The former, and general councils, are often times corrected by later and provincial. If the Acts and laws of Popes be of Divine inspiration: why do later Popes dissannul the former Pope's Decrees? For so writeth Platina de Stephano, et Romano; Acta priorum Pontificum, sequentes Pontifices aut infringunt, aut omnino tollunt. The later Popes utterlierepeale their predecessors Decrees. For further answer to the jesuite here, first I say that the aforesaid immediate Divine inspiration, was personal and proper to the Apostles, and not transitive or derivative, from the Apostles to Bishops; as in my English Concord by four several testimonies, out of Augustine the most learned Bishop that ever wrote, I proved directly and expressly: whereunto this empty prattling jesuite answereth not one word. To stop his mouth ever hereafter touching this point, I will add this fift out of his hundred & eleventh Epistle ad Fortunatianum:: Nequequorumnuis disputationes quantumu is Catholicorum et landatorum hominum, velut Scripture as Canonicas habere debemus, etc. We ought not to receive the disputations of any, be they never so Catholic, or praiseworthy, as we do the Canonical scriptures, so that it should not be lawful for us, saving the reverence to them due, to reprove, or reject somewhat in their writings, if we find it dissonant from truth. Secondly I say, that those words of our saviour, joh. 14. v. 16. The Spirit of truth shall remain with you for ever; are meant as well of Pastors and Teachers, as of Bishops: for Christ when he ascended gave not only Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists and Bishops; but also Pastors and Doctors for the work of the ministery, Ephes. 4. v. 11. c1 14 and the edifisation of his body: that his Church should not be carried about, with every wind of doctrine and deceits of men. So that Presbyter preaching Pastors and Doctors, as well as preaching Bishops, stand in need of the Spirit to guide them into the heavenly truth. That in Math. 28.20. I am with you to the end of the world: is meant of the Church, and every member of the Church. For so elsewhere saith our Saviour: 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 upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not departed 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 even for ever. 2. Epist. 2. v. 27. And so saith john: 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 uni privato fideli, quam toti Concilio et Papae, si meliorem habeat authoritatem vel rationem. There is more credit to be given to one Private lay man, then to the whole Council and to the Pope, if he bring better authority, and more reason. Concerning that law of King Henry 8. about validity of marriages not forbidden in the Levitical law, the jesuit may be abashed to misspend the time with such fooleries; considering that Becane partly hath it but by relation of Sanders, a lying Writer, & malicious adversary to this State: but especially because he confesseth the said law to be abrogated. Belike, jesuitical 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 changeth not, it was lawful for King Henry the 8. to marry his own Brother Arthur's wife, Queen Mary's mother, & that after Arthur was solemnly married unto her, and had known her carnally? contrary to the a Levit. 18 v. 16. et 20 v. 21 Law and the Gospel b Matth. 14 v. 4 , and contrary to the judgement of all the famous Universities in Christendom, who condemned the same as an incestuous marriage. Did King Henry the 8. ever decree, that marriages incestuous should hold as lawful? Further, before this jesuite be hence dismissed, he should answer directly, breviter 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 down to his heels, stands ready to receive that correction, which, according to his demerits, the Emperor should be pleased to impose upon him. last; I am in great fear, lest the Pope [understanding that Becane matcheth every Bishop with his holiness, as being alike inspired with the spirit of Truth, so that they can err no more than the Pope can, and consequently, should make Canonical laws & be Supreme judges of all controversies, as the Pope is] will utterly renounce Becane, and abandon him, as being one, of a bastard and degenerate brood. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 167 You say it is fond to think that the laws of Bishops have as great force & authority, as the Apostles laws bad. Because the Apostles laws are set down in holy writ. So was the Ordinance of Assuerus. Hear me speak as the thing is: human laws (such as the Apostles were) receive not greater force to bind because they are written in this or that book: but because the law maker useth greater power, & will have it bind 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 laws be written, or not written. Dr. HARRIS Reply. MY reason to prove the Apostles laws and Canons to be of greater force and authority to bind the conscience, was not simply because they are found written in the Scripture, as the Ordinance of Assuerus is: but because they are set down there, not only as Canons or Doctrines allowed, but also as Essential parts of holy writ and Canonical Scripture: so neither Assuerus Ordinance was, not any Law or Canon of Bishop, was, is, or ever shall be. According to that of Saint Hierom upon the 89. Psalm: Quamuis sanctus sit aliquis post Apostolos, quamuis disertus sit, non habet authoritatem. No man be he never so holy or eloquent, after the Apostles, hath any authority. The Canons and Doctrines of the Apostles, are the foundations whereupon the Church of Christ is built, Ephes. 2.20 and contain that absolute certainty of Divine truth, that If an Angel from heaven should teach otherwise he should be accursed. Agreeable to that of Saint Augustine, Contra litter. Petilian. lib. 3. ca 6. De quacunque re quae pertinet ad sidem vitamque nostram, non dicam, si nos, sed si Angelus de coelo nobis annunciaverit, praeterquam; quod in Scriptures legalibus et evangelicis accepist is Anathema sit. Be it of any thing that pertains to faith or manners, I do not say, if we, but if an Angel from heaven, preach otherwise, then is set down in the scriptures Legal & evangelical, let him be accursed. But of all other Laws, Canons, and Writings, Origen in his first Homily upon Hieremy writeth thus: Sensus nostri, et enarrationes sine his testibus non habent fidem. Our judgements or decrees, and our Explanations, without these witnesses have no credit. And these witnesses saith Augustine De Pec. mer. et Remiss. lib. I. cap. 22. nec falli possunt, nec fallere, Can neither deceive, nor be deceived. Therefore when Constantine the great had gathered those 318. Bishops to the famous Council of Nice; by way of instruction, he gave unto them the Apostles Canons and Doctrines, set down in the Scripture, as their Directory rule, whereby to make and square their Ecclesiastical Canons. Theodoret lib. 1. cap. 7. reports the words thus: evangelicae et Apostolicae literae etc. The writings of the Evangelists, Apostles, and Prophets do plainly instruct us, in the will and mind of God. Therefore laying aside contention, let us seek out of those oracles divinely inspired, the unsolding of things propounded. Therefore what horrible blasphemy is this in the jesuit, to assert first, that the Bishops & their laws and writings, are of like inspiration, and authority to bind 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 God's book or no. Because Aristotle said of all laws: Scriptaene sint leges, an non scriptae, interessenibil videtur. Whereas Tertullian saith against that Heretic Hermogenes; Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina. Sinonest scriptum, timeat vae illud adijcientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum. Let Hermogenes show it written, or else let him fear that curse which is appointed for those who add 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 Heretics. Secondly, That the Apostles Canons & Doctrines set down in Scripture, are but human Canons and Doctrines. Which, than saith Augustine, de unitat. Eccl. contr. Petilian, cap. 3. were to be taken away. His words be these: Auferantur de medio, quae adversus nos invicem, non ex divinis Canonicis libris, sed aliunde recitamus. Quaeret fortasse aliquis, cur vis ista auferri de medio? Quia nolo humanis documentis, sed divinis oraculis, Ecclesiam sanctam demonstrari. Away with all those authorities that either of us allege against the other, but those that are taken out of Canonical Scripture: If any ask, why I would have all other authorities put away? I answer, because I would have the Church demonstrated by Divine Oracles, not human documents. Plus aliquid dicam, saith Chrysostome in his second Homily, upon Paul's second Epistle to Timothy: Ne Paulo quidem obedire oportet, si quid dixerit proprium, si quid Humanum. I will say more: Paul himself is not to be believed, If he speak any thing of his own, if he speak only as a man. Therefore Saint Paul of his Canons and Writings saith thus: If any man think himself to be a Prophet or Spiritual, 1. Cor. 14.37. let him acknowledge that the things which I writ to you, are the Commandments of the Lord. How great is this jesuitical impiety and how abominable, too call Diume Oracles, and Gods commandments, human documents? But this is not all; The jesuit addeth out of Ulpian, for a general rule: That thesole will of the Prince, is sussicient to make a law to be of force, to bind Christians to obey for conscience sake (for of such laws only we here dispute). Whence this impiety should necessarily follow, that, because Nabuchodonosor the Lawmaker used all his Monarchical power and authority to make a decree, That every subject of his should fall down and worship the golden Image which he had set up, Sidrach, Mishak, and Abednego, were bound in conscience to fall down and worship it. Heretofore we have found the jesuit to be very unlearned: but in this passage he declares himself to be impious also, and blasphemous. BECAN. Exam. Page 169 WHere read you that the fift Council of Constantinople was celebrated under Theodosius? You always err. Indecde the words you cite, are in the first Council of Constanunople. viz: We pray your Clemency to confirm the councils decree The reason of which words, you said was this: That altthough those Fathers made a decree, which had force of an Ecclesiastical law, and force to compel by Ecclesiastical censure; yet they prased the Emperor to confirm the decree, by adding a constraining force through temporal punishments. If this your reason whereby you defended Thomson, be good, why do you ask me another? If if be not good, why did you not answer for him better? If Thomson mean, that Prelates may by their own authority, make laws Ecclesiastical, to bind their subjects to the keeping thereof by ●●●sures Ecclesiastical, but cannot urge them, by punishments Corporal; and that Kings should only subseruire serve under the Prelates as their outward executors, (hangmen, or the like): he consenteth with us. Otherwise there is no Concord. Choose which you will. Dr. HARRIS Reply. COncord? What concord hath Christ with Belial? The believing Protestant, with the Idolatrous Papist? The servants of Christ, with the sworn slaves of Antichrist? Wicked Nahash the Ammonite, would not covenant with the Gileadites for peace, unless he might thrust out all their right eyes, and bring shame upon all Israel: The jesuit here (more wicked than Nahash) protesteth, that he will have no concord with us, unless he may, not only bring shame upon Israel, but quench the light and glory of Israel: to weet, that our Kings casting their Crowns at the Popes, nay at inferior Bishops, feet; should stand ready to be hangmen, or the like executioners of all their impious and unrighteous decrees & commands: viz to hang, and burn, whom, when, and where they will. Choose which we will? We will choose millions of Combats with garments tumbled in blood, rather than to yield to the least jot of this shame and disgrace of our royal monarchs, the Sovereign Lords of all Prelates within their Kingdoms; patriarchs, or Popes themselves. Although no lines of concord can be drawn between us and the Papists: yet here among our s●lues is full consent. Dr. Tooker saith, in times of Church's persecution, the Apostles did, and well might, make laws Ecclesiastical. Mr. Thomson granteth as much, and addeth, that because the authority of Emperors (than heathen) did not breath upon them, or with them, they wanted the enforcements by corporal punishments, as imprisonments, loss of goods, members, life etc. Dr. Tooker saith, in times of Church peace, the authority of calling Counsels, and of ratifying the Canons and Decrees made in Counsels, belongeth to Christian Kings and Emperors. Mr. Thomson with full agreement, saith, in those times of peace, the Bishops and Counsels could not make any Ecclesiastical law, which had force of law, without the authority of the King or Emperor. To back this assertion of Mr. Thomson, I moved the jesuite to yield a sound reason, why [especially if that be true which Pope Boniface 8. in that last Canon, Extrau●g. Commun. de M●●or. et Obedien. unam 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 spiritual and material sword, are in the Church's power: but th'one is to be used by the hand of the Priest; th'other, by the hand of the King or Soldier, but at the Priest's beck or command.] so many, to wee●, 150. Bishops assembled in the first Council of Constantinople, should be such suppliants, as it were upon their knees, unto the Emperor, beseeching, & so earnestly entreating him, to confirm the councils decree, if that decree had had force of Ecclesiastical decree, without confirmation of the Emperor. But this empty jesuit not being able to give another reason, and not daring to yield that: runs away from the matter; and leaveth nought else behind him, but the crackling sound of a windy tub; answering unto me nothing but this: If your reason brought to defend Thomson were good, why did you ask me another? If not, why did you not give me a better? which his answer made in form of the two horned Dilemma, is thus returned upon him, with both horns directly bend against him. If my reason were good to accord them; why doth the jesuit here hold on his prattle of discord? if it were not good, why did not the jesuit produce a better, and a more reason of those Father's entreaty for Imperial confirmation, to ratify their decree? considering that the Question, as it was moved and darted by me, struck the jesuits Cause through the very heart. As some cannot fish but in troubled waters; so it seemeth this jesuit can hold no argument, but in mists of confusion. For here he confounds the Council and laws of the Apostles, with Counsels and Canons of after-Bishops. Sic canibus catulos, sic parvis componere magna: It is belike the fashion jesuitical, to compare molehills with mountains. The Apostles in extraordinary manner Divinely inspired, might, and did make Ecclesiastical laws to bind 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 general councils, to make laws Ecclesiastical, for the space of 600. years, at least, after Christ, without Imperial command. And when they were met in Council, not only the Emperor, but also his officers, the lay Senate and judges, sat as Precedents there, giving-rule and order for making of those Canons, not suffering any to pass for law, without their consent, and confirmation of the Emperor, as Hainric the Salo-Brigian in his Becano-Baculus, hath with great variety of proofs, fully demonstrated; and further hath there produced very many Ecclesiastical laws, touching in a manner all Ecclesiastical matters, and Ecclesiastical persons, commendably made by orthodoxal Kings and Emperors, without councils of Bishops. Lastly, whereas the jesuite here slayeth, upon me, (indeed not upon me, but upon the Compositer) for mistaking the Arithmetical figure of 5. for 1. and as though I had written five at large, the jesuit sets down (quintum); he showeth himself to be, in the one a truthless wrangler, and in the other, a silly fly-catcher. My Compositer, or Transcriber, must be whipped in print, mistaking one letter for another: but he must go scotfree, mistaking one name for another; one man for another, to weet, Tooker for Richard. Exam. page 120. For which I would not tax 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 jar. VIII. Question. Whether the King by his own proper authority, may confer, collate, or bestow Ecclesiastical benefices? 1. THat the King may confer Ecclesiasticell livings, M. Henry Salclebridge affirmeth pag. 121. in these words: Christiani Principes in suis Regnis, cum laud, propria authoritate, beneficia con●ulerunt. Christian Princes in their own Kingdoms, by their own proper authority, have given or bestowed benefices, and that to their praise, etc. And then again pag. 150. Audin jesuita, non modo collationes beneficiorum ad Angliae Reges spectare, fed ad eosdem illos spectare, uti Ecclesiae Anglicanae Primates vel supremos Ordinarios etc. Do you hear jesuite, the collation of benefices, doth not only belong to the Kings of England, but also it doth belong unto them, as they are Primates or supreme Ordinaries of the Church of England etc. And yet more: Rex ratione supremae suae Ecclesiasticae jurisdictionis praesentabit ad liberas Capellas. The King by virtue of his supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, shall be able to present unto free chapels &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 quempiam, maiora minorave: multo minus dignitates Ecclesiasticas, sine Episcopatus, sive Archiepiscopatus per universum ambitum Regnisui. Eorum certè collatio vel institutio est, quorum est destitutio, id est, Episcoporum Comprovincialium, qui potestatem habent personas ipsassacrandi. Hoc habetiuris Regia Maiestas, quod minor & ●ubordinata poteslas habet, ius inquam nominandi & p●aesentandi apud nos etc. King's do not at all collate or bestow upon any man benefices that have care of souls, or not care, greater or lesser; and much less Ecclesiastical dignities, whether Bishop●ickes or Archbishoprickes throughout the whole circuits of their Kingdoms. For this truly belongeth unto those, whose office it is to dispose there of, to wit, to the Compreninciall Bishops, who have power to consecrate the said persons on whom they bestow them, Indeed the King's Majesty notwithstanding hath this right with us in England, which an inferior and subordinate power also hath, to wit, right so nominate and present unto benefices etc. 3. Behotde here a triple jar or discord between these two Authors, and this in a daily and vulges water. 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 jar is, that M. Salclebridge saith, that Kings by their own authority, have conferred benefices. M. Tooker saith, that they never do, nor have done. The third is, that M. Salclebridge saith, that Kings by virtue of their supreme Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction may present 〈◊〉 benefices. M. Tooker ●●●rr●th, that in this point, King's havene more right, than their subjects, and other inferior persons: for so he saith: Hoc habet juris Regia Maiestas, quod minor & subordinata potestas habet. The King's Majesty hath (in this point of conferring beneficer) the same right that an inferior and subordinate power bath etc. Whether of these two then should King james believe, if he had a fat benefice, or an archbishopric now to bestow? English Concord. Here is also a jesuitical trifling altercation about words. Hainric by collation of Benefices understandeth 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 King's Presentation, Nomination, Donation: Hainric, by no means, attributeth to the king either Institution or Consecration as both of them being proper go the Bishops. The King's presenthig of his Clerks to the Bishop, for institution of them into such Benefices with Cure, as respect the King's hereditary right of Patronage, is nor much different from the presentations made by his subjects, who have the like right of Patronage: unless it be herein, viz that the King by his writ, may and doth compel the Bishop (especially after recoucry by Quare Impedie) opposing himself therein, to institute fit Clarks, presented by his Majesty, or by other Patrons to the said Bishop. But the presentation of certain Benefices with Cure, after they have continued void of any Incumbent, for the space of 18: Months appertains unto the King by way of lapse, as unto the Supreme Ordinary, in his Dominions, or the only Supreme Governor of the Church therein; and that by the common laws of England: as is expressly showed, in Becano-Baculus, Page 142. 150. Moreover, there are certain Benefices with Cure, called Donatives, which admit no Institution at all: of these the King by his own Donation only, without any either Episcopal Institution, or archidiaconal Induction, makes the Clerks rightful possessors. Doctor Tooker knoweth well these trivial and vulgar matters (as Becane here calleth them), and bears in mind our most learned Sovereign his words in his Monitory Preface, touching the Collation of Benefices, Page 33. How often have the Kings of France withstood the Pope, in such sort, that they would not yield unto him the very Collation of Benefices? And those other words concerning bishoprics received from Kings and Emperors, Page 29. Even the Pope also, with all obedience and submission, did acknowledge himself to hold his Popedom of the Emperor. And Page 31. He that peaceably is desirous to know, in what sort the Bishops of Spain, Scotland, England, Hungary, by ancient Institution, even until modern innovation, came in, and were invested by Kings, with quiet possession of their temporals purely, and entirely; he shall find the same, by searching the lives of the Fathers, and by reading Histories. Walthram Naumburg. lib. de Inuestit. Episc. Behold then, how a threefold Concord ariseth out of that threefold jar which the jesuit feigneth. 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 Governors of the Church of England: Doctor Tooker affirmeth, that the Collation of Benefices, lying void of any Incumbents above 18. Months, appertaineth to the King only by way of lapse: and not to the Bishops or Archbishops; or to any other subject. The second: Hainric saith, that Kings by their own authority, have oftentimes given Benefices: to weet, Donatives. Tooker averreth that the King may give 40. 50. or more, within the compass of one year, if so many fall void. The third: Hainric saith, that by the laws of England, Kings, because of their Supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, present to free Chapels; and that none of their subjects, to weet, Bishops or Archbishops, have authority to visit the said Chapels: Dr. Tooker, instructed by the same laws, avoucheth that Kings only have that authority, and no subjects, but by the Kings grant. Finally, if the hungry jesuite, (who mindeth only 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 appear that the Collation of Benefices belonged to the Primate of the Christian Church as Primate; let him have the victory: But if he cannot, unless he be more than impudent, let him seal up his lips, and recognise those words of the Parisian Advocate, Arg. 11. Page 25. That of Luk. 9 The Son of man hath not where to rest his head; is Equivalent, with this: The Church by Divine right hath no Territory. BECAN. Exam. Page; 173 SMall Benefices without Cure, may be conferred upon Clerks, which are neither Priests nor Bishops. Therefore Tooker by Collation, doth not mean Institution, or Sacration. Again he saith, that the King of England hath no other right then to name or present; but to give or confer, is more than to name and present: you feign Tooker by Collation to under stand Instuntion or Consecration. Therefore you descent 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 me show 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 show that. It is my part only to show that English Writers descent in this point. This I have done, let me therefore have the victory. Dr. HARRIS Reply. Here, the jesuit is as a chased timorous Hart, which having his deadly wound given him, flieth out a while, straggling from his fellows: but feeling decay of his vital spirits, and life's blood, runs into the brakes to hide his head, and there to perish. Becane in his verbal (but in no sort real) confutation of his majesties Apology and Preface Monitory, sets down the Conferring of Benefices, as one of the proper offices of the Supreme Primate Ecclesiastical; as he understood it, Sacerdotal or Episcopal. Hainric in his Becano-Baculus, told the jesuite, that, although by none, either Scripture, or Ancient Father, it can be showed that Collation of Benefices belonged, as proper, to the said Primate Ecclesiastical; yet he would encounter him therein, and beat him with his own weapon: as he did sound, proving that good Emperors, have given Popedoms, and that according to the Canon Law: That Catholic Kings by their prerogative Regal, have given, as to this day they give, Archbishoprics, Bishoprics, and other Benefices. Because Becane the jesuit, never as yet answered, nor ever will be able to answer, Hainric therein: I urged the jesuit by Scripture, or Ancient Father to show, the Collation of Benefices, to belong to their Ecclesiastical, to weet, Episcopal Primate; promising upon that condition, that we would yield the victory unto him. But this silly jesuit (not being able for his life produce the least, either word of Scripture, or sentence of Ancient Father for it) runs away into the brakes of his clouded ignorance, crying out thus: Let me have the victory, for I have proved an English jar. How ridiculous is this jesuit here? Hainrie, as hath appeared, denied the Collation of Benefices to belong to the Supreme Primate Episcopal; yet supposed that it did appertain to a Supreme Primate, to weet, Regal; that thereby he might cudgel the jesuite with his own weapon, and according to Becane his dispute, prove the King to be Primate, to weet, Regal, because the Collatiò of Benefices belongs unto him. Therefore not Hainric, but only Becane was to show it out of Scripture or Ancient Fathers: which, because he neither hath, nor can do, his mouth is to be stopped up herein, ever hereafter. Touching the Benefices he speaketh of, the jesuite cannot name any small Benefices without Cure, conferred upon clerk that are neither Priests, nor Bishops, which may not by the laws of this Kingdom, be given as well by the King, as by the Bishops, or Archbishops. But what a trifling Sophister is this, going about to prove, that Doctor Tooker by Collation, did not mean Institution & sacration? when as these his express words show that he meant thereby nothing else; Duel. Page 36. Reges Angliae Beneficia Curata, vel non Curata, non conferunt omnino in quempiam Maiora Minorave, multo minus Episcopatus per universum ambitum regni sui, illorum certe Collatio vel Institutio est quorum est destitutio, id est Episcoporum comproumcialium, qui potestatem habent personas ipsas facrandi. In short, and in English, thus: The Collation of Benefices, or Bishoprics, belongs not to the Kings, but to Bishops, whose office is to Institute and Consecrate. Certainly, in the jesuits sense, the inferior Bishops do not confer, that is, do not give Archbishoprics: But in Doctor Tookers' sense, they do confer Archbishoprics, that is they do consecrate Archbishops, being nominated, not by Bishops, but by the King, being chosen not by Bishops, but by the Dean and Chapter. Whereby it is most manifest, that Doctor Tooker by Collation meant Consecration. Collation, as say the Canonists, in the large signification thereof, containeth Presentation, Nomination, Donation, and Institution, or Consecration. Hainric, by Collation understandeth Presentation, Nomination, and Donation; all which he proveth to belong to the King, as Dr. Tooker also acknowledgeth. Dr. Tooker by Collation understandeth Institution and Consecration; which he, and also Hainric, assert to belong to Bishops, and not to Kings. So that Hainric and Dr. Tooker agree fully in this point, being understood according to their express words. Myself and Hainric also conspire wholly herein: for Hainric in his Becano-Baculus; and I, in my English Concord, assert expressly, that the Collation or Presentation of Benefices by way of lapse after 18. Months, belongeth to the King, as Supreme Primate Regal: Therefore, with very great, either ignorance, or impudence doth the jesuite object any jar between me and Hainric in this point. Both Hainric, and myself, aver that Collation of Benefices cannot be showed in Scripture, or Ancient Father, to belong to the Episcopal Supreme Primate: But Hainric hath proved it sufficiently, that Collation of Benefices and Bishoprics, did of old belong to the Supreme Primates Regal. Therefore this imputation of a jar, between Hainric and Harris: or Hainric and Tooker: or Tooker & Harris; deserveth a whip, or a cudgel for Becane, rather than a garland of victory. BECAN. Exam Page 176 IF, by Collation of Benefices, Hainric and Tooker mean divers things, than there is a jar: If they mean the same thing, than Tooker did not mean Institution and Sacration. Therefore you descent from yourself. Dr. HARRIS Reply. THe two horns of this Dilemma, as of the former, are thus bend directly into the jesuits face. If by Collation of Benefices, Hainric and Tooker mean things divers: then Hainric may alcribe Collation to the King; and Tooker may deny Collation to belong to the King, without jar: If they mean the same thing, then, according to Becane his dispute here, there is no jar between Hainric and Tooker. For if their meaning of things divers, doth arguea jar: their meaning of the self same thing, must argue Concord. BECAN. Exam. Page 177 IF, by Collation, Tooker meant only Institution and Sacration, and yet acknowledge the King to confer 40. or 60. Benefices in the year: then b● granteth, that the King doth Institute 40. or 60. into Benefices in the year. Every where you entangle yourself. Tooker saith nothing of Presentation by way of lapse, nor to free chapels exempt from Episcopal Visitation; but rather the contrary in these words: Hoc habetiuris Regia Maiestas, quod minor et subordinata potestas habet, ius inquam Nominandi et Praesen andi apud nos. The King and his Subjects have like right to nominate and present their Clerks. Dr. HARRIS Reply. WHat a clay-witted Sophister is this Martin Father jesuit, forsooth Divinity reader in Mentz? reasoning thus. Tooker (understanding, by Collation of Benefices, Presentation, Nomination, Donation, as Hainric doth) acknowledgeth the King's right to confer 60. Benefices, or more in a year, and 10. or 12. Bishoprics in a year, as they may fall void: Therefore Tooker taking Collation for Institution and Sacration, granteth right and power to the King, to Institute, and Consecrate, so many Priests and Bishops yearly. So boyishly danceth this jesuite under the net of Equivocation, easily perceived, by all, who running, do but cast their eyes upon him. The King's different, and supereminent right and power above all his subjects, in bestowing of Benefices, hath in the English Concord been unfolded distinctly, and more sufficiently than Becane deserveth, thus: 1. The King only by his Breve Episcopo, Writ to the Bishop; after presentation in his majesties Court, recovered, compelleth the Bishops to institute the Presentee. 2. The King only presenteth his Clerks by lapse of time, to weet, after 18. Months Vacancy. 3. The King only (or they only unto whom that is granted by the King) presents his clerk to his free chapels, exempted by him from Episcopal Visitation; by his Regal Donation only, without any Institution or Induction of Bishop or archdeacon, giving his Clerks real and lawful possession of such Donatives. All these three particulars are vulgarly known, and ingenuously confessed by Dr. Tooker: which (if he would vouchsafe this jesuit an answer) would expressly appear in his after-writings, as the like hath been done in Mr. Burhill his after-writings. But all these three instances of Regal Supremacy above all his Subjects, Clergy, or Lay, this unlearned jesuite silently passeth over: Only as the dog turneth to his vomit, so he in his Examen returneth to his loathsome froth and scum of idle repetition of the self same things, matter, sentences, words and syllables, which in his jar he had ser forth in print; and which said froth, by the very blast of my English Concord, was utterly dissolved and scattered, long before this his Examen peeped out. ❧ Becans jar. IX. Question. Whether the King can create, and depose Bishops, or no? 1. Master Salclebridge saith, that be can. For thus he writeth pag. 121. Christiani Principes in suis Regnis, cum laud, propria authoritate, Episcopos crearunt & deposuerunt. Christian Princes, have in their Kingdoms, by their own proper authority created and deposed Bishops, and that with praise etc. And then again pag. 144. Rex Angliae Archidiacono Richmundiae Episcopalem concessit jurisdictionem. The King of England granted Episcopal jurisdiction to the Archdeacon of Richmond etc. And yet further pag. 155. Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate, deiure, atquecum laud omnium Ordinum Episcopos elegerunt, ac proinde deponere potuerunt. The Kings of England of their own supreme authority, by right, and with praise of all manner Estates, have elected Bishops, and therefore they might depose them also etc. And then lastly: Constat, Christianos Principes cum laud Episcopos elegisse, & deposuisse, etiam Romanos. It is manifest, that Christian Princes, have elected, and deposed Bishops, yea Popes also, and that with their praise etc. 2. Now M. Tooker, he denies in the place bifore cited that the King can create or depose Bishops. For there he assigning 〈◊〉 things necessary for the ordaining or creating of a Bishop, to wit, Consecration of the person, and a Bishopric, addeth, that the King can perform neither of these two. For neithere 〈◊〉 be confer any benefice, and much less a Bishopric or archbishopric; neither hath he any power to consecrate persons. In so much, that in another place he confesseth, that it is so far off from King james to have power to create or depose Bishops, that he would rather acknowledge himself for one of their scholars and Disciples. For thus he writeth pag. 311. Serenissimus ac pientissimus Rex noster jacobus non habet quicquam antiquius & honorificentius, quàm ut cum Valentiniano filium se Ecclesiae profiteatur, & cum Theodorico Italiae Rege, se alumnum Ecclesiae, & ciscipulum Archiepiscoporum fuorum, & Episcoporum libenter recognoscat. Our most Gracious and most pious King james doth esteem or account nothing more noble and more honourable, then with Valentinian (the Emperor) to profess himself a son of the Church; and with Theo●●oricus King of Italy, most willingly to acknowledge himself a foster-child of the Church, and a disciple of his Archbishops and Bishops etc. 3. This jar now, as you see, is of great moment. For if the King cannot create or ordain Bishops, as M. Tooker saith he cannot; then it followeth evidently that Thomas Cranmer who was made Archbishop of Canterbury by the King (Henry the 8.) was no true, but a false Bishop; no pastor, but a robber; one that entered not into the sheep fold by the door; but climbed up some other way. Whereof again ensue three other markable points. First, that all other Bishops, who were afterward either created by Cranmer, or by the King, were lake unto Cranmer himself. Secondly, whatsoever was done of them, by Episcopal authority or juresdiction, was of no validity or force, Thirdly, that they, so ordaixed, are bound to restitution of all reave news and prosies which they have reaped by their Bishoprics. What counsel now is there to be taken in this point? Let your Academics, I pray you, consider. English Concord. Concord Pag. 58 THat Christian Princes have with commendation created and deposed Bishops, yea Bishops of Rome; not only Hainric, but also our most dread Sovereign Lord james, the most learned King upon the face of the earth, hath manifested, in his monitory Preface, out of the Ecclesiastical Histories, in these very words, Page 28. Inperatores arque Reges etc. All these Emperors and Kings which lived religiously and Christianly, were so far from thinking the Pope to have any power over them, that they themselves have created Popes, and when they grew irregular, reform them; and sometimes also deposed them. And Page 291. Sed et per aetates complurimas etc. But for many Ages together, the most assured and inviolable right of creating the Roman Bishops, remained with the Emperors. Wherein, my principal witness shall be the Bishop of Rome; who decreed in a Council a Sigeb. An. 734 Wathr. de Epis. Inuessat. Mart, Polon. An. 780. of 153. Bishop and abbots, that right and power of choosing the Pope, and ordaining the Sea Apostolic, should remain to the Emperor Charles the great; and moreover, definitively ordained that all Archbishops, and Bishops throughout all Provinces should take their investiture from him: Niem, de Pnuil, et Jur. Dist. 63 ca Adrian. & that no Bishop should be consecrated, unless he were first commended and invested by the King. And whosoever shall offend against this decree, hue rapped him up in the bands of Anathema. Mat Paris. in H. Act. 1100. sdem An. 1112 et An. 1119 Page. 34. King Henry the first of that name, after the conquest, gave the Bishopric of Winchester unto William Gifford, and presently invested him, into all the possessions appertaining to that Sea, against the decrees of the late Council. The same King Henry gave the archbishopric of Canterbury, to Ralph Bishop of London, and invested him by a Ring and a Staff. Plat. vit. Pela. 2. et Gregory. Besides, not only Plaina, but other Popish Writers, do witness, that the emperors consent, for many Ages, was to be obtained for the choice of the Bishop of Rome: which thing Bellarmine which all his skill, Declericis. could not handsomely avoid. Moreover, also the Roman Bishops were enjoined to pay unto the emperors Exchequer, a certain sum of current money, for the obtaining of their confirmation; which custom endured for the space of seven hundred years, An. 680. in vita Agatho. Anastas. An. 678 Dist. 63. 1. Agatho. after Christ, as is witnessed by Sigebert Luitprand and other Historians of the Roman faction. But every where we shall meet with examples of Emperors, which cut the wings of the Roman Bishops usurped authority. All these things so substantially manifested, and pithily disputed by our Sovereign King, in his Apology for the oath of Allegiance Page 127.128. will Dr. Tooker most willingly subscribe unto; especially seeing he 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 averunt enim summum Pontificem, aliumque in eius locum subrogaverunt: 1. Reg. 2. v. 17 Under the old Testament, there was no question but that Kings were governors of the Church, within their dominions: for they deposed the high Priest, and placed another in his room. Truly Dr. Tooker affirmeth Regem non Sacrare Episcopos. That the King doth not consecrate Bishops: and as truly that the King is a son of the Church, as Valentinian, or with Theodosius a pupil or a foster child of the Church: yea, a disciple, not only of Archbishops and Bishops; but also of inferior Priests and Ministers, (whose Sermons he more often heareth) but only, Quoad officia Ministerialia, respecting the proper office of Ministerial. duties, and not in the Supreme government of the Church. And unto this purpose writeth Dr. Tooker Page 311. of King Edward the sixth; Titulumet stolam Pontificiam aspernabatur etc. Although he refused the title and rob of a high Priest: yet notwithstanding he retained the Christian Supremacy to himself, as the mean whereby he might more safely advise the Church, and provide for it against the time to come. Again, he verifieth as much of our King james and other Christian Princes, Page 312. Sunt quidem reges Christiani etc. Even now are Christian Kings and other Princes, the highest and Supreme governors of all persons whatsoeucr within their Empire and Dominion, and have ever so been, from the ancient time, of the purer and Primitive Church. And Page 312. Non tantum sunt praesules in ordine etc. Yet notwithstanding they are not Prelates in any Priestly order, although they enjoy a Supremacy in the Christian regiment: for with great Constantine, they ought to be common Bishops of exterior matters; and with Charles the great, Ludovicus Pius & Lotharius, make laws, Eccelesiastical Canons (if need require) or with King David, Solomon, Ezechia and Ichoshaphat, keep visitation in the Temple, and give order to Ecclesiastical affairs. And why not then, with Solomon, to depose and disrobe a high Priest, and put another in his place? for which opinion Dr. Tooker writeth, Page 152. Totumhoc quantumcunque est etc. All this how great soever, which is as great as may be, is but an or dinary document of piety, religion and royal jurisdiction. Wherefore this standeth a fir me foundation of our side, that King Solomon out of his ordinary power, might depose the high Priest, and bring him into order. And therefore, vain is the Challenge of the Roman Bishops, boasting an immunity, as though no secular Prince could remove them. For it is plain, that this is practised in sacred Scriptures. Therefore with what face though of brass, could the jesuite Becane utter to the world this loud lie! And from whence doth he in another place confess, that it is so far from King james, to create and depose Bishops, that he rather acknowledgeth himself their foster child and disciple? As though King Solomon acknowledged not himself a foster child of the Church, and Disciple of the Priests, when he deposed Abiathar, and subrogated Zadoc in his stead: the jesuite, Sophister like, is always wallowing in a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi. Moreover, Doctor Tooker, Page. 37. writeth, Rex concedit suam regiam licentiam eligendi. As often as it happeneth to any Cathedral Church to be destitute of a Bishop, than the King by a writ, giveth licence to the Dean and Chapter, to elect another person Canonically. But I will btiefely declare unto thee (gentle Reader) the whole process and carriage of this election: for it is common and vulgar every day. Thus therefore it proceedeth: When any Cathedral Church wanteth his Pastor, the King sendeth forth his royal writ Congee Destire, directed to the Dean and Chapter; commanding them with all speed, to assemble and to choose an Archbishop, or Bishop, for their Sea: but with this proviso; that they choose no other, than that person which shall be named by the King, under the penalty of a Praemunire, (which is the greatest punishment among us in England, except death.) And the same Archbishop, or Bishop so named by the King, and elected as aforesaid, must be consecrated by the Archbishop, or Bishops, under the same penalty. Now consider learned Reader (for I will make thee my judge) what other thing is this, then to create archbishops and Bishops? excepting one, lie ceremonial formalities. But let us suffer that most blessed Martyr, Archbishop Cranmer, to rest in glory with Christ in heaven. This jar and difference is of great momenn, (I mean betwixt the Papists and us) for if it appear as clear as the light, both by the Pope's Canon laws, & also by open Tables of Ecclesiastical Histories, as our most dread Sovereign hath most exactly demonstrated, that the Roman Emperor created & elected Popes, & set in order the Sea Apostolic: And if all archbishops and Bishops, throughout all Provinces, received their investitures from them: (according to the popish Writers, especially the jesuits) all those Roman Bishops which have been so created and elected for many hundred years (to omit all inferior Archbishops and Bishops) Non extiterunt Pastores intrantes per ostium in ovile, sed Praedones aliunde ascendentes, have not been Pastors entering into the sheepfold by the door, but thieves and robbers ascending another way, that is, false Bishops, Archbishops and Pastors. Out of which I infer three things. First, that all the Bishops so created by Emperors and Kings (according to the words of Genebrarde) were disorderly and Apostatical, rather than Apostolical. Secondly, whatsoever was done of them by Episcopallauthoritie, or jurisdiction, is of no moment, force or validity. Thirdly, that the Bishops so ordained, are bound to restitution of all revenues and and profits, which they have reaped by their Bishoprics. Seest thou not (jesuit) how thou art beaten with thine own rod? Quid hic consilij capiendum? What devise is now to be taken? Let your Academics, who, now only (having swallowed up the Sorbonists) will rule the roast, to weet, the jesuitical Fathers (if it so may please their God Layola) see unto 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 orthodoxal, all things proved by the King. But that Kings may create and depose Bishops, was sound proned by the King. Therefore Tooker embraceth it as orthodoxal. Hear first the minor is false: for Tooker denieth that the King can create and depose Bisoops; for he saith that the institution and destitntion of inferior Priests, belongs to Bishops, and not to, Kings: therefore the King hath not solidly proved it. Secondly, it may thus be returned: All Academiches willingly approur all things sound proved by the King. But the King hath soundly proved the Pope to be Antichrist. Therefore the English Academics willingly er●braec it as orthodoxal. The consequen●● is false. For powel verily belioveth that the Pope is Antichrist. and the King is nor curtain of it. The Syllogistical form is goods. therefore one of the premises is false. Dr. HARRIS Reply. Here have we the picture of a very unlearned jesuit, whose lineaments are drawn with his own pencil; and which is depainted with his own lively colours. First, ignorantly he confoundeth as one, a single narration with a double ratiocination; and the institution and destitution of inferior Priests, with the creation and deposition of Bishops. Secondly, he answereth two Syllogisms, and those produced from his own forge only, with denying the conclusions of both. Thirdly, he reasoneth from one individual, Doctor Tooker, to all our University Academics. lastly, he brings in Master powel disallowing that, which he chiefly approveth. The single natration set down in the English Concord, was thus: Doctor Tooker, reading, and well approving his majesties solidarguments, especially that from exemplary act of Solomon, commended in Scriptures, viz. in deposing Abiathar, and placing Zadock, chief Priests; was so far from denying the power of Kings to depose Bishops, that he, grounding himself upon the said act of Solomon, concluded with the King and Hainric; That Emperors may lawfully depose Popes, and so made up the harmony of all good concord herein. The jesuit transformeth this single narration into a double Syllogism: the former thus; All which the King hath sound proved, Tooker doth not deny, but embrace, as orthodoxal. But that Kings may depose Bishops, the King hath sound proved. Therefore Doctor Tooker doth not deny that Kings may depose Bishops. To this he answereth thus: Doctor Tooker denieth that Kings may depose Bishops, therefore the King hath not solidly proved it. Then briefly and plainly his answer here unto is thus: The conclusion of this syllogism is false. Therefore the minor is false. Which answer proceedeth from extreme ignorance in the very principle of Logic. But how proves he (for he dare not be Respondent here) the conclusion to be false? Because Doctor Tooker denieth the institution and destitution of inferior Priests to belong to Kings, as being proper to Bishops. As though inferior Priests and Bishops were all one. As though institution and destitution of Priests, were all one with election & deposition of Bishops, or Popes. One Bishop may institute and destitute an hundred Priests: but one hundred Bishops cannot choose or depose one Bishop, especially an Archbishop, or Pope. Hear are some lineaments & lively colours of this jesuits gross ignorance: more are to be seen in the second Syllogism, following thus; All things sound proved by the King, all English Academics approve. That the Pope is Antichrist, was sound proved by the King: therefore all English Academics allow, as orthodoxal, the Pope to be Antichrist. To this he answereth thus: The conclusion is false, and the form good: therefore the mayor or minor is false. It skilleth not whether, so that one of them be false. What is this else, but to his utter shame, to display his intolerable ignorance to the world, and to expose it as ludibrious to the meanest Academic Sophisters: who should be well lashr, or justly exploded if they would answer right form syllogisms, by denying the conclusions. But how doth this jesuit prove this later conclusion to be false? Because Gabriel powel believeth this doctrine, viz. that the Pope is Antichrist, which the King hath sound proved, to be orthodoxal. Wherein, behold the strange blockishness of this jesuit, who should have instauced in one Academic, denying that which the King had sound proved, viz. the Pope to be Antichrist: but he brings in Master powel allowing with all his 〈◊〉 what the King therein had sound proved. Moreover, if the King did not prove soundly the Pope to be Antichrist; then the jesuit takes away the suppositum, and so showeth himself to be a frivolous Disputer. If the King did solidly prove the Pope to be Antichrist, why should not Master powel believe it as orthodoxal? The jesuit saith The King doth not hold it as certain: Reply first that is nor ad idem; it is no answer to the Syllogism, many part thereof. Secondly, though his Majesty doth not hold those arguments so certain, which 〈◊〉 from that mystical book of the Revelation, 〈◊〉 his Majesty solidly evinceth the same, from other places of holy Writ, the meaning whereof is more certain, clear, and evident. Thirdly, Saint Paul teacheth the jesuit, that the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the prophets; That the Lord revealeth some things to one, which he doth not to another. To conclude this strain, the jesuits mayor proposition of this later syllogism, doth manifest the great store of ignorance in him, arguing a general of all English Academics, from the individual Dr. Tooker. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 184 THe second argument. Tooker asserteth the King of England to have the primacy of the Church. Therefore he confesseth that he may depose Bishops. The consequence is not good with you; for some of you asserting the Primacy, dony the power of deposing Bishops. Yo● take that ai granted, which should be prooned. What is this, but to beg that which is questioned? Dr. HARRIS Reply. Here also the ignorance of this jesuit sillily mistaketh the meaning of the English Concord in this point. Becan, out of Doctor Tooker, asserting the King to be a foster-child, and disciple of the Bishops, doth conclude, that therefore Doctor Tooker denied the King's power to rule or depose Bishops. The English Concord, to prove the weakness of that consequence, showed out of Doctor Tooker, that though Kings were not Bishops, but subject unto them, in regand of their Episcopal duties, as in hearing the word preached by them, in receiving of the Sacraments administered by them; yet in respect of supreme Ecclesiastical government, they were rulers over bishop, and might depose them. As King Edward the sine did, who though he disclaimed Episcopal function, yet he claimed and used the primacy. But let the argument run from the primacy of Kings, to conclude their power to depose Bishops. I say it holdeth good; considering that all Papists make the power of deposing Bishops, a part of the primacy. And that not one English Protestant Writer, ascribing the primacy to the King, denieth him the power to depose Bishops. Hear is then no begging of that in question, but a solid putting that out of question which is contraversed; and sound concluding the power of Kings to depose Bishops. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 185 YOur third argument is, Tooker writes that Solomon deposed high Priests: therefore the King of England may do the same. This also is no consequence: for most grave Authors teach, that These, and such like consequences are not good, etc. The Kings in the old Testament had that power: therefore Kings in the new Testament have the same. Dr. HARRIS Reply. THis brewbate jesuit, would feign have made a jar between Hainric, asserting the King's power to depose Bishops; and Doctor Tooker. The English Concord showeth, that Doctor Tooker did not only assert, but also prove the same by the exemplary act of Solomon, deposing the high Priests. Against this clear concord, the Icsuit opposeth nothing but this, That most grave Authors deny the argument. Which is nothing to the purpose. For here the question is not, whether other Popish Writers descent from Hainric, or Tooker: but whether Hainric & Doctor Tooker descent herein. Neither in this case, mattereth it, whether this Argument from salomon's act, be good, or not. It sufficeth that Doctor Tooker took it to be good. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 1●2 THese your arguments help not your cause. For either they are sound, or not sound: If sound, they prone Tooker to dissent from himself; and so there is a jar. If not sound, why do they occupy any paper? Dr. HARRIS Reply. THis jesuit is very unlucky in his Dilemmaes. For, as the former have been: so this, is thus retorted upon him. These arguments help my cause well; for, if they be unsound, by Becans dispute, they prove not Doctor Tooker to dissent from himself; and so no jar: if sound, what cause hath the jesuit to dislike either them, or the printing of them? Thus is his whole Examen in this ninth Chapter utterly dissolved, and brought to nought. ❧ Becans jar. X. Question. Whether the King can excommunicate his obstinate subjects, or no? 1. Here now do our Adversaries rank their King amongst ordinary men; & what they granted unto him before, here now they seem to revoke. For they say, that the King cannot excommunicate any of his subjects, & yet himself may be excommunicated by them, and expelled out of the Church of England, whereof himself is supreme Head. The former part here of doth Master Tooker affirm, pag. 15. in these words: Rex non habet potestatem distringendi gladium spiritualem, vel quempiam excommunicandi. The King hath no power to unsheath the spiritual sword, nor to excommunicate any man, etc. And the Chaplain, my Lord of Ely, pag. 151. saith: Nos Principi censurae potestatem non facimus. We do not give authority to our Prince to use Censures. etc. And again, Master Thomson, pag. 83. Excommunicare nullo modo ad Suprematú Ecclesiae pertinet. To excommunicate doth no way belong to the Supremacy of the Church. And again, pag. 84. Omnes fatemur Regem excommunicandi potestarem nullam habere. We do all confess, that the King hath no power to excommunicate, etc. 2. The later part of the former point affirmeth Ma. Burhill, pag. 137. when he saith: Quod Ambrosio licuit in Theodosium, idem & alijs in Regem simili de causa liceat, etc. As it was lawful for Ambrose to proceed against Theodosius; so is it lawful also for others to proceed against the King, in the like cause, etc. To wit (he would say) as it was lawful for S. Ambrose being a Bishop, to excommunicate Theodosius the Emperor; so in like manner it is lawful for our Bishops (of England) to excommunicate King james, if he offend in like manner. And then again, pag. 242. Supremus Ecclesiae Gubernator, potest eijci ex Ecclesia. The supreme Governor of the Church, (to wit, the King) may be cast forth of the Church, etc. And pag. 267. Rex etsi iustusimè excommunicatus, non amittit Primatum. The King, although he should be most justly excommunicated, yet he doth not lose his Primacy, etc. 3. Now I do not sec, how these things can possibly hang together, or agree with those which hitherto before have been attributed to the King. For unto him is attributed, That he is primate, and the supreme head of the Church of England: That be is above all persons, as well Ecclesiastical as temporal in his Kingdom: That he bathe supreme, most ample, and full jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, no less than political and temporal. And notwithstanding all this, being so great a person, yet can he not excommunicate any one of his subjects, either Laicke, or Churchman, although never so rebellious and obstinate. Nay, although he be so great as he is, he may nevertheless be excommunicated by his subjects, and cast out of the Church of England, whereof he is supreme Head. I cannot understand this mystery. 4. Hereunto will I add three arguments more, which will increase the difficulty. The first is: He that hath supreme, most ample, & most full jurisdection Ecclesiastical in any Kingdom, may exercise all the actions, and offices that belong unto jurisdiction Ecclesiastical of that Kingdom. But now the King hath supreme, most ample, and most full jurisdiction Ecclesiastical in the Kingdom of England, as Master Tooker, and Master Salclebridge do confess: Ergo, he may exercise all offices belonging to jurisdiction Ecclesiastical in the Kingdom of England: Ergo, be may also excommunicate: for that excommunication which is denounced by sentence, is an act of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Or else contrariwise, if you will thus: He that cannot exercise all acts of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in any Kingdom, hath not supreme, most ample, and most full jurisdiction Ecclesiastical in that Kingdom. But the King of England cannot exercise all acts of Ecclesiastical jurisdection in his Kingdom, because he cannot excommunicate any man. Ergo, he hath not supreme, most ample, and most full jurisdiction Ecclesiastical in his Kingdom. 5. The second argument is this. He that giveth to another, power to excommunicate, without doubt hath power himself to excommunicate, because no man can give to another that which he hath not himself. But the King of England giveth power to his Bishops to excommunicate. Ergo, he hath power to excommunicate. The Minor is proved out of Master Tooker, pag. 304. where he affirmeth, That the Bishops (of England) do receive all their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the exterior Court, from the King. But now, power to excommunicate belongeth to jurisdiction of the exterior Court, as the Chaplain pag. 41. and Master Tooker, pag. 305. expressly teach us, saying: Rex habet omnem jurisdictionem spiritualem in foro exteriori, exceptis quibusdam censuris. The King hath all jurisdiction spiritual in the exterior Court, excepting certain Censures. But now he excepteth Excommunication, wherein you see is to be noted again a contradiction in Ma. Tooker; for that he referreth Censures (amongst which excommunication is one) to the jurisdiction of the exterior Court. True indeed. But yet he adjoineth two other things, that are contradictory. The first, that the King can give unto Bishops all jurisdiction of the exterior Court: and the second, that the King hath not all jurisdiction of the exterior Court. 6. The third Argument is: That whosoever is subject to another in Ecclesiastical inrisdiction of the exterior Court, hath not supreme, most ample, and full lurisdiction Ecclesiastical of the exterior Court. But the King is subject to some other body in Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the exterior Court, to wit, to the Bishop, because he may by him be excommunicated, by sentence, and cast out of the Church, as Master Burhill doth confess: Ergo, he hath not supreme, most ample, and most full jurisdiction Ecclesiastical in the exterior Court etc. Or, if your will, contrariwise thus: He that is subject to no other in Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, cannot by any man be excommunicated by sentence. But the King now, if he have supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, is subject to no other in jurisdiction Ecclesiastical: Ergo, he cannot by any other be excommunicated etc. I doube not, but you mark well, that these things do not agree. English Concord. Pag. 68 IN good sooth, by this precedent chapter, I observe my Aduerlary a bad Disputer; by the good leave of his fellow jesuits. For manifesting hereof let us first handle the question. You inquire whether the King may excommunicate his subjects. The worthy Bishop of Ely, pag. 151. Doctor Tooker, pag. 15. Master Thomson, pag. 83. & 84. affirm of all our Writers in these words, Omnes fatemur regem excommunicandipotestatem nullam habere: We all confess, that the King cannot excommunicate. I pray, tell me, in so full a concord, is here any difference? Surely, no English jar, except a feigned Becanicall jar: for the jesuite 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 numbered among the residue, That a Primate may be excommunicated of his subjects. But here, like an idle Sophister, he fighteth without the lists: and first, it is worth our labour, to mark his admirable skill in Logic, whereby he goeth about, out of our most uniform consent, to wrest an English discord. This is therefore his first reason; The King cannot execute all the inferior actions of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, that is to say, He cannot excommunicate: therefore he hath no supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. I am ashamed of such childish jesuitical fancies. Is the jesuit become ignorant, or forgetful of the question? Is not our controversy about one supreme Governor of the Church in all matters Ecclesiastical, and above all Ecclesiastical persons? Yes, we reason about the office of that one only supreme Governor, as supreme Governor; according to Saint Augustine ad Bonifac: Epist. 50. Inhoc ergo serviunt domino reges in quantum sunt reges, cum eafaciunt ad seruiendum illi quae non possunt facere nisi reges. In this Kings serve the Lord, respecting only their kingly office: that is, when they do those things to serve him, which they cannot do except they were Kings. Now sir, if excommunication belong only to the primate or supreme Governor (for in our question they are both one) than it should follow, that all Bishops, and every mean Archdeacon (for both these have power to excommunicate) are also supreme Governors of the Church: and so there must needs be, by this jesuits Logic, as many only supreme Governors, as there be Bishops, and Archdeacon's. Is any thing more absurd? See you not in what a broke the jesuit is caught? But for the power of excommunication, understand thus much; The King of himself can excommunicate no man: yet notwithstanding, by the consent of all the estates assembled in the Parliament, he can make Ecclesiastical laws, by force and virtue whereof, this or that obstinate subject aught to be excommunicated. And beside, it is in the King's absolute power, to command any Bishop within his dominion, to absolve any man, whom by appeal he shall find to be unjustly excommunicated. Secondly, the jesuit reasoneth thus: The King giveth to other, power to excommunicate; therefore he he himself may excommunicate. The jesuit might have learned out of Bernard (whò they take for a brother of their own) the vanity and weakness of this argument: who, though his doctrine herein be not orthodoxal, yet to infringe this consequent, doth very accurately distinguish thus, writing to Eugenius; Conuerie gladium tuum in vaginam: Tuus ergo, et ipse two forsitan nuiu, etsi non tua manu, cuaginandus, etc. Put up 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 spiritual sword, and the material sword: but the material sword is drawn for the Church; the spiritual sword by the Church: one of them by the hand of a Priest; the other, by the hand of a Soldier: but yet, at the pleasure of a Priest, and the command of the Emperor. Thirdly, he argueth on this manner; The King is subject to the Bishop excommunicating the King, as was Theodosius to Ambrose: therefore, he is not the only supreme Governor in his dominion, over all persons and causes Ecclesiastical. I answer, that if this be a strong argument, then shall not the Pope be Primate of the Church: for the Pope is subject 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 himself is bound to confess to a Priest: and in that action, the Priest is greater than the Pope: for he hath power tobinde and loose him. It also appeareth by a Councellat Constance, See the Counsels of Coustance and Basil and another at Basil, that many Popes have been subject to Bishops, and by them convented, judged, excommunicated, and deposed from their Papacy: according to that of your Canon law; Come again de fide, Dist. 19 Anastasius in glossa. tum Synodus maior est quam Papa: When a controversy is concerning faith, than a Council is above the Pope. Therefore the jesuit deceiveth by Elench a dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter. We teach, that our Kings are not primates, but private men, in respect of Sacerdotal functions; and by that means, not only are inferior to Bishops, but also to every other Minister: According to that worthy saying of Valentinian the Emperor; Egosemin sonil Plebis. Eten collocato in Pontisicale solio, cui nos quoque maderatores imperij nostracapita submittamus●● also an Emperor, Sozome. lib. 6. ●●. 7. The do●e●. lib. 4. cap. 5. am like one of the common people. Place such a man in the Bishop's throne, to whom we that are managers of the Empire, may submitour necks. The Pope's excommunications, of any the meanest subjects of our Kings, much less of the King himself, many years before King Henry the eight was borne, were of no force by the common laws of England; as is manifested by Hainric, in Becano Baculus. Where also he hath taught you out of the same laws, that the King of England, is the supreme Ordinary of his Kingdom; On, as it is in the oath of Supremacy, The only supreme Governor of the Church of England: And yet we doubt not, but he may besuspended from the Eucharist by a Bishop, to whom he himself hath committed Ecclesiastical jurisdiction (as Theodosius was by Ambrose) that is, by resnsall to give him the holy Communion; but not in any judicial, or consistorian form, of citation, appearance, and sentence to be cast out of the Church. The jesuit is deeply deceived, if he imagine that the action of Ambrose was solemn and canonical; 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 mean season, let him show me, whether Theodosius was canonically cited unto the consistory of Ambrose? or whether the Emperor did answer for himself, either in person, or by his Proctor? Or whether the sentence of excommunication was pronounced upon the Tribunal of the Bishop? Or whether it were canonically denounced in the open Church, before he was forbidden to enter into the Temple? And again, by whose commandment, and by what example, did Saint Ambrose alone, without his fellow Elders, or the counsel of other Bishops, excommunicate the Emperor of so many kingdoms, espceially seeing Ambrose was neither Pope nor Patriatch? And let the jesuit give some good cause, why Ambrose should ●am ●●e upon so humble and godly an emperor, by his excommunicating him, who erred only in one fact; and not once blame or touch Constantius, a most proud, godless, and heretical Arian? Lastly, whether it were the custom at Milan, to excommunicate all murderers, (or else Theodosius had wrong): for jassure you, murderers are not excommunicated in England; and I think, very few are so censured at Mentz, where Becane liveth. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 191 YOu answer, that here is no jar; because all your Writers uniformly agree in this: That the King cannot excommunicate. But here is the greatest jar; Because all English Writers who confess it do manifestly differ from themseluss, as these three Arguments prove. First, Whosoever hath all manner supreme, most ample & full jurisdiction Ecclesiastical in any Kingdom, he may exercise all acts which pertain to jurisdiontion Ecclesiastical in that kingdom. And so be may excommunicate, to wit, by a power undependant of any man; such as the Pope hath (the rest having it from him, who may give it to them, and take it away). Enen as the King, who having supreme, most ample jurisdiction civil in his kingdom, may exercise allcivill acts of that jurisdiction in his kingdom. But the Writer's assert the Kings, all manner supreme, most ample, and full jurisdiction Ecclesiastical. Therefore they assert the King's power to excommunicate. Dr. HARRIS Reply. Here is but an idlerepetition of the self same Argument; which the English Concord had answered before, by denying his mayor Proposition. Which denial was grounded upon the testimony of Saint Augustine, whereunto this jesuit answereth not one word. The substance whereof was this: That attacts of Ecclesiastical government (and only all those acts) which the King alone may do as King, belong unto him: but Excommunication belongs to every Archdeacon; therefore that belongs not to the King. The jesuit being put unto his shifts, hath fancied this new starting hole: viz. That power undependant of any other, to excommunicate, is proper only, and to every supreme Governor Ecclesiastical. Therefore if the King be supreme Governor Ecclesiastical, he hath that undependant power to excommunicate. Whereunto Ireply, first, that no Scripture, no, nor ancient Father, for the space of 600. years after Christ, doth assert this undependant power of excommunicating, to belong to the supreme government Ecclesiastical. Secondly, that the ancient Fathers deny this undependant excommunicating power to belong to Peter; (much less to the Pope.) but with one uniform consent, dogmatize according to the Scriptures, that all the Apostles received from Christ immediately (not from Peter) power to excommunicate, equal with Peter. Thirdly, that the very principal Schoolmen, as Peter Lombard, the Master of the Sentences, Thomas Aquine, the Doctor Angelical, Alexander Alice, the Doctorirrefragable, and john Scot, the subrle Doctor, deny the same. First, they all four define the keys, by the power to open and shut, to bind and loose. See Lombard, Sent. l. 4. dist. 18. et 19 Alexander Summa 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. affirm, that the keys promised to Peter, in the 16. chap. of Matthew, were given to the Apostles in the 20. chap. of john. Fourthly, Bellarmine himself denieth this undependant power of excommunicating to be proper to Peter: and proveth by four sound arguments, the said power to be common to all the Apostles, thus: de Ro. Pontif. l. 4. cap. 23. That the Apostles received immediately from Christ their jurisdiction; First, by these words of our Lord, john 20. As my Father sent me, 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 received the very office and authority of Christ. Cyrill, upon this place addeth, that The Apostles by these words, were properly created Apostles, and Teachers of the whole world. And that we should understand, stand, that all power Ecclesiastical, is contained in authority Apostolical, therefore Christ addeth; As my Father sent me: seeing that the Father sent his Son, endued with chiefest, or highest power. Cyprian, in his book of the unity of the Church, saith; The Lord speaketh to Peter, I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and after his resurrection, said to him, Feed my Sheep. And although after his resurrection, he gave to all the Apostles equal power, and said: As my Father sent me, so I send you; yet, to manifest unity, he constituted one chair. Where you see, the same to be given to the Apostles, by those words, I send you; which was promised to Peter by that, I will give thee the keys: and after, exhibited by that, Feed my sheep. Now it is manifest, that by those words, I will give thee the keys, and by that, Feed my sheep, is understood the most full even exterior jurisdiction. Secondly, the election of Mathias unto the Apostleship showeth the same. For, we read Acts. I. that Mathias was not chosen by the Apostles, nor any authority given unto him; but that his election being craved and obtained from above, he was presently numbered among the Apostles. Surely, if all the Apostles had jurisdiction from Peter, that aught to have been showed most of all in Mathias. Thirdly, it is proved out of Saint Paul, who purposely teacheth that he had his authority and jurisdiction from Christ; and thereupon, proveth himself to be a true Apostle. For, Gal. I. he saith, Paul an Apostle, not of men neither by man, but by jesus Christ, and G O D the Father. And, there to show that he received not authority from Peter, or other the Apostles, he saith; But when it pleased him, which had separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace to reveal his Scnne in me, that I should preach him among the Gentiles, immediately I communicated not with flesh and blood, neither came I again to jerusalem to the which were Apostles before me: but I went into Arabia, and turned again into Damascus. Then after 3. years, I came again to jerusalem to see Peter, etc. and chap. 2. For they that seemed to be somewhat, added nothing to me above that I had. Fourthly, it is proved by cuident reason: for the Apostles were made only by Christ, as it appeareth Luke 6. He called his Disciples, & chose twelve of them, whom he also called Apostles. And john 6. Have not I chosen you twelve. Now that the Apostles had jutisdiction, it is manifest, partly by the acts of Saint Paul, who 1. Cor. 5. did excommunicate, and 1. Cor. 6.7. 11.14 etc. made Canons. Partly also, because the Apostolical dignity, is the first, and supreme dignity in the Church: as it appeareth, 1. Cor. 12. Ephe. 4. See B. Thomas, in 1. Cor. 12. Hitherto Bellarmine. Unto these, I will add the testimony of two other Fathers, to weet, Origen, and Beda. Origen, Tract 1. in Matth. saith: Hoc dictum, Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum, caeteris quoque commune est: Et quae sequuntur, velut ad Petrum dicta. sunt omnium communia. This saying, I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, is common to the rest of the Apostles: and the words that follow, as spoken to Peter, are common unto all. Beda Homil. in Euangel. Quem me dicunt, saith; Potestas ligandi et soluendi quamuis soli Petro a Domino data videatur, tamen absque ulla dubietate noscendum est, quode● caeteris Apostolis, data est: The power of binding & losing, though it seem to be given by the Lord only to Peter, yet without all doubt, it was given also to the rest of the Apostles. By which, it is sound proved, that all the Apostles had the full power of the keys, and most full jurisdiction Ecclesiastical (and in one word) undependant of any other, to bind, to loose, to open, to shut, to excommunicate & absolve, given by Christ, equally & immediately unto them, and their successors, as well as to Peter and his successors. But all Bishops are successors to the Apostles: therefore all Bishops have most full undependant jurisdiction Ecclesiastical to excommunicate. And therefore, by this jesuits argument here, all Bishops are supreme Governors of the whole Church. What then shall become of his Lord God the Pope, and the Pope's Primacy? Whose fullness of power, must by this orthodoxal position, be distributed equally amongst all Bishops; not as from Peter or Pope, but as successors of the Apostles. For so Cyrill in john, lib. 3. ca 20. Apostolis et eorum in Ecclesijs successoribus, plenam concessit potestatem. Christ (not Peter, much less the Pope) gave to the Apostles, and their successors, fullness of power. Whereto accordeth Saint Cyprian, de simple. Praelat. saying: Christus candem dedit Apostolis omnibus potestatem: Christ gave unto all his Apostles the self same power. Bellarmine, to prove the Ecclesiastical authority of Mathias to be undependant, and not dependent of Petex, brings in Mathias 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 undependant Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, when he is chosen and made Pope, & also unpoped by men, much inferior to the Apostles? If the Pope alone have undependant Church government, to give and take Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, to, and from whom he please; how was the Patriarch of Alexandria made equal unto him in the first Nicen Council, Can. 6? And why was the Archbishop of Constantinople, equalled with him in authority, and in all things, except in Seniority; in the first Council of Constantinople, cap. 3. and in the Council of Chalcedon, Can. 28? Certainly, this undependant supreme government, was not acknowledged to be in Anicetus Bishop of Rome, by Polycarpus, who gainsaied Anicetus in the celebration of Easter. See Euseb. l. 5. ca 26. Nor in Victor, who usurping authority over the Bishops of Asia, was countermanded, withstood, and sharply rebuked by Irenaeus, Polycrates, and others, Bishops in France, Asia, etc. See Euseb. l. 5. cap. 25. Touching the jesuits argument, drawn from the King's supreme govermment civil, to conclude thereby his power to exercise all acts pertaining to civil jurisdiction. I reply and say, that true it is, the fountain of all civil justice under God in this Kingdom, is in his Majestic: That he alone hath power to constitute civil judges, and accordingly doth so. But our most learned Lawyers, and reverent judges, will teach the jesuit, that when the judges be so constituted; by the laws and customs of this kingdom, it pertaineth to those judges, and not to his Majesty, to judge & sentence, in matters personal, real, or of blood, as Felonies, and Treasons, equally between the subjects, and also between the King & his lubiects: which cuts in sunder the very heartstrings of this his main argument. For, if it pertain not to the King, to exercise all acts of inferior civil government, though he be the supreme civil Governor in his Kingdom; a fortiori it followeth, that it pertaineth not to his Majesty, to exercise all inferior acts of Ecclesia sticall government, though he be supreme Ecclesiastical Governor. The Lord of a Manor, to which belongeth a Court Baron, may constitute a Steward to have jurisdiction over his Tenants in that Court, in setting fines, in amercing, etc. yet the Lord of the Manor cannot execute that jurisdiction: for if he set fines, or amerce, it is void; 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 Kingdom in Parliament, he may wake Ecclesiastical laws, by force whereof, such and such aught to be excommunicated. What now Richard? Hainric said, the King by his own an● hority might make Ecclesiastical laws; and you, vilifying that authority, restrain it to the consent of the Orders in Parliament. Tun detract too much from the Primate & Head of the Church of England. And here you make also a new jar. Dr. HARRIS Reply. WHata malicious & scoffing Sycophant is this? who being persuaded in his conscience, that I, even in this strain, ascribe too much to our Primate the King, saith, I detract too much from the King herein. First, this rude and ignorant jesuit must be taught, that according to the laws and customs of this kingdom, though the King be here immediately next under Christ the supreme, Governor Ecclesiastical and Civil: yet it pertaineth not to his Majesty alone, without consent of the Orders of the kingdom in Parliament, to make any law even civil, thereby absolutely to bind all the subjects of his Kingdom; which all Statutes made by the uniform consent of the said Orders in the Parliament, with the approbation of the King's Majesty, do manifest. Touching the supposed jar between Hainric & me: Hainric, writing generally of the power of all Christian Kings and Emperors, to make Ecclesiastical laws, asserted that the said Kings and Emperors, laudably by their own power, made such laws: which I also aver. And I, here writing of the power of his Majesty therein, as it is used and limited by the laws and customs of this Land, assert that his Majesty, by consent of the Orders or States of the Kingdom in Parliament, may make Ecclesiastical laws, by force whereof, such and such should be excommunicated: which Hainric will aver to be very true. So this seeming jarte, in the view of the goggle eyed jesuit, is in very deed a sound concord. Further I reply, that Queen Elizabeth, of blessed memory, by her own authority, set forth Injunctions, as Ecclesiastical laws. And our gracious King james, by his own authority, confirmed the last Ecclesiastical law-Canons, made in the Convocation house. Lastly, I say, That by the laws of this kingdom, his Majesty, by his own authority and letters Patents, may authorize any persons, being natural borne subjects to his Highness, whom he shall think meet, to exercise, use, occupy, and execute under him, all manner of jurisdictions, privileges, & pre-eminences, in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or Ecclesiastical jurisdictions within his Reasmes, to visit, reform, redress, order, correct, and amend all such errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities whatsoever, which by any manner spiritual, or Ecclesiastical power, authority, or jurisdiction, can, or may lawfully be reform, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, to the pleasure of Almighty GOD, for increase of virtue, etc. Will the vile jesuite call this, vilifying of our Ecclesiastical Governor? Questionless, it grindeth his heart, that our Church (the true visible Church of Christ jesus) ascribeth so much unto his Majesty. BECAN. Exam. Pag. THat which you add, is a new Paradox, viz. That Ecclesiastic all laws, made by the King, have force to excommunicate, and yet, that the King cannot excommunicate. It is the most certain rule of Lawyers, that whoseuer hath power to make apenall law, hath also power to punish. This common rule holds in matters Civil, and Ecclesiastical: why exempt you your King from the common rule, & confine him into such straits? Dr. HARRIS Reply. TO an unlearned jesuit, plain vulgar things seem Paradoxes. Date the jesuit deny, that Clergy men have power to make laws for putting to death of Heretics, and against such & such erroncous obstinate persons as heretics? and dare he affirm, that Clergy men may give the sentence of death, or shed the blood of any heretic; sith by their trivial, and vulgarly known popish Canon, they may not sit upon the bench when the sentence of death is pronounced by the civil judges? That most certain rule of his Lawyers, is most plainly false. viz. That whosoever hath power to make a penal law, hath power to punish: unless the meaning be of power to punish, by commanding such Officers to punish, unto whom the inflicting of such punishment appertaineth. In which sense, our King also may be said to excommunicate, or absolve: that is, to command Bishops to excommunicate, or absolve men, according to the laws provided in that behalf. Yea, further, the Kings writ of prohibition, absolveth that subject of his, which is wrongfully excommunicated by Ecclesiastical censure. And this is not to straighten, but to enlarge (much more than the jesuit would have it) his majesties supreme power herein. Who knows not, that Christian Kings and Empeperours have made Ecclesiastical laws, by virtue whereof, such and such Priests, should be suspended, deprived, degraded; and others chosen, and instituted into their Benefices? and yet it pertained not to those Emperors to suspend, deprive, degrade, choose or institute the same, in their own persons. And that this rule holdeth not in civil matters, was showed before. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 196 MY second Argument was this. The King gives unto another power to excommunicate; therefore himself hath power to excommunicate: or if he have not that power, he cannot give it to another. You deny the Argument, alleging Bernard to show the invalidity thereof. But Bernard rather hindereth, then helpeth your cause: for he reas●noth as I do, thus: Peter had no temporal possessions; therefore he could not give them to another. He had care of the whole Church; therefore he gave it to his successor. Bernard saith nothing of this consequent, but of a double power of the Pope; the one, temporal indirectly; all offices of which power, Bernard denieth that the Pope by himself way execute: the other, his power spiritual directly, which he granteth may be executed by the Pope himself. This Position, viz. No man can give to another, that which he hath not himself, Bernard and I assert: to which you answer nothing. Dr. HARRIS Reply. THe jesuit is here ensnarled by the testimony of Bernard, as one fallen into a quagmire; who the more he struggleth to get out, plungeth himself 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 Bernard's distinction, but the jesuits vain and new found fiction) and therefore be may give power to others, ad nutum ipsius, to execute the Material sword: yet by himself cannot use, or draw out the same. What is this else, but that one may give power to another, to do that which he cannot do himself? The jesuit is intolerably ignorant, if he know not, that by their Canon law, the Pope is made Lord of the whole world in temporalibus: by whom Kings reign, and of whom they hold their Sceptres. In popish books printed and allowed, They who hold the material sword to be in the Pope, not directly, but indirectly, are censured for Politilian Heretics, these times-seruers. But what if I should use the same distinction here, and say, that supreme jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, were it the King indirectly, to weet, in or dine ad custodiam utriusque tabulae; to pronide and procure, that all ecclesiastics perform their duties, according to the prescript of God's law: Were not this jesuits Argument, according to his own dispute here, dashed in pieces? For, as the Pope may have the material sword indirectly, and yet have no power by himself to use the same: so may a King have supreme jurisdiction Ecclesiastical indirectly; and yet not have power by himself to execute the functions of jurisdiction Eccelesiastical; and so not to excommunicate. True it is, No man can give that unto another, which himself hath not to give: yet the King may give authority to another, to do that, which pertains not to himself to do, as formerly was showed. 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, utexercitium faciant per virum illius potestatis capacem. Vide notatum per Innocent de Praeb. c. Lateran. et per gloss. in ca Cum et plantare. Though women be uncapable of the cure of souls, as touching the actual exercising thereof themselves: yet Abbasses, and Monials, may have right and power, to exercise the same by a man capable of that power. But it is not amiss to observe some conclusions from the jesuits Positions here. First, that the Pope's supreme power Ecclesiastical, is dependent upon another, that is, upon Peter. For he asserteth out of Bernard, That (not Christ, but) Peter gave unto the Pope, the cure of the whole Church. Secondly, that the Pope, as Peter's successor, neither hath, nor can give, any temporal possessions. For so he makes Bernard concluding thus: Peter had no temporal possessions himself: therefore he could give no temporal possessions to his successor the Pope. Thirdly, That a man may give that to another, which he hath not himself. For the Pope, as Peter's successor, gives temporal Kingdoms & Empires: and yet the Pope, as Peter's successor, hath no temporal posselsions, much less Kingdoms, and least of all, Empires. Out of these conclusions, grow these two Quaeres following; 1. Whether the Pope in giving Kingdoms, distributing the vastest parts of the earth, the Indians East & West, viz. among the Kings of Spain and Portugal; and in translating Empires from one Nation to another, (because herein he succeed not Peter) succeed not the God of this world? who said unto our Saviour Christ, Math. 4. All these Kingdoms, with the glory thereof, I will give unto thee. 2 How the Pope's Kingdom in Italy, is Peter's Patrimony, if no temporal possessions belong to Peter? BECAN. Exam. Pag. 198. MY third Argument was this: He that is subject to another in jurisdiction Ecclesiastical of exterior Court, hath not supreme jurisdiction Ecclesiastical of exterior Court. But the King is subject to another, that is, the Bishop, who by jurisdiction Ecclesiastical of exterior Court, may excommunicate him, and throw him out of the Church. Therefore he hath not supreme power Ecclesiastical of exterior Court. Your answer was, That so the Pope is not Primate of the Church; for he is subject to the Priest, to whom Bee confesseth, and who may bind and loose his sins. The Primacy doth not consist in jurisdiction of the interior, but exterior Court. The power of absolving from sins, or the inward jurisdiction, is given by Christ immediately, to all Priests equally, by force of Order: which jurisdiction is not greater in the Pope, then in any other Priest. The Pope may be subject to the Priest in jurisdiction interior. Richard, you err greatly, not distinguishing between these jurisdictions, of the internal, and external Court. Dr. HARRIS Reply. IT seemeth the wits of this jesuit are much wasted; for he knows not the way wherein, or the place whereto, he intendeth to go. Amongst us Writers, who all deny the King hath power to excommunicate, he said there was a great jar; because we also held the King to be supreme Ecclesiastical Governor in his dominions. By which Medium, viz. The King's supremacy, supposed to be true; the jesuit endeavoured to infer necessarily, that therefore the King might excommunicate. But in this his third Syllogism, the jesuit goeth about to overthrow the supposed truth of the said Medium: namely, to prove, that the King is not supreme Governor Ecclesiastical. And what is this to the matter in hand? viz. to prove a jar? Which answer is more sufficient, than his fondness deserveth. Yet, because, he imagineth this Syllogism to be invincible, I will answer directly unto it, & shiver it all to nought. I deny both the Mayor and Minor Proposition thereof. I say, The Mayor is false, & show it thus; The Pope is subject to other Bishops, who, in exterior Court, that is, in councils, have not only 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 jesuit, The Pope in Court exterior, is supreme Governor over all Bishops, to whom he giveth, and from whom he taketh away at his pleasure, power to excommunicate. Again, The Pope is subject to a Priest, his Confessor, who hath power to exercise the keys against the Pope, viz. to open unto him heaven gates, and to shut them against him. To bind his sins, and to lose them. To throw him out of that communion of Saints, whereof we read in the Creed. To deliver him to Satan: and therefore to excommunicate him. The jesuits starting hole here is, That the Priest may bind the Pope's sins in the internal Court, but not in the external. As though the Court of Conscience, were not the highest Court under Heaven. As though that Communion which stands only of Saints indeed, and all those God's Elect, were not above that Communion, which consisteth of holy ones, and unholy: of the Elected and Reprobated. For, as by popish Canons, The Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is above the Temporal: so the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction internal, is above the external. If therefore the Priest Confessor be above the Pope, whose sins he bindeth; whom he delivereth to Satan; whom he excommunicateth from that inward Communion of Saints Elect, by virtue of his inward jurisdiction; why may he not much more excommunicate him from the Communion of the righteous and unrighteous, the Elect and Reprobate, by external jurisdiction, which is far inferior to the other? But because the jesuit here taxeth me, for not distinguishing between jurisdiction internal, and external; between the binding of sins in Court exterior and interior, I answer him, as Tertullian did to another Heretic: Ostendat Hermogenes scriptum, aut vae illi. Let Becan show where this distinction is written, or woebe unto him. If he cannot, then let him hear, what the Church of England in her Apology, the second part, chap. 7. Diuis. 5. hath orthodoxally, and judiciously determined herein: viz. Seeing one manner of word is given to all, and one only key belongeth unto all, we say there is but one only power of all Ministers, as concerning opening and shutting. So that if the Priest by this one key shut out the Pope, that is, bind his sins, than he excommunicateth the Pope: or if with that self-same key, he open to the Pope, that is, remit his sin; then heab solueth the Pope. For wherefore is one excommunicated, but because his sins are bound? wherefore is one absolved, but because his sins are remitted? If it be not in respect thereof, the King may be said to have power to excommunicate; that is to say, to keep men from the Communion, viz. when he committeth some to close prison: where, neither any can speak to them, nor they to any. Now therefore, if the Priest may be the cause of the cause, that is, if he can bind the Pope's sins; why 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) deliver him to Satan? According to that of Saint Hierome to Heliodore, of the Eremitical life: God for bid that I should speak any evil of those, who succeeding the Apostolic degree, make the body of Christ with their sacred mouth: who having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in sort judge before the day of judgement. It is not lawful for me to sit before a Priest: he may, if I sin, deliver me to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the Spirit may be saved. And so Saint Rasil of the solitary life, cha. 23. Peter, inquit, Amas me, etc. Christ said unto Peter, Lovest thou me? Feed my sheep. And in like sort unto all Pastors and Doctors he gave the same power. A token whereof is this, that all bind and loose equally, as well as Peter. If every Pastor and Doctor bind and loose equally, as well as Peter; why not in Court exterior as well as Peter, sith the sheep are committed unto them, as well as unto Peter? The Minor Proposition I also deny here, as I did in the English Concord. That is, I deny that any Bishop hath power to throw the King out of the Church, or to excommunicate him, according to canonical excommunication, so properly called and defined. And further I denied, that the supposed excommunication of Theodosius, by Ambrose, was canonical excommunication: yielding there some reasons thereof. Whereunto (though very material) this silly jesuit answereth not one word; and yet with jesuitical, that is, with brazen face, is bold to set before thee (Christian Reader) his loathsome Coleworts, twice, yea, thrice sodden. ❧ Becans jar. XI. Question. Whether the King may be judge of all Controversies in the Church? 1. Controversies that arise in the Church are of two sorts: some are about faith and Religion: others are concerning Ecclesiastical affairs. The former of these questions then, is: Whether the King by virtue of his Primacy, be supreme judge of all Controversies, which pertain unto faith and Religion? Master Salclebridge saith be is, pag. 163. in these words: Sic luce clarius est, Christianos Principes cum laud, Controversias fidei dijudicasse & diremisse, etiam in universalibus octo Concilijs, etc. So as it is more clear than the Sun, that Christian Princes, with praise, have judged of, and decided controversies of faith, and that in eight General councils etc. 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, wherein diverse controversies concerning matters of faith were judged of, and decided; especially cuncerning the divinitis of Christ, against the Heretic Arius; of the divinity 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 Controversies, saith Master Saclebridge, were judged of, and decided by Kings and Emperors. 2. Master Tooker now, he affirmeth the quite contrary, who by no means will have Kings or Emperors to be judges of Controversies of faith. For thus he writeth, pag. 3. of his books: Olere autem malitiam, ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud videtur, cùm Regem caput Ecelesiae, Primatemque confingas, omniumque causarum & controversiarum, quae ad sidem & Religionem pertinent judicem tribuas. It may seem to savour of malice, & cry out upon your sauciness, when as you feign the King to be head of the Church, & judge of all causes and controversies which pertain unto faith and Religion, etc. And again pag. 50. Rexin suo Regno, omnibus superior sit, nullisubditus. Fidei judex no appelletur quidem. Although the King in his own Kingdom be above all, & subject to none: yet he may not be called, in any case, the jadge of our Faith, etc. And pag. 313. Reges Christiani non sunt fidei ac Religionis judices. Christian Kings are not judges of faith and Religion. 3. So as, if now in England there should chance to arise a dissension or debate concerning any point of Faith or Religion, as for Example, concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; what should your Academics here do? To whom should your Citizens, and the rest of the subjects have recourse? Should they go unto the King as judge in this point, and ask his sentence & determination? Master Tooker, you see, would not go to the King. What? should they go to some other judge then? But Master Salclebridge he will admit no other. What then were best to be done in this case? Truly even that, which hitherto hath been done in the debate of the King's supremacy: to wit, always to brawl, and jar thereabout, and never end the controversy. And what's the cause? In very deed no other, but for that some think one thing, some another; and they cannot, or rather will not find out the certain and true judge, who can decide the matter. And this is the property of heretics. 4. The other Question is, Whether the King be judge of all Controversies, that concern other Ecclesiastical affairs? Master Salclebridge saith, that he is, pag. 165. in these words: Audin', Controversias Episcopales ab Imperatore diremptas? Do you not hear Sir, that Episcopal Controversies have been decided by Emperors? etc. is hat Ma. Tooker thinketh of this point, is not well known. For sometimes he affirms it, as for example, pg. 24 thus: Nemini dubium est, quin in Primitiva Ecclesia, de rebus & personis Ecclesiasticis ●us dicerent Imperatores. No man can doub: but that in the Primitive Church, Emperors judged of matters, and persons Ecclesiastical etc. And yet pag. 23. he seemeth to deny it: Non est Princeps supra res, sed supra personas. The Prince (saith he) is not above the matters, but above the persons etc. And then again pag. 49. Rex in suo Regno supremus est, non supra res, sed supra homines. The King in his own Kingdom is the chief or principal, but yet not chief over things, but over men. And thus you see every where nothing but jarring and disagreement. English Concord. BOth Doctor Tooker and Hainric, deny the King to be supreme judge in controversies of faith: but in other controversies, both of them agree, that Christian Emperors have given judgement upon Ecclesiastical persons, in Ecclesiastical matters. Hear than you see is no jar, but a full and perfect concord. Wherein the jesuit is taken guilty of a double falsehood. First, when he blusheth not to write, that Hainric affirmeth, the King, by virtue of his supremacy, is supreme judge of all controversies; when on the contrary, he deemeth no mortal man, nor King, nor Angel, can be that supreme judge: nor Saint Peter; according to that, It seemed good unto the holy Ghost and to us: and lest of all, the Pope of Rome. Lastly, he constantly denieth, that any one of the Fathers ever numbered this dignity, of being supreme judge of controversies, among the other duties of Primate of the Church, or Ecclesiastical supremacy. Secondly, though Becan saith, Hic uhique dissidium, nothing but jarring: yet in good sooth, [that Christian Princes have with commendation judged & taken up controversies of faith; out of these words of Socrates, Lib. 5. cap. 10. Theodosius called together a Council of all Sects: and when the Emperor understood their manifold dissensions, he commanded them, that every of their Sects should put in writing the particular articles of their several faith. They put their opinions in writing accordingly. Then, when they were sent for to the Court, the Bishops of each Sect appeared and met together: the Emperor taketh at their hands the written scrolls of their faith. Afterward, he shutteth up himself in his Closet alone, and most earnestly maketh prayer to GOD, that his Majesty would help him to find out the truth. Lastly, he readeth every confession severally, and having read them, be condemneth and teareth them all, except the faith of the Consubstantial: that he praised and approved] not only Hainric, but before him, Ma. Doctor Bilson the most grave & learned Bishop of Winchester, in his book of Christian obedience, printed at London, Anno 1586. and before him, that most excellently learned jewel, Bb. of Salisbury, Part. 6. cap. 13. Divis. 2. Pag. 524. in the defence of his Latin Apology, gathered the same doctrine, and concluded the same opinion: the words are these, pag. 172. in the Apology; Theodosius Imperator, ut ait Socrates, etc. The Emperor Theodosius (as Socrates writeth) did not only sit among the Bishops, but was also chief at the decision of the controversy, and did rend in pieces the writings of the Heretics, approving the faith of the true professing Catholics. That which Hainric writeth here of the controversies of faith, remembered by the jesuit in the four first general councils (as for the second Council of Nice, it was rather a godless and trifling conspiracy then a Council) wherein Emperors sat Precedents, and together with the consent of the Synod, gave judgements, and concluded those differences; that did also Bishop jewel, writ long before him, Part. b. cap. 13. b. 1. Pag. 522. out of Cardinal Cusanus, in his third book De Concordia, cap. 16. whom we will sooner believe, than ten thousand Becans: the words are these; Sciendum est quod in universalibus octo concilys semper invenio Imperatores, etc. This you must know, that in the first eight general councils, I always find, that the Emperors, and their substitutes, with the Senate, had the supremacy and office of Presidentship: and with the consent of the Synod, gave the judgements and decisions. Now Sir, I pray you, what other thing is this, then to judge and take up controversies of faith? and yet the jesuit turns jester in this so serious a matter; as if the gods of his society had given him some great advantage: saying upon his former weak inferences; So as if in England there should chance to arise a debate, etc. And I will follow his steps, and turn his own terms upon him in this manner: So as if in Rome there should chance to arise a dissension, or debate about any point of faith; as for example, about the Pope's supremacy, or (which is all one) his being universal Bishop, what would the Academical Fathers of the society of JESUS do? who have suppressed the Sorbonists. What would the people of Rome do, or other the Pope's subjects? Should they go to Pope Paul the fift, as their onelle judge and desire his sentence & determination? why then Pope Gregory the great (a far wiser man) will stand against it. Should they go and desire any other judge to take up the matter? Surely, Bellarmine will not endure that. What were then best to be done in this case? Even that which hither to hath been done in the debate of the Pope's supremacy. For the Papists have ever been at odds, and jarred, and could never end this controversy. And what's the cause? In very deed no other, but for that some think one thing, and some another: and they cannot, or rather will not, find out the certain and true judge, who can decide the matter. And this is the property of heretics. Again, I will touch Becane in one instance, more nearly. If there chance to arise a controversy about this point, or article of the Pope's religion; An sides haereticis servanda, Whether promise must be kept with heretics, what will the Academical Fathers of the society do? Will they go to Pope Paul the fift? Becane will not like of that. Will they go to any other judge? Barronius will not endure it; no, nor Ignatius Loyola, the Sire of all the jesuits (who first invented the Art of Equivocation, and so the breach of faith) if he were alive. Hear I might boinfinite: but I will confine myself in one or two examples. If it chance a dissension or debate to arise about the body of Christ in the Eucharist; as whether it may be broken, or chewed with the teeth of them that care it; according to the Decree Part. 3. dist. 2. cap. 42. What would the Roman Catholics do in this case? Would they repair to Pope Paul the fist, as judge of this controversy? Berengarius in his Recantation hath given warning to the contrary. Would they go to Pope Nicholas? Bellarmine will not allow of him; who in his third book and tenth chapter of this Sacrament of the Eucharist, writeth; Christus vere in Sacramento existit, sed non teritur, non roditur: Christ is truly in the Sacrament, but he is neither bitten nor chewed. To conclude, if there arise a dissension at Rome, about the Real presence; as for example, Whether Christ's body be really present, but without bigness, as Durand holdeth, in 4. Dist 10. q. 2. or with greatness, but without distinction of parts, as Decam in 4. q. 4. and thirdly, with bigness, and all distinct parts, as Bellarmine, Lib. 3. cap. 5. De Euchar. what were then best to be done in this case? For the Papists are always at odds & jar about the corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist: and the strife can never be taken up. What's the cause? In very deed no other, but for that some think one thing, and some another: and they cannot, or rather will not, find out the certain and true judge, who can decide the matter. And this is the property of Heretics. But here observe with me in the last place, the guileful disposition of Becan; Doctor Tooker, pag. 23. affirmeth, that Princes are above the persons, and not the sacred things, as the word, Sacraments, and spiritual graces of the Church: adding in the same page, Sole ipso, etc. I will make it as clear as the Sun, that the chief care of the Prince, must be had for things and causes Ecclesiastical: and that their supremacy especially consisteth in the execution of that function. From hence the jesuit maketh this collection; The King (by confession of Doctor Tocker) is not above some Ecclesiastical things, as the word, and Sacraments: therefore above no Ecclesiastical things, as are the controversies of Bishops; Against Doctor Tooker his express meaning in the same leaf. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 204. YOu say Haintic and Tooker do not dissent herein. Richard, I admire your impudency. Hainric saith: Christian Princes commendably have determined controversies of faith. Tooker saith: Christian Kings are not judges of faith. These are utterly repugnant: there in none so blind, who may not here see a jar. For if they be no judges, how can they judge? And if commendably they judge matters of faith, they must needs be judges of faith. It is certain, Hainric is of opinion, that the King is supreme judge of faith amongst men in this life: or (which is all one) the supreme Precedent of Counsels. GOD only is absolutely the supreme judge, or Precedent of Counsels. We say, The Pope, amongst men, is supreme judge. You say, The King, or Emperor. Dr. HARRIS Reply. Here is nought else, but the empty froth of the self-same things reiterated. Doctor Tooker saith, The King is not supreme judge in controversies of faith amongst men. Hainric averreth the same. Hainric saith, Christian Kings laudably have judged and determined matters of faith: Doctor Tooker knoweth and acknowledgeth the same: Impudency itself would hardly say, there were any jar herein. But the jesuit cannot conceive, how one may commendably determine a controversy in any matter, unless he were the only supreme judge every where, touching that matter. As though james did not determine that controversy of faith in the Council of Jerusalem. Act. 15. v. 19 And yet the jesuit will not permit james to be supreme judge in controversies of faith. As though Daniel did not commendably judge & determine the controversy touching the chastity of Susanna: and yet Daniel was no supreme judge of women's continencies, or incontinencies. When in the first Nicen Council, the controversy amongst the Bishops was, Whether Bishops, Priests, Deacons, or Subdeacons', should sleep with their wives, which they had married before they were in orders: And when the rest of those Fathers would have made a Canon prohibiting the use of their wives; Paphnutius, grounding himself upon that in Scripture: Marriage is honour able among all men, and the bed undefiled: determined: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The company of man and wife, to be cleanness, and chastity. And thereupon saith Sozomen. Lib. 1. cap. 22. Paphnuij sententiam approbavit Concilium, et de hac re, nullam legemtulit, sed eam in cuiusque arbitrio, non in necessitate, poni voluit. The Council approeved his sentence, and would not make any such Canon, but left it free to the choice of every one of them. And yet Paphnutius was no supreme judge of all such matters. The jesuit would disdain, to call Hosius, Bishop of Corduba, supreme judge in controversies of faith: yet Athanasius, in his second Apology, writeth thus of him: In qua Synodo dux ille et Antesignanus non fuit? Qua Ecclesia istius Praesidentiae non pulcherrima monumenta retinet? In what Council hath not Hosius bee●e chief, and Precedent? what Church is without some notable monuments of his Presidentship? But why doth not the jesuit answer unto Socrates? who writeth the very same that Hainric affirmeth herein; and much more in the Proem to fift book, where he hath these words: Passim in historia Imperatorum mentionem propterea fecimus, quod exillo tempore quo Christiani esse coeperunt, Ecclesiaenegotia exillorum nutu pendere visa sunt, atque adeo maxima Concilia de eorum sententia, et convocata fuerunt, et adhuc convocantur. Therefore in this history have we mentioned the Emperors, because, since they first became Christian, the Church's affairs depended upon them, and the greatest Counsels, were and are assembled by their command. Surely, if to be Precedents in those greatest Counsels, be all one, as to be supreme judges of faith; (so the jesuit here would have i●) how can it be avoided, but that Emperors were supreme judges in those controversies handled in the said Counsels? and so, in controversies of faith, (for such controversies were handled in them); seeing that, as that great learned man, and Cardinal, Cusanus in his book of Concord, Lib. 3. chap. 16. writeth, (and he writeth as he sound it;) That Emperors, or other Senators, were always Precedents, and had the Primacy in those said greatest Counsels. The jesnit cannot deny, but that Cusanus so writeth: wherefore then doth he not shape Cusanus his answer? Wherhfore? Because a man may as soon expect water out of a Flintstone, as any judicious learning or reading, from this so unlearned and shallow jesuit. If the Pope should be that universal Bishop or supreme judge of còtroversies in faith: then, as said Pope Gregory the great; If he err in the faith, all the members of Christ's Church then living, must err in the faith. Then Heretics, Apostates from the faith, and the principal Authors of that Apostasy, that is, Antichrists, viz. Popes, may be supreme judges of controversies in faith. Which is impious, and absurd: For, as Lyra in Math. cap. 16. saith; Constat etc. It is certain that many Popes have been Apostates from the faith. Therefore we hold no man to be supreme judge in controversies of faith; because All men are liars. Therefore we say, The Lord alone is supreme judge: because, as Augustine (against Cresconius the Grammarian, lib. 21. chap. 2.) saith; Dominus semper veraciter judicat: Ecclesiastici autemiudices, sicut homines, plerumque falluntur. God judgeth always truly: others, even Ecclesiastical judges, are most commonly deceived. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 206 TOOker herein followeth your King, who in controversies of faith, sendeth every man to his own private conscience: for so he writeth in his preface Monitotory: Opto ut velitis: I wish you would diligently read over the Scripture, to take from thence the rule of faith: and to place the foundation of your faith, in your own certain knowledge, and not in the uncertain opinion of others. Which is all one, as if he had said; There is no certain judge in the matter of faith, but every one is to rest in his own proper judgement. Therefore Tooker holdeth with the King, but dissenteth from Hainric. You halt on both sides. Dr. HARRIS Reply. HAinric, in his Becane Baculus, defending this found doctrine, and orthodoxal, which Becan here brings in, set down by his Majesty in his preface monitory; cudgeled sound this jesuit, for his impious scoffing at that holy & good doctrine, as is there to be seen in many pages: yet this shameless jesuit, dare here affirm, that Hainric dissenteth from his Majesty herein. If this be Becans English jar, thè is his English jar, in truth, the most uniform Concord. For I dare avow, that not only Hainric, but all other Protestant English Writers do embrace, as true, ancient, catholic, and Apostolic doctrine, that which the jesuit transcribeth here from his majesties preface monitory. Moreover, we may here behold the footsteps of that old Serpent, wherein this serpentine brand, viz. this jesuit treadeth. His Majesty, following his Master Christ, advised Princes, To take from the Scripture (diligently read over by them, and so, well understood by them) the rule of their faith: whereby they might place the foundation of their faith, in their own certain knowledge, to weet, solidly grounded upon the Scriptures; and not in the uncertain opinion of others. This pure doctrine, the jesuit with the aspersion of his leaven, adulterateth thus: This is all one, as if the King had said, There is no certain judge in the matter of faith, but every one is to rest in his own proper judgement: whereas his Majesty clean contrary asserteth, that GOD hath provided to every one of his Saints on earth, a certain judge in matter of their faith, to weet, the holy Ghost, and holy Scripture; the certain knowledge whereof, as touching matter of faith, the holy Ghost, working together with the sacred means of hearing, reading, meditaring, conferring, praying, etc. giveth & sealeth up in their souls: So that they shall not place the foundation of their faith, in the uncertainty either of their own proper judgements, or of the opinions of others; but in the certain testimony of the foresaid judge. Of which judge, Saint john, 1. joh. 2. v. 27. writeth thus: And the anointing which ye have received of him, dwelleth in you: and ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things; and it is true, and not lying: and as it taught you, ye shall abide in it. So that every Christian is to rest, not in his own proper judgement, for that is uncertain; but in the certain judgement of the foresaid anointing: working in the Saints that certain knowledge, wherein to place the foundation of their faith; whereof his Majesty speaketh. Constantine the great, and first Christian Emperor, found in himself, by gracious effect, the certainty of this said doctrine, here averred by our King; for thus he writeth in his Epistle to Sapor, King of Persia, registered by Theodoret, Lib. 1. cap. 24. Marking the divine faith, I obtain the light of truth: and following the light of truth, I acknowledge the divine faith. The certain truth of this doctrine, is so apparent, that is bath express testimony and acknowledgement thereof, from the very Popish Writers themselves, as is to be seen by diverse of them, in Beoano-Baculus. Therefore, I will here instance in one only, and that no mean one, viz. Stapleton, who in his second admonition to Master Dr. whitaker's, set before his Triplication, writeth thus: In libro meo 3. Principior ŭ fidei, Spiritus sancti internam persuasionem, ad quodlibet fidei obiectum credendum, ita necessariam, ita efficacem esse docui, ut nec absque illa, quicquam a quoquam creds possit, etsi milliei Ecclesia attestetur: et per illam solam quodlibet credendum credi queat, tacente prorsus, et non audita Ecclesia. In my 8. book of the Principles of faith, I have taught, that the inward persuasion of the holy Ghost is so necessary, and so effectual for the believing of every object of faith, that without it, neither can any thing be believed by any man, though the Church testified with it a thousand times; and by it alone any thing that is to be believed, may be believed, though the Church kept silence, and never were heard. Is not the force of this truth great, and must needs prevail, sith the Adversaries themselves, writ so fully and directly for it? To shut up this point, and to shut the Pope clean out, from this supreme judgeship, Panormitan the Abbot, in De Elect. et Elect potest. ca Signisicasti; very judiciously writeth thus: Plus credendum est uni privato fideli, quam toti Concitio et Papa, si meliorem habeat authoritatem, velrationem. We ought to give more credit to one private lay man, then to the whole Council, and the Pope, if he bring better authority, and more reason. And to the same effect, writeth Picus Mirandula, in the question, Whether the Pope be above the Council; thus: Simplici potius rustico, et Infanti, et Anicula magis, quam Poncifici maxima, et mill Episcopis credendum est, si●sti contra evangelium, illi pro evangelio faciunt. More credit is to be given to a simple plain Rustic, to an Infant, or to an old woman, then to the Pope, or a thousand Bishops, if the Pope and the Bishops speak against the Gospel, and the others speak with the Gospel. What a silly supreme judge, and absolute in all controversies of faith, is the Pope, unto whom, (as oftentimes it may, and hath fallen out) less credit is to be given, then to a private man, then to a woman, then to an Intant? BECAN. Exam. Pag. 107. I Repeat that which I had written before: If a dissension should arise in England, touching some point of faith, as of the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; what should the subjects do? Should they go to the King as supreme judge? Hainrick would have it so; but Tooker would not suffer it: The King himself sonds every man to his own conscience, and you would haut on both sides. Touching that which you bring out of o●r discords, touching it. The Pope, as universal Bishop. 2. Faith to be kept with Heretics. 3. The body of Christ broken, and chewed or grinded in the Eucharist. 4. The Real presence of his body without quantity: It is false, we descent not herein; and though we did, doth it therefore follow, that you descent not in the point of your Church's Primate? That is most foolish. Dr. HARRIS Reply. INdeed the jesuit is here become very foolish, and childish; and come to this, Repetamus omnia breviter, yet sets him down in his chair of pestilence; that is, scornfulness; with jesuitical, viz. the greatest impudency, scoffing very impiously and ridiculously, our King's sacred Majestic, as those cursed miscreants did our Saviour Christ. They cried, All hail King of the Jews: and this jesuit, in effect cries, All hail King of England, supreme judge there, in controversies of faith. Touching the Real presence, there is no discord amongst us: but therein are discords endless amongst the Papists; as in the other points here mentioned, though this jesuit with brazen face deny the same. If any man, having an honest and good heart, doubt in any matter of faith, our King hath here put that man in the King of heaven his high way, to put him our of doubt, viz. by sending him, to the Law, Esay 8. and to the Gospel. Thirther fly we, and not to our King, in controversies of faith. But miserable Papists, who leave the law & Gospel, as dead Ink: whither should they fly in their controversies of faith? To the Pope? belike as the Thomists and Scotists did. The case was this: There fell out between those two Sects, this odious quarrel, Whether the Virgin Mary were conceived in sin, or no. The one side, said yea: The other faction, cried nay. Their factions increased, the Schools were inflamed, & the world troubled: No Doctor, no Coucell, was able to accord them. The Scotists alleged for themselves the Council of Basil. The Thomists said, that Council was disorderly summoned, and therefore unlawful. In the mids of these broils, Pope Sixtus took upon him, as supreme judge, to determine that controversy in faith between them. When all the world expected his resolution, desirous to be satisfied in that question; The Pope commanded both the Thomists, and the Scotists, to departed home, and to dispute no more of that matter: and so left them as doubtful as he found them. Can not a Supreme judge made of clouts, have done the office of a supreme judge therein, as well as Pope Sixtus; that is to say, have done just nothing? Lastly, whereas this trifling Sophister, framing his childish argument [Papist Writers jar in many points: Therefore English Writers jar not in the point of their King's Primacy] upon the anvil of his own fantasy only; and so framed, would father it upon me: let his fatherhood learn by this reply, that my only scope therein was, in urging him to the quick, by those objected jars, as it were, by so many incisions of his Basilica vain, to give a vent unto that fault, fiery, scoffing humour of his, at our seeming jars, which in his plethoric body, was so redundant, and put● ifying in him: As also to give him to understand, how pat those words of our Saviour Christ fall upon his head; Math. 7. u-5. viz. Hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Their Popish jars, are Beame-Iarres: our English seeming jars, are less than Mote-Iarres. In truth, they are no jars, at all, but true Concord's. And thus is his froth once again scattered to nothing. ❧ Becans jar. XII. Question. Whence, and by what Title, hath the King his Primacy in the Church? 1. THe sense hereof is, Whether the King precisely in that he is a Christian King, hath the Primacy of the Church? The former part of this point, Ma. Thomson seemeth to approve, pag 78. where he saith: Omnes Principes, etiam Pagani, obiectiuè habent supreman potestatem in omnes omnino personas svorum subditorum, & generatim in res ipsas, sive civiles sint, sive sacrae, ut in cultu divino & Religione procuranda, saltem quoad modum & exercitium. All Princes, yea even those that be Pagans, have for the object of their supreme power, all manner of persons that be their subjects, and generally all things, whether civil or sacred, as in advancing God's honour & Religion, at leastwise, so far forth, as belongeth to the manner and exercise thereof, etc. And then again, pag. 94. Primatus est Regium bonum, quod Censurâ tolli non potest. Nec est absurdum, Regem velut Ethnicum, esse Primatem Ecolesiae. Primacy is a certain Kingly right, that cannot be taken away by censures. Nor is it absurd, that a King, as he is an Ethnic, be Primate of the Church etc. And yet further in the same place: Rex Ethnicus, cum Christo initiatur, non acquirit Primatú de novo. An Ethnic King (saith he) when as he is instructed in Christ, or the Christian faith, doth not purchase any new primacy, etc. To whom consenteth Ma. Burhill. pag. 251. thus: Rex titulo Registemporalis potest sibi vindicare, & assumere Primatum Ecclesiae. A King, by the title of a temporal King, may claim unto himself, and take upon him the Primacy of the Church, etc. And pag. 267. Rex etsi iustissimè excommunicatus, non amittit Primatum in rebus Ecclesiasticis. A King, although he be most justly excommunicated, yet doth he not lose his Primacy in Ecclesiastical matters, etc. 2. My L. of Ely now, he teacheth us a quite contrary lesson, in his Tortura Torti, pa. 39 where he averreth, that the Primacy of the Church doth belong to the King, not because he is a King, but because he is a Christian King; and therefore Ethnic Kings have no Primacy in the Church, so long as they remain Ethnics; but do then receive the said Primacy, when they are made Christians: and lose the same again also, when they be excommunicated. His words 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 lawful then, to yield Allegiance to an Ethnic King? Nay rather, not to yield it, is a wickedness. For, in an Ethnic there is true temporal power, and that without respect to Ecclesiastical power, etc. And a little after. Rex quiviscùm de Ethnico Christianus fit, non perdit terrenum ius, sed acquitit ius nowm. Itidem cùm de Christiano sit sicut Ethnicus, vigoresententiae amitut nowm ius quod acquisierat: sed retinet terrenum ius in temporalibus: quod suerat illi proprium, priusquam Christianus fieret, etc. Every King, when as of an Ethnic, he becometh a Christian, doth not lose his earthly right, but getteth a new right. And so in like manner, when as of a Christian, he becometh as an Ethnic, (to wit, by excommunication) then by vigour of the sentence, he looseth that new right which he had gotten, but yet notwithstanding he still retaineth his earthly right intemporall things, which was proper unto him, before he became a Christian, etc. 3. So as according to the opinion of Ma. Thomson, and Ma. Buthill, it followeth, that all Kings, whether Christians or Ethnics, or of whatsoever other Sect or Religion they be, are Primates of the Church in their own Kingdoms. Therefore all Englishmen and Scots, who live at Constantinople, are (by their sentence) subject to the Turk in Ecclesiastical matters: as also they that live in Spain, are subject to King Philip; and they at Rome, to the Pope, & so to others, in other places. What now shall these men do, if the Turk should command them to follow the Alcoran? The King of Spain force them to hear Mass? The Pope to pray for the dead? and some heathen King perhaps compel them to Idolatry? Shall they then obey these Prince's command? But than should they do against their consciences. Shall they refuse to obey? Then farewell Primacy of the Church. Perhaps they will answer, that they will obey, when they think good. Shall therefore subjects be judges of their King? May then the Catholics in England, say after this manner, If it please your Majesty, in this point we think good to obey your majesties command, but in that not? English Concord. IN this place, either the jesuit is beside himself, or else he hath much forgot himself. For every where in his other Questions, he affirmeth that no King; either Pagan or Christian, hath any Primacy in the Church: and yet here, he inquireth from whence, and by what title, he hath his Primacy in the Church. Therefore, by his own learning, he beateth his brains to find the original of nothing. If he take away this supposition, that the King hath a Primacy in the Church, either precisely as he is a King, or else, because he is a Christian King; he is a foolish Sophister. [For his dispute runs not thus; The King if he have Primacy of the Church, he hath it, either as he is a King, or as a Christian King: but he hath it in neither of the said two respects: therefore he hath it not at all.] If he let that supposition stand; then, because it is manifest, that our most gracious King james, is by birth, a King: and by religion a Christian King; he is a brainsick wrangler. For, sith by his supposal here, The King hath the Primacy of the Church: what matter is it, whether he have it, as he is a King, or as he is a Christian King, if so be he have it at all? Wherefore, there is no cause that we should much stand upon this idle and beggarly question, wherein is only a shadow of a question. Furhermore, I would have the jesuit understand, that this Primacy of the Church he standeth upon, is not derived from the title of a King, but from God himself. For Moses was adorned with this dignity in the Church of Israel. And yet we never read, that he was styled with the title of a King. But certainly, that you may know here is no jar or odds among us, respecting the main: the worthy Bishop of Ely, in his Tortura, pag. 377. hath sound, and according to the very truth manifested, That the Primacy of the Church, belongeth not to Ethnic Kings, as Ethnic: but unto Kings, as they are Christian Kings, or Defenders of the Divine truth. His words are these; Et sunt ista quidem ex Testamento veteri satis solida fundamenta, non quod ad reges infideles Primatum pertinere probent, etc. And those things before related out of the old Testament, are so solid and substantial grounds, as Tortus shall never be able to shake. Not that they prove this Primacy of the Church to belong to Pagan Kings: no surely, we in the new Testament give no more unto such Princes, than was given in the old unto Ahasucrus, and Nabuchodonosor. Wherefore, in this point, Tortus is beside himself: but yet, if Caesar become a Christian, as in Constantine, then presently he hath the same right over the Church of the new Testament, which josias 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 soon as ever they are made Kings of the Israel of God, & given up their names to Christ. Wherefore, this is not our purpose, that the persecutors of the Church, such as were cain's and Tiberius, should be the Governors of the Church, (who would not receive that title although a man would give it them: because they employ their whole strength to ruin and root up the Church): but let them then take superiority in the Church, when they are unfeignedly converted to the faith thereof. There are due to Caesar, the things of Caesar: and there belong to the Christian Caesar, whatsoever duties under the old Law were either paid or payable by the people of God to their Kings: unto whom were then due and yielded, all manner of subjection and obedience, not only in the affairs of the covill state, but also of the Church. These things so expressed, are very true and fitting our purpose: for in them we have learned, that Pagan Kings, as they are Pagans, have no Primacy in the Church. But what if almighty God so guide and govern the hearts of Pagan Kings, as that they would stand for the worship of God against error, and make laws for the same; let the jesuit tell me in that case, whether God doth not hind our conscience to obey pagan Princes? And let him take heed how he deny it, lest Bellarmine fall on his jack for it, because he hath resolved 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, etc. When Emperors stand for the truth, and give out a commandment for the same against error; whosoever shall despise the same, increaseth his own damnation. For even among men he suffereth punishment: but before God he shall not dare to appear, which refuseth to do that, which truth itself commandeth by the heart of the King. And according to this opinion, our reverend B. in his Tortura Torti, pag. 381. most truly writeth, Quodcunque in rebus religionis, etc. Whatsoever the Kings of Israel did in matters of religion, neither did they anything without commendation, wherein they had power & authority to enact Laws, as that GOD should not be blasphemed: which you will not deny the King of Babel also did, Dan. 3.29. And the King of Nineuch, jonas. 3.7. that with a public proclaimed fast, God almighty might be satisfied. Andaccording to this sentence, wrote Saint Augustine many years before him, in his 50. Epist. to Bonifacius the Soldier. Sed illud propheticum iam impletur, Psal. 2. Et nunc reges seruite domino in timore, etc. But now is the prophetical Oracle fulfilled, which speaketh in the 2. Psalms, Now, o ice Kings, serve the Lord in fear. And how shall Kings screw the Lord in fear, unless they prohibit and punish those enormities with religious severity and justice, which are daily committed against the Lords will and commandment? And because he is a King, he serveth (as a servant) by making Laws, with force and vigour to command things that are righteous, and to forbid the contrary. Even as Ezekias served by destroying the Temples of Idols, and cutting down the groves. Even as King losias served, by doing the like. Even as the King of Niniuch served, by compelling the whole City to pacify the Lord. Even as King Darius served, by breaking the Idol in pecces. Even as King Nabuchodonosor served, by making a godly and laudable law, that whosoever blasphemed the God of Sydrach, he should be destroyed, and his house razed. In this therefore Kings serve the Lord, in that they are Kings; when they do those things for his service, which they cannot do but as they are Kings. If therefore the jesuit, had seriously known how to distinguish these things, he might have acknowledged, that Master Burhill, and Master Thomson, agreed with the reverend Bishop in this point. Especially, when Master Thomson, in pag. 78. writeth thus expressly and distinctly; Omnes principes etiam pagani, etc. All Kings, yea, very Pagan Kings (objectively) have supreme power over all the persons of their subjects, both in sacred and civil things: especially, to attemper their measure, and permit their exercise: which thing is witnessed by the Chronicles of all Nations. Although the Pagans used that their power against the Lord: yet was it a fault of the men, abusing their power given them of God to a good end, and not any fault of the power at all. But yet, by a far more special regard did this power in Ecclesiastical matters, of old belong to the good Kings of Israel: and now also to Christian Princes. For they, as bceing of the lewish Synagogue, and these, as being of the Church, have a greater and more special right in all causes of the Church, then if they were merely and only Kings. Wherefore, in one respect it was said to Cyrus; Pastor incusestu: Thou art my Shepherd: and in another respect to David: Tu pasces populum meum Israel; Thou shalt feed my people Israel. Which thing Iremember our reverend Bishop hath admonished in another place. And speaking to Becan himself, pag. 94. he concludeth with these words; Haec facilia sunt intellectu: & miror te tantum Theologum hic haesisse. These things (saith he) are easy to be understood: and I cannot but wonder, that Becane, who is magnified by the Papists for so great a Divine, should fail in a point of such facility. Hear you may perceive (Readers) that there is a constant English concord, and no jar among us at all: wherein these two things offer themselves to be considered. First, the Logic: and secondly, the plainness, or rather ignorance of this jesuit: or, at the least, a jesuitical jar, or the Primacy of Kings, established by the jesuits themselves. 1. Thus he reasoneth out of Master Thomsons, and Master Burhills opinion. All Kings, yea popish and pagan, have a primacy in their Kingdoms: Ergo, saith the jesuit, it must needs follow, that all persons living in those Kingdoms, are bound to do all things (though never so wicked) which are by them commanded. Is this the Divinity of the jesuits? Math. 23. 2. Our Saviour speaketh thus to his Disciples; The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair: all things therefore which they command you to do, that observe and do. Acts 4.18. There the same Pharisees out of the same chair, forbidden the Apostles, that they speak and preach any more in the Name of jesus. Therefore may not the jesuit as Logically conclude, that the Apostles are bound to obey them? and than no more teaching in the Name of jesus. But Peter and john answered them other wise; Whether it be more just, we obey GOD, or man: judge ye. 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, etc. If he that sitteth chief, forbidden you that which is commanded of the Lord; or on the contrary, command that which is forbidden of the Lord: let him be accursed of all them that love God. and reckoned a false witness, and sacrilegious person. The Roman Catholics of Venice, of Sorbona, & many other Noble-menan France, acknowledge the Pope's supremacy in the church: but if the Pope should command them to become his subjects in temporal things, etiam in ordine ad spiritualia, in behalf of spiritual causes: or, if he should authorize the Alcoran, and command them to follow it; would they, think you, obey his will? Then must they do against their conscience. If they do not obey him; then what shall become of the Pope's Primacy? I will beat you with the scourge of your own tongue; Perhaps they will answer, They will obey when they think good. Shall therefore the Papistical Catholics in France, and in Venice, take up this saying; Hear, O Pope, we think good to obey your Holiness command in this point, and not in that: and then farewell the Pope's supremacy. Thus much of the Logic of Becane. Now, for his plainness, or plain ignorance; these are the words of the Bishop of Ely, in Tortura Torti, pag. 39 Dominia non fundantur in fide, sic infidelitate non evertuntur. Quin rex quinis cum de Ethnice Christianus fit, non perdit ius terrenum, sed acquirit nowm. Governments and principalities are not founded upon believing, and therefore are not overthrown by infidelity. But when any King is made a Christian, of a Pagan, he loseth not the earthly right he had before, but acquireth a new right. Thus far our worthy Bishop. Now (saith the jefait) in these words, The Chaplain teacheth, that Pagan Kings have no Primacy in the Church; but they receive it by their conversion to Christianity. But I say, that these are not the words of the Bishop of Ely only, but (before him) of Cardinal Bellarmine, De Roman: Pont: Lib 5. cap. 2. et 3. Dominium non fundatur in gratia aut fide: Christus non abstulit regna ijs quorum erant, etc. Lordship and principality, is not grounded on grace, or believing: Christ took not away Kingdoms, frons them to whom they belonged, for he came not to destroy things well established, but to perfect them. Therefore, when a King is made a Christian, which was a Pagan, he loseth not his earthly Kingdom, which he had obtained by right, but acquireth nowm ius, a new right. Which new right, if Becane may be believed, as an Interpreter, or Concluder, or judge; is the Primacy in the Church. And so we have him crying guilty, confessing the question: let us sound the victory. For if there be no jar here betwixt the jesuits about this Primacy, then have we plainly confirmed, and evicted them, that Christian Princes have a Primacy in the Church. For so Bellarmine, expressly and dogmatically, affirmeth, That Ethnic Kings becoming Christians, acquire a new right. Which new right, by confession of Becane, is the Primacy in the Church. Therefore Christian Kings have a Primacy in the Church. But what is the Primacy of Pagan Kings, as Pagans, I leave it to the Papists themselves to consider. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 212 I Do not take away the Supposition, out of mine own opinion; for I deny the King to have Primacy: but out of yours, who affirm he hath it. Therefore, out of your opinion, I might well dispute thus: Whence hath he Primacy? Whether as a King? or as a Christian King? to show the discord. For by Thomson, and Burhill, all heathen Kings, as well as Christian; By the Chaplain, only Christian Kings, are Primates of the Church. This is a great jar, compound it, if you can. And where you add, that it mattereth not how he have it, so he hath it: This is a new jar. For it mattereth greatly, according to Thomson and the Chaplain. For, if he have the Primacy because he is King; he cannot lose it so long as he is King: if because he is a Christian King, he may lose it. If he may lose the Primacy, he is not secure: if he cannot lose it, he may take his quiet rest. Dr. HARRIS Reply. HIs first words of the 12. Question, show that he makes the Suppositum of himself, & not out of our Writers opinion; especially Ma. Thomson, and Ma. Burhill, here named by him. For, having set down the Question thus, Whence, and by what title, hath the King Primacy in the Church? he saith; The meaning of this Question is, Whether the King have Primacy 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 have Primacy in the Church. Therefore the jesuit here sets down the Suppositum as of himself, and not as out of their opinions. But what meant the jesuit to say, he disputed here, when he only asked the Question? Do boys use to dispute with their Masters, when they only ask questions of their Masters? Indeed, if the jesuit had disputed, he should have disputed as in my English Concord is set down; and so by his dispute, he had not taken away his own Suppositum, (as here he doth) but had disputed out of the opinion of some others, who aver the King's Primacy. As touching the jar; the English Concord, even out of the express words of Ma. Thomson, manifested the agreement between the reverend Bishop, and Ma. Thomson, in this point, so plainly & directly; that Ma. Thomson himself wondered that Becane could stumble at it, as at any jarie. And now lately comes forth Ma. Burhill, in his Appendix pag. 289. asserting, That an Ethnic King, while he is an Ethnic King, can no more be supreme Governor of the Church, than an Ethnic man. while he is an Ethnic man, may be a Priest, of, or in the Church. And so, touching this point, & this Question, here is made up, a full & uniform Concord: and the jesuitical mist of this supposed great jar, utterly dispelled. But, is this jesuit well in his wits, affirming, That if the King, precisely as King, have Ecclesiastical Primacy; then he is secure, because as long as he is King, he can not lose it; but if he have it as a Christian King, he may lose it? when 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 kingdom, and so his primacy: but neither Pope, death, nor devil, can take away his Christianity. Rom. 3. ver. 35. Note also here (good Christian Reader) the horrible impudency of this jesuit; who ironically afferteth, That Kings are sure, and may be secure to enjoy their kingdoms; when as Suarius, in his spanne-new Book, hath made it known to all the world, that by jesuitical doctrine (most stiffly defended as orthodoxal, and now in force) Kings are not sure to enjoy, for the space of one month, week, or day, their kingdoms, liberties, or lives, if the Pope be disposed to bereave any of them thereof. That is, to excommunicate them; and that is very easily done, even by the breath of his mouth, wheasoever he is pleased to pretendany cause thereof. For then, by their Canon law, because he is supreme judge, whose will stands for reason, and law is summa ratio, reason: no man must say unto him, Domine, cur Itafacis? Sir judge Supreme, why do you so? Thus in plain truth, by these poisonful miscreant jesuits, are the lives and kingdoms of all King's Christian, brought at this day into far more imminent danger, then are the liucs and livings of the meanest vassals of the said Kings: and yet (saith this jesuit) Kings, in respect of their kingdoms, may sleep soundly on both sides. Which indeed is nothing else, but to lull them asleep in the bed of careless security; thereby, with more speed and less danger, to cut their throats. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 214 YOu object that I should reason thus: According to Thomson and Burhill, Ethnic Kings, as well as Kings Christian, have Primacy of the Church: Therefore, all living in those Kingdoms, are bound to do whatsoever those Ethnic Kings impiously shall còmaund. That was not my inference, but this; Therefore all Scots and Englishmen, living in those Kingdoms, are subject in Ecclesia sticall matters, to those Ethnics as Primates of the Church. Upon it, I do not so much dispute, as demand thus: What the English or Scottish would do, if those Kings should command them any thing touching the Church, or religion? If they should always in all things obey, they should do against conscience? if never obey, they should not acknowledge their Primacy. If then only they should obey, wken they thought good: they should make themselves judges of their primates. To these three they should have answered; or answer you, if they deny to answer. Dr. HARRIS Reply. IAunswere: first, that whereas the jesuit in diverse places of his Examen, hath professed, that he will dispute nothing but about the English jars; he hath here forgotten himself, and endeavoureth the refutation of Ma. Thomson, and Ma. Burhill, touching the Ecclesiastical Primacy of Pagan Kings, requiring an aunswete thereof, either from me, or them. Secondly, that the jesuits ignorance in Logic is such, that he doth not understand when he reasoneth, and when he reasoneth not. In his English jar, chap. 12. Sect. 3. his words are these; According to the opinion of Thomson, & Burhill, all Pagan Kings are primates of the Church: Therefore, all Englishmen living in Constantinople, or Rome, are subject to the Turk, or Pope, in matters Ecclesiastical. Therefore, what shall they do, if the Turk command them to follow the Alcoran? or the Pope, to pray for the dead? Shall they obey the command? Then they shall do against conscience. Shall they not obey? Then they deny their Primacy. Shall they obey when they think good? Then subjects shall make themselves judges of their Kings. Hear are five several inferences, all tending to evince the absurdities, which necessarily follow upon the supposed opinion of Master Thomson, and Ma. Burhil. herein: and yet the jesuit saith, he doth not dispute. Moreover, in express words he concludeth thus; That if the English be subject to the Tufkish Emperor, as Primate: and the Turk command them to follow the Alcotan; they must obey his command: or otherwise, they utterly overthrow his Primacy. What is this else, but to conclude thus; If Pagan Kings be primates of the Church, than all men living in their dominions, are bound to do what they shall impiously command: unless the jesuit will deny, that the Turks command is impious, viz. to follow the Alcoran? And is not this goodly, hellish, jesuitical doctrine, practised by the jesuits, according to their oath, Caecae obedientiae, of blind obedience; to pervert the faith, & fidelity of subjects, to God, and their King; to destroy Kings and kingdoms: to disturb the peace of Christendom, by their combustions tumbling of garments in blond, if their supreme judge and Primate sh●l command them so to do? Thirdly, that the English Concord, gave this fondling more sufficient answer than he deserved, to all these his questions, by retorting them upon himself, thus: The Catholic (so called) Venetians, and Sorbonists, acknowledge the Pope to be their Ecclesiastical Primate. Then they are subject to him as Primate. Then, if he as Primate, command them to obey him in temporals, in order to spiritual things, what shall they do? Shall they obey him? Then they shall do against conscience. Shall they not obey him? Then they shall deny his Primacy. Shall they obey him when they think good? Then the subjects shall make themselves judges of their supreme judge. This pinched the jesuit to the quick, answering fully his questions, if he had answered these: but alas, his silliness could shape no solid answer thereunto. Fourthly, I answer, That supposing the Turkish Emperor to be Primate Ecclesiastical in his dominions; The English living therein, are bound, ever to obey him in all things lawful and honest: and never to obey him, in things unlawful, and dishonest. Lastly, I answer, That Master Thomson, and Ma. Burhill hold the clean contrary unto that which the jesuit fathereth upon them here. For they reach, that Pagan Kings, as Pagan, have not properly and truly, Primacy Ecclesiastical; as hath appeared out of their writings: therefore the jesuit very ridiculously fighteth here with his own shadow only. BECAN. Exam. Pag. 215 YOu say, that I confess the Primacy Ecclesiastical of King's Christian, because where Bellarmine writeth thus: (Quando Rex, etc. When a King of a Pagan becomes a Christian, he doth not lose the earthlis kingdom, which of right he had before, but he getteth novumius, a new right.) I interpret those words of Bellarmine, a new right, to be Ecclesiastical Primacy. I did not interpret the words of Bellarmine, but of the Chaplain, though they seem to be the same. For, Bellarmine addeth thus: Acquiritius novum ad vitam aeternam: He getteth a new right to life aeternal: which new right, not only Ethnic Kings, but also their subjects, obtain, when of Pagans they become Christians. But the Chaplain meaneth, by new right, Primacy Ecclesiastical: for he saith, that the Christian King, by force of excommunication, loseth that new right. Truly, he cannot lose the rightto eternal life by excommunication, but by his own fault only. Richard, go now and triumph. Dr. HARRIS Reply. THe English Concord, charged this jesuit with acknowledgement of the Ecclesiastical Primacy of Christian Kings: because [whereas the reverend Bishop of Ely cited the words of Bellarmine, as out of Bellarmine himself; and as fully to Bellarmine's meaning, as Bellarmine himself doth, De Rom Pont. lib. 5. cap. 2. et 3.] the jesuit interpreted those said words cited by the Bishop, of Primacy Ecclesiastical, which Christian Kings obtain, when of Pagan, they become Christian Kings. Unto which, this silly disputant hath nothing else to answer but this; That he did not interpret those words, novum ius, a new right, as the words of Bellarmine, but as the words of the Bishop. Which answer is very idle, seeing that the Bishop produced them, as the words of Bellarmine, and not as his own. The jesuit, to back his answer, saith; That Bellarmine addeth for explication of those words, a new right, ad vitam aeternam; to life eternal: which the Bishop leaveth out. And further, that the Bishop saith, The new right may be lost by Excommunication; but the right to eternal life, cannot be lost by force of excommunication, but only by the own fault of him that loseth it. Lastly, That not only Kings, but all their private subjects, may gain, by their conversion, that new right to eternal life. Unto which, I reply: First, that the words cited by the Bishop, explicat those words, new right, to be meant, of a right to eternal life, as fully as Bellarmine's words do. The very express words of Bellarmine, De Ro. Pon. lib. 5. c. 3. colum. 1077. are these; Quando Rexfit Christianus, non perdit regnum terrenum, quod iure obtinebat, sed acquirit nowm ius ad regnum aeternum. When a Pagan King becomes a Christian King, he loseth not his earthly kingdom, which by right he obtained; but he getteth a new right to the kingdom eternal. The Bishops express words in Tort. Tort. pag. 40. 1.1. are these; Rex quinis, cum de Ethnico Christianus fit, non per dit terrenumius, sed acquiritius nowm; puta, in bonis Ecclesiae spiritualibus. Every King, when of a Pagan, he becometh a Christian King, doth not lose his earthly right, to wit, in the spiritual good things of the Church. By which words it is most apparent, that the Bishop, no less than Bellarmine, explaineth that new right, to ben right to eternal life: unto which the Christian Kings are brought by those said spiritual good things of the Church; being the means which God hath ordained, and sanctified to that purpose. Secondly, I reply, that as Excommunication grounded upon no fault of the Christian King, cannot take away his right to eternal life, so it cannot take away his Primacy Ecclesiastical. Again, that Excommunication grounded upon a grievous sin of the excommunicated, joined with impenitency and obstinacy; may as well, may rather, cause him to lose his right to life eternal; as it may force him to lose his Primacy Ecclesiastical. Doth not the perpetual binding of any man's sins, viz. being obstinate and impenitent, exclude him directly from his right to eternal life; but that binding, if at all, excludeth him from the Primacy, indirectly, & by consequent only Lastly, I reply, That although it be true, that private subjects, as well as their Kings, becoming Christians, or Pagans, get a new right to everlasting life: yet that is nothing to the purpose, which intendeth Kings only, (not private persons) what they acquire or lose, in becoming Christian Kings. Now, the new right to the Kingdom eternal, is, as their new service of GOD is, to the King eternal. But according to Saint Augustine: Herein Christian Kings, as Christian Kings, serve the Lord; when they do those things to serve him, which they could not do, but as they are, or in that they are Christian Kings. It is not enough for a Christian King, towards the obtaining of eternal life, or, as Bellarmine speaketh, of God's eternal kingdom, to serve the Lord, as a Christian King, that is, by executing his Primacy Ecclesiastical, as he that is Custos utriusque Tabulae, The grand or Cause-keeper of both the Tables; and so holding his new right to life eternal. According to that of Saint Paul, unto the same sense, though in another case: 1. Tim. chap. 2. ver. 15. Women, through bearing of children shall be saved, if they continue in faith, and love, and holiness with modesty: so Christian Kings shall be saved, by well using their Primacy Ecclesiastical, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness. Thus are all these several examinations jesuitical, as Potter's shards, shivered to nothing: thus have we this jesuit acknowledging the Ecclesiastical Primacy of Christian Kings. Why then, unless the jesuit have somewhat to say in arrest of judgement, should not we, as we have obtained, so openly proclaim the victory? ❧ Becans jar. XIII. Question. Whether the King may constrain his Subjects to take the Oath of Primacy, or no? 1. HItherto have we treated of the jarring and disagreement of our Adversaries, about the nature, offices, & origen of the King's Primacy. Now there remaineth a certain practical question, which toucheth the Conscience to the quick; to wit, Whether the King may constrain or force his subjects to swear, that they acknowledge his kingly Primacy, whereof we have spoken before? Or whether they will acknowledge the King as Primate & supreme Head of the Church of England, unto whom, as unto their Primate and supreme Head, they will promise fidelity, no less in Ecclesiastical and Spiritual matters, then in Politic & temporal? This question hath two points. The first, whether the King of England doth defacto exact, or hath at any time exacted such an Oath of his subjects? The other is, Whether his subjects are bound in conscience to take such an Oath, if the King should exact the same? Of both these points severally, I mean to speak a word or two. The first Point. 2. The first point than is, Whether the King of England doth exact, or at any time hath exacted such an Oath of his subjects? It is manifest that King Henry the 8. did. For so writeth Doctor Sanders, In his book of the Schism of England: Laurentius Cocchus Prior Coenobij Dancastrensis, unà cum tribus Monachis & duobuslaicis, Aegidio Horno, & Clement Philpotto, quòd nollent Ecclesiasticum terrent Regis Primatum iuratò confiteri, exclu●i èterris, ad caelestem aeterni Regis gloriam transmissi sunt. Laurence Coach, Prior of the Monastery of Dancaster, together with three Monks, and two lay-men, Giles Horn, and Clement Philpot, for that they would not swear to the Ecclesiastical Primacy of a tempor all King, being excluded from ●arth, were translated to a celestial glory of the eternal King, etc. And then again: Proponebantur cisnona Comitiorum Decreta, & iubebantur inreinrando affirmare, Regem Ecclesiae supremum esse Caput. The new decrees of the Parliament were propounded unto them, and they were commanded to swear, the King to beesupreme Head of the Church, etc. 3. Now that Queen Elizabeth the daughter, followed herein her Father K. Henry, it is manifest by the former Oath that she exacted of her subjects, which is this: Ego A. B. prorsus testificor, & declaro in conscientia mea, Reginam esse solam supremam Gubernatricem, et istius Regui Angliae & aliorum omnium suae Ma●estaus dominiorum & regionum non ninùs in omnibus spiritualibus atque Ecclesiasticis rebusvel causis, quam temporalibus: Et quòd nemo externus Princeps, Persona, Praelatus, Status, vel Potentatus, aut facto, aut iure, habet aliquam jurisdictionem, potestatem, superioritatem, praeeminentiam, vel authoritatem Ecclesiasticam aut spiritualem in hoc Regno. Ideoque planè renuntio & repudio omnes forinsecas iurisdictiones, po●es●ates, superioritates atque authoritates, etc. ● A. B. doc verily testify and declare in my conscience, that the Queen is the only supreme Gonernesse, as well of this kingdom of England, as of all other her majesties dominions and Countries, as well in all spiritual and Ecclesiastical matters & causes, as in temparall: And that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate hath, either by fact, or right, any jurisaiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority Ecclesiastical or spiritual in this kingdom. And therefore I do utterly renounce, and abandon all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities, etc. 4. The very same also doth now King ●ames, who bindeth his subjects not with one Oath alone, but with two; to wit, of Supremacy and Allegiance. The former Oath of Supremacy beginneth thus: Ego A. B. palam ●estor, & ex conscientia mea declaro, quòd Maiestas Regia, unicus est supremus Gubernator hu●●s Regni, omniumque aliorum suae Maieslatis dominiorum & territoriorum, tam in omnibus spiritualibus sine Ecclesiasticis rebus & causis, quàm in temporalibus: Et quòd nullus extraneus Princeps, Persona, Praelatus, Status, aut Potentatus habet, aut habere debet, ullam iunsdictio●ē, poteslatem, superioritatem, praeeminentiam, vel authoritatem Ecclesiasticam, sive spiritualem intra hoc Regnum, etc. I A. B. do publicly testify, & in my conscience declare, that the King's Majesty is the only suprewe Governor of this kingdom, and of all other his majesties dominions and territories, as well in all matters and causes spiritual or Ecclesiastical, as in temporal: And that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate hath, or aught to have any turisdiction, power, superiority, preheminenci, or authority Ecclesiastical or spiritual within this Kingdom, etc. The later Oath called of Allegiance, beginneth thus: Ego A. B. verè●t sincerè agnosco, profiteor, testificor. & declaro in consctentia mea coram Deo & Mundo, quòd supremus Dominus noster Rex jacobus, etc. I A. B. do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, and testify in my conscience, before God and the world, that our Sovereign Lord King james, etc. 5. Both these Oaths are set down at large in his majesties Apology: and in both of them, his subjects are required publicly and openly toprofesse and acknowledge, that King james is the supreme Gonernour, and Lord of all England, not only in politic and temporal matters, but in spiritual and Ecclesiastical also: And that neither the Pope, nor any other foreigner, hath any power or Inrisdiction in, or over the Church of England. Again, the former of these Oaths was brought in by K. Henry the 8. as his Majesty confesseth in his Apology, in these words: Sub Henrico octavo primùm introductum est juramentum Primatus, sub eoque Thomas Morus & Roffensis supplicio affecti; idque partim ob eam causam, quòd juramentum illud recusarent. Ab eo deinceps omnes mei Praedecessores, quot quot sunt hanc Religionem amplexi, idem sibi, aut non multo secus asseruerunt, etc. The Oath of Primacy was first brought in, under K. Henry the 8. under whom Sir Thomas More, and the Bishop of Rochester were beheaded; and that partly because they refused that Oath. From him all my Predecessors dough neward, as many as have embraced this Religion, did retain the same Oath, or not much different, unto themselves, etc. Now the later Oath was invented by King james himself. The second point. 6. The Question than is, Whether all the King's subjects in England, are bound in conscience to tabe both these Oaths, as often as the King shall exact the same? Or whether they should suff●rimprisonments, torments, and death itself, rather than swear? Concerning the former point, the Catholics doubt nothing, for that they have certainly and firmly determined rather to lese their lines, together with the glorious Martyr's Sir Thomas More, and the Bishop of Rochester, then to admit the King's Primacy, and abjure the Popes. Now, concerning the later Oath, there hath been some doubt made these years past. For that some Catholics, who perceived not the force & scope of that Oath, did a little stagger at the beginning, whether they might with a safe conscience s●ear● thereto, or no. Which doubt of theirs notwithstanding did not last long, but was soon taken away by Pope Paul the fist, and Cardinal Bellarmine. For the Pope forthwith directed two Apostolical Breves to the Catholics of England, and the said Card, written a letter to Ma. Blackwell then Archpriest of this affair. Both Pope and Cardinal 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 Catholic faith. But he now, who should take this Oath proposed by the King, should deny the Catholic faith, though not generally, yet in part, so far forth as belongeth to some one article there of: Ergo, no man with a safe conscience can take this Oath. 7. This reason, being very sound, all good Catholics admit: but our Adversaries do not. I, in favour and consolation of the Catholics, have determined to adjoin here unto two other reasons, especially against the Oath of Supremacy, which by the Adversaries cannot be rejected. The first is this: No man is bound in conscience to swear that which is either apparently false, or at leastwise doubt full: But, that the King is Primate, & supreme head of the Church, and for such to be obeyed, not only in temporal, but also in Ecclesiastical matters, is either apparently false, or at leastwise doubt full: Ergo, no man is bound in Conscience to swear the same. The Mayor is cuident of itself, for that it is not lawful to affirm any thing which is either false ere doubtful, and much less to swear the same. The Minor is prooned thus: For that, it is judged apparently false, aswell amongst the Caluinists, as amongst the Catholics, that the King is Primate & supreme head of the Church. But now amongst the Caluinists of England, who adhere unto the King, the same is called into doubt. For that some of them affirm, 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 Ecclesiastical Primasy over the Church. 4. That he hath power and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical. 5. That the King by his own proper Autheritie may assemble Councelis or Synods, and sit as chief Head or Precedent therein. 6. That he can confer benefices, or Ecclesiastical livings. 7. That he can creates and depose Bishops. 8. That he is judge in Controucrsies of faith, etc. So as truly, if these and the like points be doubtful and uncertain, amongst those who adhere unto, and fanour the King. seeing that some deny them, some assirme them: it followeth necessarily, that the King's whole Primacy is an uncertain thing. What rashness then, & impudency is it, to go about to bind Catholics in their Consciences to swear that, which they themselves do affirm some of them to be false, some others to be doubt full? 8. I will explicate more distinctly that which I have said. The Oath of the King's Primacy, doth contain so many parts as there be, or are thought to be Offices and functions of the King's Primacy. The Offices then either are, or are thought to be divers, as we have seen before, towit, to assemble Synods, to exact and decree Ecclesiastical laws, to confer benefices, to create Bishops, to determine controversies of faith, and the like. Therefore, diverse are the parts of the Oath of the King's Supremacy. Of these parts then, let us take one of them by itself, to wit, this: I A. B. do swear in my conscience, that I will be faithful & obedientunto the King as often, or whensoever he shall by his own proper authority, create Bishops, whom he will. & again depose from these office or dignity, whom he will. etc. If this part only of the King's Offices, shoul● be exacted of all his majesties subjects in England, what, do you think, would be done? Would all, trow you, yea they who most adhere now unto the King, swear this? Let them swear that would; M. Tooker I am sure, if he be a constant man would not. For that he denieth the creation and deposition of Bishops to belong any way unto the King. And if so be, that he●, who otherwise acknowledgeth the King's Primacy (at least in words) would not swear there unto; how then should Catholics be compelled to do the same, who do in no wise acknow ledge it? And what I have said concerning this point, the same may be also said of the rest. 9 My other reason is this. King james doth often protest, that he claimeth no more right or: Inrisdiction over the Church, than did the Kings in the olà Tistament in ancient times: and therefore that this his Primacy must be coutained within the same limits, & terms, that theirs was in the old Testament. But the Kings in the old Testament could not compel their subjects to swear such an Oath as this: I A. B. do openly testify, and in my conscience declare, that jeroboam is the only supreme Gonernour of this Kingdom of Israel, as well in spiritual as temporal matters: And that no foreigner hath any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority in this Kingdom, etc. Ergo, neither King james can enforce his subjects to take such a like Oath. The Mayor is manifest out of his majesties own words in his Apology. The Minor I thus explicate. After the death of King Solomon, his kingdom (God so disposing) was divided into two parts: whereof one contained ten Tribes: the other two. So as by this means, they became two distinct kingdoms afterwards, and therein reigned two distinct Kings, one whereof had no dependence of the other in temporal gonernment. One was called King of Israel, the other, King of juda: and both of them had successors in their kingdoms. The first Kings that ruled, after the dinision of the kingdom made, were jeroboam, King of Israel, & Roboam King of juda. In either Kingdom were Priests and levites. But the high or Chief Priest, could not resid-in both kingdoms, but only in one, and that ordinarily in juda: yet not withstanding, he was Head of all the Prusts and Levites that remained in both kingdoms. Neither could jeroboam lawfully say unto his Priests and Levites: You shall not obey the High Priest, that resideth in the Kingdom of juda: but you shall obey me only: for you are exempted from his jurisdiction and power, etc. And though he should have so said; yet no doubt but he had offended. If now King jeroboam could not exempt the Priests and Levites of his owns Kingdom, from the jurisdiction and Power of a sorraine High Priest: by what right then doth now King james of England do the same? especially, seeing he anerroth, that he claimeth no more right or inrisdiction unto himself over the Church, than the Kings of the old Testament did? The Conclusion. 1. ALL then that hath been hither to said, may be reduced into three heads. The first is, that the King's Primacy in the Church is a new thing, and first brought in by King Henty the eight, nor hitherto hath been beard of, or usurped in any other place then only in the Kingdom of England. The second is: that there be so many jars and disagrements of the English Ministry among themselves, concerning this Primacy, that it is not manifest nor certain what the said Primacy is, nor what source 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. herehence three other questions which might be made concerning the Subjects, will easily be solved. There be 3. sorts of Subjects in England. The first, as some call them, are Henricians, who both acknowledge and swear unto this Kingly Supremacy. The second sort are Puritans, orpure Calumists, who indeed do not acknowledge the said Supremacy, but yet do swear thereunto. The third are Catholics, which neither acknowledge it, nor will swear it. 3. The first question than is, What may be said of these Henricians, which both acknowledge and swear to the King's Supremacy? I answer: that they do unwisely, and inconsiderately. The reason is. Because it is folly and rashness, as before I have said, to swear a thing that is doubt full & uncertain. But the Primacy of the King, is a thing altogether doubtful and uncertain amongst the Henricians, as is manifest by their jars and dissensions, which hither to we have shexed. Ergo, to swear to such a Supremacy, is both folly and rashness. 4. The second question is, What may be said of the Puritans, or pure Caluinists, who do not indeed acknowledge the King's Primacy, and yet if they be commanded, do swear thereto? I answer: that they are perjured persons and Politicians. The reason is. Because they belie●c one thing, and swear another. They beliene with Caluin, that neither Kings nor secular Princes, have any Primacy in spiritual and Ecclesiastical matters, but only in temporal; yet nevertheless, they swear Allegiance unto the King (together with the foresaid Henricians) as to the Primate and supreme Head of the Church: and this they do, to make an external and political peace, which is more esteemed by them, than their faith and Religion; and therefore they are rather to be called Politics then Christians. Of whom his Majesty gave a most worthy testimony, in his Preface Monitory; to wit, That he had found more truth and honesty in the highland and bordering theenes, then in that sort of people. 5. The third question is, what may be said of Catholics, who neither acknowledge the King's Primacy, nor swcar thereto. I answer: that they be iust & upright men, who walk before God in truth & verity. They be sincere, who profess with their month, that which they think in their bart. They are wise indeed, who with good Eleazarus, had rather die, than consent to any vnlaw full thing, no not so much as in outward show. They be like unto the Apostles, who endeavour to obey God, rather than men. They be like unto the Martyrs of the Primitine Church, who freely profess themselves before the persecutors, to be such as indeed they are. 6. But you will say, they be miserable. For if they refuse the Oath, they are forced to undergo impresonments, torments, punishments. Truly they are not therefore miserable, but most happy. For so d●d our Saviour teach us in the Gospel, Math. 5. 10. Blessed are they, who suffer persecution for ●ustice, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. But than you will say: It is a hard thing to suffer. How is that hard which is done with ●oy and delight? Hear what is said of the Apostles, Act. 5. 41. And they went from the sight of the Council rejoicing, because they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the Name of jesus. Hear what the Apostle saith of himself, 2. Cor. 4. Superabundo gaudio in om●i tribulatione nostra. I exceedingly rejoice in all our tribulations. 7. And from whence cometh this joy? Truly from a twofold gift of the holy Ghost; to wit, Hope, and Charity. Hope of future glory, that maketh us io● full and full of comfort in all adnersities. Rom. 8. 18. The sufferings of these times, are not condign to the foture glory, that shall be renealed in us. And again; Rom. 12. 12. Rejoicing in hope: and patiented in tribulation. And, Heb. 10. 34. The spoil of your own goods you took with joy, knowing that you have a better, and a permanent substance. Do not therefore lose your confidence, which hath a great reward. For patience is necessary for you, that doing the will of God, you may receive the promise, etc. 8. Nor is the force of Charity less: Rom. 8. 35. Who then shall separate us from the Charity of Christ? Tribulation? or distress? or famine? or nakedness? or danger? or persecution? or the sword? etc. But in all these things we onercome, because of him that hath lo●ed us. For I am sure, that neither death, nor life, nor Angels, 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 us from the Charity of God, which is in Christ jesus our Lord, etc. 9 Hereto belong the examples of Christ, & of other Saints, which have great force and efficacy, to stir up and strengthen the hearts of Catholics, to suffer patiently in this life, prisons, fetters, torments, yea death itself. 1. Pet. 2. 20. If doing well, you sustain patiently, this is thank before God. For unto this are you called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaning you an example, that you may follow his steps, who did not sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who when he was re●●led, did not re●●le; when he suffered, he threatened not; but delivered himself to him that judged him unjustly, etc. 10. And, Heb. 11. 36. Others had trial of reproaches, and stripes: moreover also of bands and prisons: they were stoned, they were hewed, they were tempted, they died in the slaughter of the sword: they went about in sheepskins, in goate-skinnes, needy, in distress, afflicted: of whom the world was not worthy: wandering to deserts, in mountains, and dens, and in caves of the earth, etc. 11. And again in the 12. Chapter, and 1. verse. And therefore by patience let us run to the Combat proposed unto us, looking on the Author of Faith, and the consummator jesus, who, joy being proposed unto him, sustained the Cross, contemning confusion; and sitteth on the right hand of the seat of God. For think diligently upon him, who sustained of sinners such contradiction against himself, that you be not wearied, fainting in your minds. For you have not y●trelisted unto blood, etc. 12. And yet more, a. Cor. 11.23. In very many labours, in prisons more abundantly, in stripes above measure in death's often. Of the jews five times did I receive forty (stripes) saving one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once I was stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, night and day have I been in the depth of the Sea, in ionrnying often, in perils of waters, perils of thieves, perils of my Nation, perils of Gentiles, perils in the City, perils in the Wilderness, perils in the sea, perils among false brethren; in labour and misery, in much watching, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness, etc. 13. And yet more in the 12. Chapter and 9 verse, Gladly will I glory in my own infirmity, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. For which cause I please myself in infirmities, in contumelies, in necessity's, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ. For when I am weak, then am I mighty, etc. 14. With these, and the like testimonies of holy Scriptures, were armed Sir Thomas More, and the Bishop of Rochester, when they rather chose to die, then to take an impions & wicked Oath. With these places were others also animated, who followed them in their glorious fight. And lastly, with these are they encouraged, who now in England are kept in prisons, bound in fetters, spoiled of their goods and linings, and purpled in their own blood. S. Cyprian Epist. 9 Pretiosa mors haec est, quae emit immortalitatem pretio sanguinis sui: Pretions is that death, which buyeth immortality with the price of it blood. And in the end of the same Epistle. O beatam Ecclesiam nostram, quam temporibus nostris gloriosus Martyrum sanguis illustrat! Erat antea in operibus fratrum candida: nunc facta est in Martyrun cruore purpurea. O happy is our Church, which the glorious blood of Martyrs doth in these our days illustrate! It was made white before in the works of our brethren: but now is it made purple in the blood of Martyrs. And yet more in Epist. 24. Quid gloriosius aut felicius ulli hominum poterit ex divina dignatione contingere, quàm inter ipsos carnifices interritum confiteri Dominum Deum? quàm inter saevientia saecularis potestatis tormenta, etiam extorto & excruciato, & excarnificato corpore, Christum De● filium, ersi recedente, sed ●amen libero spiritu confiteri? quàm relicto mundo caelum petisse? quàm desertis hominibus, inter Angelos stare? quàm collegam passioniscum Christo, in Christi nomine factum esse? What can happen unto any man, through God's diu●ne bountifulness, more glorious, or more prosperous, then without all fear to confess our Lord God? then amidst the cruel torments of secular power, to confess Christ the Son of God, with a free spirit, though now departing from the body, yea from the body tortured, tormented, and all to bemangled? then by leaning the world, to go to heaven? then by forsaking the company of men, to be conversant with Angels? and be made partaker of the Passion of Christ, in Christ his Name? English Concord. IT is very true, that both the oath of Supremacy, and the oath of Allegiance, are contained in the King's Apology: but this is a very false, & plainly a jesuitical lie, that in both those oaths, viz. the oath of Allegiance, The subjects are required, publicly and openly to profess and acknowledge, that King james is the supreme Governor, and Lord of all England, not only in politic and temporal matters, but in spiritual & Ecclesiastical also: and that neither the Pope, nor any other foreigner, hath any power, or inrisdiction, in, or over the Church of England. Hear I begin with the I●suit, taking him napping in a gross falsification of the oath of Allegiance: for there is no such thing contained therein. Which is also testified by his excellent Majesty, in his Preface Monitory, pag. 11. certioribus judicijs per ditam horum cōuitiatorū malitiam deprehendere pos sit is, etc. That with more certain and assured tokens, you may espy the desperate malice of these railers (as the Pope Paul 5, Cardinal Bellarmine, and Becane) who impudently affirm, that this Oath was devised to entrap, and beguile, the consciences of improvident Papists, in matters of faith; I will declare the whole passage of the matter in few words. As soon as this for me of the Oath of Allegiance was conceined, the lower house of Parliament, thought good to insert that clause, whereby all power should be taken from the Pope to excommunicate the King. But I presently caused the same to be razed out; to the end, that it might appear, that this Oath had no other force or respect, then that the Pope's excommunication, should be no just or lawful cause unto my subjects, by secret or open practices, to attempt any thing against my person, or my kingdom; because I thought that this sentence of excommunication, of a spiritual censure, was by unjust usurpation of Popes, made a secular pretence, and so exorbitant beyond all bounds. With so great care and study I did avoid, that nothing should be contained in this Oath, but that profession sion of civil allegiance, temporal all obedience, which nature itself prescribeth to all them, which are borne under any kingdom, adding only a firm promise, whereby I demand of my subjects, aid, and assistance against the breach of due allegiance, and fidelity. Wherefore, I faw it appertained to the cause, that I should make an Apology for this Oath: wherein I have taken upon me to prove, that nothing is contained herein, but that which concerneth mere civil and temporal obedience, such as is due to all sovereign Princes. And again, in the 53. page of the Apology, juramentum primatus excogitatum est ad discrimen faciendum, etc. The Oath of supremacy was devised, to discern and put a difference betwixt the Papists, and those of our religion: but the Oath of Allegiance was invented to distingutsh betwixt the Papists, who hold obedience & fidelity to the King in things civil, from those that were indiutdually affected to the Gunpowder treason. Concerning your glorious Martyrs (as you style Bishop Fisher, and Sir Thomas More) you might have learned out of Tortura Torti, pag. 360. how the worthy Bishop of Ely, stoppeth Tortus his mouth, saying: Dixerat Apologiae author, etc. The Author of the Apology said, that it was not any spiritual Primacy, but a carnal matrimony, that brought the supposed Martyr doom to Sir Thomas More, and the Bishop of Rochester: and this he spoke not amiss. But than replied Tortus: Then it was a carnal matrimany, that caused holy S. john Baptist to suffer martyrdom, when he freely reproved King Herod's marriage. With this example Tortus woundeth himself. For tell me, O Tortus, what was that marriage? was it not with his brother's wife? was not this the word that: cost the Baptist his life? It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife. But what was the cause of the death of More, and Fisher? was it not clean contrary? It is lawful for thee, to have thy brother's wife; it is not lawful for thee to put her away. So that if Saint john, Christ's forerunner, died unjustly, they died most justly: and if he were a Martyr, (as he was) then were they some other thing: which I will not tell you. For he died, that the King should not keep his brother's wife: but these died, that the King should not put away his brother's wife. He told King Herod, it was not lawful: they told King Henry, it was lawful, and he must not do otherwise. Can Tortus any ways mar their martyr doom more deeply? So far the Bishop of Ely. And give me leave to add something more. O glorious Martyrs! who had rather consent together to die, then to confess the royal supremacy of Kings, established in the Scriptures, used and practised by all the most commended Christian Kings; and withal; to establish the Papal Primacy, which Christ himself expressly forbade: which the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus called the smoke of worldly power; and they of Carthage, with all care, and diligence, admonished the Church to beware of, as Typhum saeculi, the arrogancy of this present world. Concerning that notorious fact of Pope Paul the fift, and Bellarmine, (which here the jesuit remembreth) full of inhumanity, impiety, and audaciousness; that excellently learned man, Ma. Causabon, in his Epistle to Front Ducaeus, hath taught him, pag. 167. thus: De fidelitatis juramento, cui occasionem praebuit pulueraria coniuratio, etc. Concerning that Oath of Allegiance, first occasioned by the Gunpowder treason, I marvel why the English Papists so much complain. They have much more cause to complain of Cardinal Bellarmine, & some few others, who hardened the heart of Pope Paul the fift to yield unto them, (who at the first with stood them: for I speak not rashly, but have good Authors for my assurance) that all the Catholics in England should here perish, rather than a matter so just and equal should be permitted. For, what can be more equal, than that subjects should promise fidelity to their Sovereign? especially after a treason so barbarous, and notable, for cruelty? The King in the Commonwealth, is the same that a householder is in his private house: and do you think that such a man were well advised, to keep in his family any servants, of whose fidelity he was not persuaded? or rather, whose disposution he greatly suspecteth? I think no body, that is not mad, would grant such a thing. Wherefore, either King james hath less power in his Kingdom, than a householder in his house, or else these complaints about the subjects Oath of Allegiance, are all unjust, and frivolous. For in good sooth, I have met with many Papists, both in France and England, and I have also read the writings of many, who deem this Oath not only most just, but also most holy. Wherefore, many of your side, & some of them Priests, yea, the Archpriest Black well, have taken the same without all scruple of conscience, not against their wills: and by their public writings, learnedly and truly (though sharply against the Pope and the jesuits) have persuaded others to do the like; (such are Master Sheldon, and Master Warmington.) But yet there are some, with whom the Pope's Bulls, and Bellarmine's Letters, prevail more than the law of God, the law of nature, & of all Nations, or the examples of wise men. And if the Law run upon these, what place is there left for complaint? And you yourselves, which call this a persecution of Catholics, cannot tell, for what cause, and by what example of antiquity, you so term it. It was never done, nor heard of, that Christian people said they suffered persecution, if they were commanded to swear Allegiance to their Sovereign. But we read the contrary in the councils; where they are accursed that break faith to their Kings, which they had voxed to them, for the preservation of the slate of their Country, and of their King. And you know, the fourth Council of Toledo, declareth all such excommunicate from the Church. Hear is work for the jesuit, let him satisfy these things: and in the mean time let him understand, that that Catholic faith is accursed with all maledictions, as inhuman, impious, sacrilegious, Antichristian, & diabolical: whereof this is one Article: That Christian people ought not to swear allegiance to their lawful Sovereign: to weet, that, which, as hath been declared, the law of God, the law of nature, and the Canons of councils have ordained, as most equal, and most holy. Orelse thus, (to speak after Becans manner) That, for Christian people to swear allegiance to their lawful Prince, is to deny the Catholic faith. And this reason, being very sound, all good Catholics admit, saith Becane: but in truth, this reason, as very rotten, is only admitted by Antichristian Catholics: but we Protestants, the only true, and proper orthodoxal, or right believing Catholics, will never admit it. And I (saith the jesuit) will adjoin two other reasons, on the behalf of Catholics, against the Oath of Supremacy, which by the Adversary cannot be rejected. He should rather have said thus; And I, for the destruction of my friends, the Romish Catholics, will adjoin two other reasons, which may be most justly refused, & exploded by all our Adversaries, the Protestants. But hath Martin the jesuit here forgotten himself? were not the reasons of Pope Paul, and Bellarmine, lately alleged, expressly brought against the oath of Allegiance, which only was in controversy; and will he now dispute against the oath of Supremacy, which is distinct and several from the Oath in question? Martin therefore should rather say thus; I have determined for the ruin of Catholics in England, to adjoin two reasons more, nothing differing from the former. Well then, let us hear these two pretty reasons: his first reason is this; 1. It is manifestly false, or at least doubtful, that the King is Primate, or supreme Head of the Church, who must be obeyed both in all temporal and Ecclesiastical matters, as he that hath 1. an Ecclesiastical Primacy. 2. an Ecclesiastical juris diction: first, to call councils by his own authority: and secondly to create, and depose Bishops, (for every mean person may confer a benefice, and no mortal man may be supreme judge in controversies of faith: therefore these two last rehearsed, are no branches of Ecclesiastical Supremacy). Therefore (concludeth the jesuit) this Oath must not be taken. I answer: The Antecedent of this reason is most false: For all Protestants in England, acknowledge it to be certainly true, & none doubteth thereof: namely, that the King of England, is the only supreme Gonernor, or (as the Papists expound it) Primate and supreme Head of the Church of England: whom we must obey in all causes, both Ecclesiastical and civil; as him, that hath the government over all Ecclesiastical persons, and in all spiritual causes: or (as they expound it) which hath the Ecclesiastical Primacy, or jurisdiction Ecclesiastical; and therefore hath power to call councils, and to create and depose Bishops. All our men, with one consent, think, speak, and swear this. And so the jesuits first reason, with small ado, and no labour, is put to flight. But yet the jesuit urgeth the matter more articulately, saying; That the oath of the King's supremacy, hath so many parts in it, as are thought to be distinct offices of the King's supremacy: and thereupon, culleth out one of them, which he deemeth most absurd, writing thus: I A. B. do swear in my conscience, that I will be faithful and obedient unto the King, as often, or whensoever he shall by his own proper authority, create Bishops, whom he will, and again depose from their office, whom he will, etc. Whom he will? Nay, that is the proper speech of popish Antichrists, Stat proratione voluntas: Extravag. de trans. Episc. quanto. My will standeth for a law. But Christian Princes say thus; Idpossumus quodiure possumus: We can do nothing but that which we can do by law and right. Therefore, any Christian subject, and by name Dr. Tooker, may swear in this manner: I A. B. do swear in my conscience, that I will be faithful and obedient to the King, as often, or whensoever he shall by his own proper authority, depose Bishops for just causes, as Solomon did Abiathar. But let Martin Becane put on the thoughts of an honest and sober man awhile, and tell me, Whether the oath of Supremacy contain so many parts, as are supposed to be the offices or functions of the Primacy? He saith, putantur, as are thought, or supposed; what of any triobular or mean Writer of the English, or Roman party? Fie, fie, who can abide this? Nay rather, the oath of the King's Supremacy, comprehendeth no more, than those offices of the royal Supremacy, which is manifest that the Kings of Israel in holy Scripture executed with commendation: and so doth the King's Majesty write, in the same express terms. All which offices are articularly, and exactly set down by him in his Apology, pag. 127. 128. And by the Bishop of Ely, in his Tortura Tort. pa. 377. 378. collected out of, & confirmed by the word of God. But here I would desire the jesuit to tell me, whether the oath of the Pope's Supremacy contain as many parts, as are the offices and functions of the said Supremacy, thought to be, by the jesuits, Canonists, Pope's Parasites, & Popes themselves? Then the Pope of Rome, must be Universal Primate and Bishop, a in Concil. Constantic●s. paral. Vspergen. Denecessitate salutis; of the necessity of salvation. b Extra de Appel. ut debitus glossa. The Ordinary of all men. c Harding in jewel, Def. par. 5. cap. 6. diuis. 4. Whose diocese is the whole world. d Lib. 1. Ceremon. Who, being invested Pope, ruleth the City, & the world. e Francis. Zabarella. Who possesseth all the rights of all inferior Churches. f Durand. de Ordin, et ministris. Of whose fullness all Bishop's receine. g Hard. jew. part. 5. ca 6. D. 7. Who may not be judged, either by Kings, or the whole Clergy, or the whole world. h Pet. de Palu. de potest. Pap. art. 4. Who in no case, for any crime whatsoever, may be deposed, either by the whole Church, or by a Council, or by the whole world. i joh. de. Parisijs de potest. Regia & Pap. 9 q. 3. Nemo. All whose actions (though as evil in themselves, as theft and adultery) we must so interpret, as done by divine inspiration. So that, k Di. 40. ●ō nos. glossa. it were a kind of sacrilege to call the Pope's fact into question, who is free from all human laws. Whose deeds, although evil in themselves, are to be excused; as the murders of Samson; the thefts of the jews in Egypt; and the adultery of jacob. l Concil. Tom. 1. in purga. Sixti. 9 q. 3. cunta. Whom to accuse, is to sin against the holy Ghost, which shall never be forgiven, in this world, nor in the world to come: as freed from the law of man. Then is the Pope of Rome, not as a mere m De Elect. et. elect. fundamenta in glossa. Et Clen. ●n prooemio in glossa. man, but Christ n Hard. jew. pag. 2. cap. 3. Di. 2. The Bridegroom of the whole Church. So as (by Panormitan, De Elect. cap. licet) the Pope and Christ make but one Consistory. o Herue. de. pot. Pap. ca 23. He is alone the whole Church. p Felin. de const. statut. canon. A vice-God. q Ext. joh. 22. cumint. nonnullos. gloss. Our Lord God the Pope. r Dist. 96. satis culdenter. A God. s Fran. Zaba. Hard. jew. p. 5. c. 6. D. 6. More than God. ᵗ Having divine power, to whom all power is given in heaven and in earth. u Extra de transl. Epis. ca Quanto Hostiensis. Who, (sin only excepted) can do all that God can do. x Paschalis Papa De Elect. et elect. potest. ca Significasti. He shall be above general councils. y Angel. Paris. Hard. Iew. p. 5. c. 6. Diuis. 14. Purgatory. z Pet. de Palud. de poorest. Pap. art. 4. The whole Church. aa Nic. Cu●an The Scripture. bb Extra de const. stat Canon Felinus Angels. cc Cōc●tl. Lat. sub Leone sessio. All power. dd De Maior. unam Sanctam. All things. ee 15. Q 6. Authori●●te in glossa. So as he can dispute against the law of nature. ff 16. Q 1. Quicunque in glossa. Against the law of God. gg Panor. de divortij Against the new Testament. hh Summa Angel. dict. Papa. And all the commandments of the old and new Testament. ii De transl●t. Epis. Quanto Hostiensis. So as he can do as much as God can do. And I will yet deal more articulately and plainly. kk joh. de Paris. de Pot. Reg. & Pap. Aventinus l. 6. He shall be Lord in temporal things through the whole world, directly, & indirectly. ll De Maior. Solitae Anto. de Ros●l. The King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. mm Dist. 98. Si Imper. in gloss. Extra de fo●o competent. ca Licet. Being above all Emperors, as his vassals. nn De Maior. unam sanctam. Having of his own both swords. oo Auent. in Adriano 4. Anno 1154. Being set over Nations, and Kingdoms, to destroy, to pluck up, build and plant. pp Hard. jew. p. 5. c. 6. D. 8. From whom alone, all Emperors hold their Empires. qq Auent. in Adrian 4. In whose power it is to give them, or take them from whom he will. rr Carion de Alexand. 3. Who treadeth the necks of Kings under his feet. ss Caelestinus Papa. Vide Rogetum Cestr●nsem; et Hovenden. And to conclude, who crowneth Kings with his feet: and with his feet again spurneth the Crown to the ground. tt De Maior. Solitae. gl Being seventy times seven, greater than the greatest Kings. I will yet express the matter more articulately. uu Lyra in D●ut. c. 17. He shall be so absolute a judge of all Controversies, that if he shall say the right hand is the left, or the left hand the right: his saying is to be believed. And this is the opinion of Bellarmine, xx De Pont. Po. li. 4. c. 5. If the Pope should command vice, and forbidden virtue: the Church were bound to believe, that virtue were evil, and vice were good. And they give this reason thereof; yy Panor. de Constit. c. 1. The fullness of the Pope's power, excelleth all Positive laws. zz De transl. Epis. Quanto glossa. Hostiensis ibidem. and it sufficeth that the Popes will go for a law; whereby he can make righteousness of unrighteousness. And hereupon Philelphus, Decad. 6. Hecast. 9 beautifully describeth the Pope as Antichrist, saying; Non Scytha, non Turcus, non quiterrore Damascum, Aegyptumue tenet, sed maximus ille Sacerdos, E medio templi nostrum emersurus in axem, Antichristus erit, qui canit ore colendum, Pro christo, cuius refer at nomenque, vicemque. Which I English thus; No Tartar grim, or Turk, or feared Saladine, Shall be that Antichrist; but that high Priest, That midst the Temple sits: adored with dread dinine, Who bears the name, & Vicar is of Christ. I might be infinite in numbering the several offices, which are thought to be the offices of the Roman Primacy: out of which I will frame this, after Becans manner. I A. B. do publicly testify, and swear in my conscience, that I will be faithful and obedient to the Bishop of Rome, as often or whensoever he shall by his own proper authority, directly in temporal causes, create Emperors whom he will, or by the same power, depose whom he will. If this part only of the Pope's Supremacy, should be exacted of all the jesuits, what, do you think, would be done? Would all, think you, yea they which adhere unto the Pope, swear this? Let them swear that would, as Baronius, Triumphus, Carerius, and almost all the Canonists, and many other famous Popish Writers. Yet, I amsure, that Bellarmine, and Becane, if they be constant men, will never swear. For thus writeth Bellarmine, Papa not habet ullam merè temporalem jurisdictionem directè iure divino, lib. de Pont. Rom. 5. cap. 4. The Pope hath no mere temporal jurisdiction directly by the law of God. And Becane in his Refuration, pag. 18. Acprimum non disceptamus de primatu in temporalibus, illum quisque Rex insuo regno legitimè habeat: We dispute not of the Primacy in temporal causes, let every King in his kingdom, lawfully possess the same. What then? Is this so sure a ground with Bellarmine and Becane, that they firmly determine to lose their lives, like many glorious Martyrs in this kingdom, rather than to admit the Pope's supremacy, & abjure the Kings? For this is thought to be one of the prime offices of the Pope's supremacy, That the Pope is Lord of the whole world, directly in all temporal causes. But, this is utterly false in the conscience of Becane and Bellarmine. Or whether, partly, for preservation of external peace and government, which these menesteeme more than their faith and religion: or, partly, that one of them may be made Pope, the other a Cardinal, which good fortune may befall them hereafter; will they swear against their own conscience unto the Pope's supremacy, with all functions which are thought to be parts thereof, and thereof shall be branded as Carerius hath marked them, to be impious Politicians of our time, deserving rather the name of Hareticks, then of Catholics? Of whom may Pope Paul the fist truly affirm, That he hath found more truth in savage & wilderobbers, then in these kind of men, (viz. the jesuits) which teach & practise the Art of Equivocation, even in their solemn swearing. And thus much for the first reason: which I am sure is enough, (if not too much) for Bellarmine, and Becane also. His second reason is this: King james doth often protest, that he claimeth no more right or jurisdiction over the Church, than did the Kings in the old Testament long ago. But the Kings in the old Testament, could not compel their subjects to swear such an oath as this is; I A. B. do openly testify, and in my conscience declare, that jeroboam is the only supreme Governor of this kingdom of Israel, as well in spiritual, as temporal matters: And that no foreigner hath, or aught to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, or authority in this kingdom. Ergo, King james, etc. And, a little after, he explicateth his Minor proposition thus: After King Solomon, there were two distinct kingdoms, juda and Israel, and there were two Kings, whereof both had their successors. There were Priests and Levites in both, who were chiefly ruled by the high Priest, who lived in jerusalem. And yet jeroboam could not lawfully say to his Priests and Levites, you shall not obey that High Priest resident in juda: you are exempt from his jurisdiction, etc. So Becane. I answer: Can any man endure, either in a Divine so great ignorance, or such malice in a jesuit? As though the King's Majesty did ever believe, writ, or so much as dream, either, that all those things which the wicked Kings of Israel, (of whom jeroboam was ringleader) did practice impiously in Ecclesiastical matters: or that, all that jurisdiction which those ungodly kings did challenge over the Church, doth belong to the King supremacy. Of jeroboam thus speaketh holy writ, 1. Kings, 12.28. The King made two golden Calves, and said unto the Israelites, It is too much for you to go up to jerusalem: Behold the Gods that brought you up out of the Land of Egypt. And he put one of them in Bethel, and the other in Dan. Also, he made a house of the high places, and made him Priests of the lowest of the people, who were not of the sons of Levi. And jeroboam made a feast, in the fifteenth day of the eight month, like unto the feast that is in judah, and sacrificed on the Altar. So did he in Bethel, and offered unto the Calves that he had made. And he constituted in Bethel, the Priests of the high places which he had made. And you may read in the 13. chapter, That being rebuked by a Prophet for this matter, yet he departed not from his evil way, but turned himself, and made him Priests of the high places, de saece populi, of the dregs of the people; and whosoever pleased him, he consecrated him, and made him a Priest of the high places. And again, 2. Chron. II. chap. 13. verse, And the Priests and the Levites that were in all Israel, resorted to him out of all their coasts, (meaning Roboam, the son of Solomon.) For the Levites left their suburbs, & their possessions; and came to judah, and to jerusalem: for jeroboam and his sons had cast them out from ministering in the Priest's office before the Lord. But thus writeth the King, and his learned Interpreter, the Bishop of Ely, in Tort. Tort. pag. 381. Quodcunque in rebus religionis reges Israel fecerunt, nec sine laud fecerunt, id ut et Regi jacobo, faciendi ius sit atque potestas. Whatsoever the Kings of Israel did with commendation, in the matters of Religion; the same power and jurisdiction now hath King james. Let this therefore be the Proposition, or first part of the second reason, which Becane himself 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 royal authority, in matters of Religion, 1. Have enacted laws. 2. Delegated of their subjects to judge of such laws. 3. Have bound all their subjects, both Clergy men, and Lay-men, by oath of Allegiance. 4. Have pumshed the transgressors of such laws. 5. Have called assemblies or councils. 6. Have ruled all estates; as the Heads of the Tribe of Levi, as well as of the other Tribes: and were as much Kings of the Clergy, as of the Laity. 7. If any Abiathar, or High Priest, waxed 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, broke in pieces the golden Calves, and the brazen Serpent, etc. To conclude, they gave order for things indifferent, which appertained to the outward splendour, & comeliness of the house of G O D: And by their authority cut off idle and curious questions in religion, which were wont to be the mother and breeder of schisms: as the Scriptures expressly witness; whereof you may read in Tort. Torti, pag. 381.382. Therefore I will conclude, that King james hath the same power, and jurisdiction; and therefore may bind his subjects by an oath: I A. B. do openly testify and declare in my conscience, that King james is the only supreme Governor of this Realm, and of this Church of England, etc. (as was David, and Solomon, of the Church of Israel, and Asa, Ezekias, and josias, of the Church of juda); and that no foreigner hath, or aught to have, any jurisdiction, power, etc. within this Kingdom, (as they had none in juda) and so may lawfully say to the Priests subjects, Obey not the high Priest, which dwelleth in any foreign kingdom: but obey me alone, as the only supreme Governor of this Church. You are all exempt from his power and jurisdiction. For so David, Solomon, Asa, Ezekias, and josias, might lawfully command their Priests & levites: and therefore so may King james command his Clergy. These things (thou mayest perceive learned Reader) are collected out of the pure fountains of sacred Scriptures, and so conclude our cause solidly, and beyond all exception. But Becane his syllogism is a monster in Logic, running upon some feet, & yet halteth. For King james speaketh of godly & religious Kings, (and not schismatical) either of all Israel, or only of juda: and of their Ecclesiastical government, the very pattern and exemplary primacy, commended unto Christian Kings in the Scriptures. But Martin the Sophister, that is, the jesuit, assumeth impious & schismatical Kings of Israel, rend from juda; among whom, never any one is remembered in scripture to have handled Ecclesiastical matters with commendation. And here I entreat the ingenuous Reader, to observe the jesuitical and serpentine subtlety of Becane; who, to deccive his Catholics, passeth by all the godly Kings of juda, and only bringeth jeroboam on the stage, a schismatical King, the first head of that iniquitic, and the ringleader of all them that are branded with notes of infamy in the holy book, as 1. King. 15.29. And Baasa struck all the house of Icroboam, he left no soul alive: because of the sins wherewith Icroboam sinned, and made Israel to sin. And 2. Chron. 13.5. Ought you not to know, that the Lord God of israel, hath given the Kingdom over Israel, to David for ever, even to him, and to his sons, by a Covenant of Salt? And Icroboam the son of Nebat, the servant of Solomon, the son of David, is risen up, and bath rebelled against his Lord, etc. Lo, this is that most impious, rebellious, and schismatical jeroboam; which must comfort, and confirm the Romish Catholics. But seeing our jesuit is conversant among schisms and schismatics, let him assume, and make his instance, those three Antipopes, who troubled the world about the time of the Council 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 Ecclesiastical Primacy? 4. Who did then exercise the supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction? 5. Who could then, by his own authority, call a general Council, and sit therein Precedent? 6. Who had power to conserre that fat benefice of the Papacy itself? 7. Who could then create Popes, and depose the Antipopes? 8. Who was then the supreme judge of all Controversies; especially of papal, or popish questions? But I will yet press the jesuit more necrely. What if the French (so called) Catholic Church, should create to itself a Patriarch, & leave the See of Rome; seeing the Pope Paul the fist, claimeth temporal jurisdiction over the King of France? What if other Kings, both Protestants, & all those which call themselves Catholics, seeing the Pope claimeth jurisdiction over all, in a common cause that so much concerneth their Crowns and royal dignities, should join hands and hearts, and establish a Patriarch in their several Kingdoms, who should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, take and exercise the same jurisdiction that the old Roman Patriarch had, & did practice in his Province? which thing (making so much for establishing and confirming the outward peace, and Ecclesiastical polity of the Christian world) is much desired, Cod. de sacra. sa: Eccl. l. omni Inno. and hoped for at the next general Council: as we read in old time, that the Emperor of Constantinople, by his law, did in all things equal the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constantinople, with the power of the Bishop of Rome. Quam legem evertere nunquam potuit Papa omnia conatus, Imperator is patrocinio tutam: Which law maintained by the patronage of the Emperor, the Pope could never repeal, although he assayed all means for the same. Liberat. cap. 13. And may not then (I pray you sir) those Kings lawfully say to their Priests; Do not obey the Bishop of Rome: but obey this Patriarch alone? You are exempt from all Romish power and jurisdiction? If the jesuit doubt hereof, let him repair to Gerson (De Auferebilitate Papae) that stiff Patron of the Roman Religion, and he will teach him thus much. johannes de Parisys also, in his Treatise De Pot. Reg. & Papal. cap. 13. writeth thus: Bonifacius obtinuit a Phoca, etc. 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 Emperor, to transfer the Primacy of the Church, and to order Ecclesiasticad affairs. According also with the decrce of the Council of Chalcedon, cap. 28: or, as it is related by Carranza, Sess. 16. Sedi veter is Romae patres merito dederunt Primatum, quódilla civitas caeter is imperaret. And cap. 12. Quascunque civitates per literas regis Metropolitico honor arunt nomine. The old Fathers did worthily give the Primacy to the See of old Rome, because it then ruled over all the residue, and all Cities were honoured with the title of Metropolitan by the King's Letters Patents. But now at length, I will particularly answer to the objections of Becane. 1. There were not Priests and Levites in both the Kingdoms of juda; and Israel, as hath appeared out of the express words of the Scripture. 2. jeroboam might lawfully say unto his Priests, which were not Levites, but of the lowest of the people, and by him made and consecrated; You are exempt from the jurisdiction of the High Priest, which is at jerusalem. 3. If King james so often protest, That his Primacy is defined within those bounds and limits, wherein the godly Kings v●der the old Testament contained theirs; Then it followeth, that the Primacy of Kings is both godly and certain, founded on holy Scriptures, and not doubtful, 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 james may lawfully, and by right, compel his subjects to the Oath of Supremacy. Thirdly, that Pope Paul the fist, Bellarmine; and Becane, resisted King james impiously, and against all humanity, by seeking to avert his subjects from their allegiance, & from taking both the one, and the other, so just and godly an oath; After the same manner, as Elymas did resist the Apostles, seeking to turn away the Proconsul from the faith. Act. 13.8. Having thus satisfied the questions of Becane to the full, and more than was needful, dispelling their cloudy mists, and breaking the snares of these Spiders webs; and so made up into a perfect Concord and harmony, all the supposed English jars about the King's supremacy; There now remaineth nothing but the jesuits Epilogue, or Conclusion: which by changing only the persons, and terms, I may most aptly and justly return upon the Papists in this manner. The Conclusion. ALl then that hath been hitherto said, may be reduced unto three heads; The first is, that the King's Supremacy in the Church, is an ancient right, & no new thing, but first ordained by Christ, the ancient of days, and was practised in the old time by the most approved and pious Kings in the old Testament: But the Pope's Supremacy was never used, by any sound and godly Bishop of Rome, before that infamous Emperor Phocas: & therefore a new thing, never rightly claimed. The other, that there be so many jars, and disagreements among the Romish Clergy about this Primacy of the Pope; that it is not manifest, or certain, what the said Primacy is, nor what force, or authority 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 King's supremacy, may be exacted by the King, and observed of all his good subjects. herehence, three other questions, which might be made concerning the subjects, will easily be answered. There are three sorts of subjects which live in those regions where the Papacy beareth sway: 1. The first, are Baronians; who, in truth acknowledge and swear to the Pope's supremacy; that is, to his direct supremacy: for his indirect supremacy is directly ridiculous. 2. The second, Bellarminians, or Pope-puritans, who do not acknowledge this supremacy, and yet swear unto it. 3. The third, are true believing Protestants, who neither acknowledge it, nor will swear it. The first question than is, What may be said of these Baronians? I answer, that they do unwisely, and inconsiderately; The reason is, because it is folly & rashness to swear a thing that is doubtful & uncertain: as for example, The Pope's supremacy; as is manifest by their jars and dissensions which heretofore we have showed. The second question is, What may be said of the Bellarminians, or Pope-puritans? I answer, They are perjured persons, and politicians. The reason is, because they believe one thing, and swear another. For they agree and consent therein, with the right and orthodoxal Protestant; and yet with the Baronians, they swear allegiance to the Pope, as to the Lord Paramount of the whole world in temporal things, (for Pope Paul the fift doth challenge the same). And this they do, to keep an external and political peace, which is more esteemed by them, than their faith and religion; and therefore are branded by Carerius, in his public writings, and authorized to be impious Politicians, 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 highland and bordering thieves, then in this sort of aequinocating people. The third question is, What shall we say of the Protestants, who are the right and true Catholics? I answer, They be iustand upright men, who walk before God in truth and verity. They be sincere, who profess with their mouth, that which they believe in their heart. They are truly courageous, who with good Eleazarus, had rather die, than consent to any unlawful thing, no not so much as in outward show. They be like unto the Apostles, who endeavour to obey God, rather than men. They be like to the Martyrs of the Primitive Church, who freely profess themselves, before their Persecutors, to be such as indeed they are: That is to say, much unlike the jesuits, who range up and down, sometimes like poor Lay-men, & sometimes in the habit of Gentlemen, thrusting themselves into solemn assemblies at banquets and feasting; & sometimes into the Universities: for some of this stamp lie close in the Universities, to pervert inconstant heads, greedy of novelties. But you will say, They are miserable: for, if they refuse the oath, which Apoc. 13.17. is the mark of the Beast; they are forced to undergo not only imprisonments, torments, and punishments, but also death itself. Truly they are not therefore miserable, but most happy; for so hath our Saviour taught us in the Gospel, Mat. 5.10. Blessed are they who suffer persecution for righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. But than you will say, It is a hard thing to suffer: how is that hard which is done with joy and delight? Hear what is said of the Apostles, Acts 5.41. And they went away rejoicing from the Council, because they were counted worthy to suffer rebuke for the Name of jesus. Hear also what the Apostle saith of himself, 2. Cor. 7.4. I am filled with comfort, and am exceeding joyous in all our tribulation. From whence cometh this joy? but of the double gift of the holy Ghost, Hope and Charity. Hope of future glory, that maketh us joyful, and full of comfort in all adversity, Rom. 8.18. The afflictions of this present time are not worthy of the glory which shall be showed unto us. But the Papists say thus; The sufferings of this life, are worthy of the glory that shall be revealed. Unto the Martyrs (as they say) their sufferings are meritorius, and unto other supererogatory: according to the old verses of prayer made unto Thomas Becket, Tuper Thomae sanguinem, quem prote impendit, Fac nos christ scandere quò Thomas ascendit. Make us o Christ up to ascend by virtue of S. Thomas blood, Which for thy sake he once did spend, to heavens race among the good. And unto the Heb. cap. 10.34. You suffered with joy the spoiling of your goods, knowing that you shall have a better, and more enduring substance. But of the jesuits, it may be said clean contrary; You have received plenty of other men's goods, to their unrecoverable harm, (witness the Venetians) knowing, that here you receive your reward in this world, and therefore cannot look for any better, or more enduring substance, in the world to come. And no less is the force and power of Charity, Rom. 8.35. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? or anguish? or famine, etc. But in all these things we are more than conquerors, through him that loved us. I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor Angels, etc. nor any creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ our Lord. But the jesuits call this pious and godly assurance, impious presumption. And from this forge came that flagitious discourse of Bellarmine, De incertitudine justitiae; Of the uncertainty of righteousness or justification. Hereto belong the examples of Christ, & of other the Saints, which have great force and efficacy to stir up and strengthen the hearts of Catholics, to suffer patiently in this life, prisons, fetters, torments, yea, death itself. 1. Pet. 2.20. If you suffer patiently for well doing, this is thankworthy with God. Hereunto are ye called, because that Christ hath suffered for you, leaning you an example, that you should follow his footsteps, who did not sin, neither was there guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again: when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed it to him, that judgeth righteously. But of the jesuits it may be said clean contrarily, and most truly: They doing evil continually suffer impatiently; whose glory is their shame (witness the Venetian.) For hereunto are they called: to make of faithful subjects, rebels and Traitors to their Kings: to slay or poison Kings (thereby treading in the manifold, and deeply imprinted, steps of of Antichrist): to commit all most heinous and bloody acts, to their uttermost endeavour. In whose mouth is ever found the guile of aequiuocating, so hateful and pestiferous to mankind: who revile, when they are not reviled, Jude, v. 8. and blaspheme even such as are in highest authority: who threaten, when they suffer not: endeavouring to betray their King and his royal issue; the Nobles, and states of their own Nation, assembled in Parliament; to the merciless and swift devouring Gunpowder flames: and so committing their cause to that unjustly judging Claudius Aquaviua, their provost general, miraculously set o●ser them. Who taught the jesuits to commit themselves ●●●im, judging iusily; when he boasted, he could send more souldrers, Gretzer. ddu. jesuit. and sooner into the field, to weet, his jesuits; then any Christian King in the world could do: and when he promised the Pope, (viz. in time of the Venetians interdiction, & the Pope's imminent danger) to send unto him for his succour, 40000. men; but upon condition, that as many of them, as were slain in the battle, should be canonised Martyrs. And Heb. 12. v. 1. Therefore, Let us run with patience, the race that is set before us: looking unto jesus, the author, and finisher of our faith. But the jesuits say thus: Therefore let us, by unbridled audaciousness, joined with all manner wickedness, run the race that is set before us, striving against Priests, Academics, and Kings, looking to Ignatius Loyola, the author and finisher of our jesuitical faith. For saith Euerhard; The jesuits are priest and always ready, to undertake with cheerfulness and alacrity, and what in them lieth, to perpetrate any flagitious wickedness enjoined them; because they believe, that if they die in executing the commands of their Superiors, they shall obtain I know not what crown, greater, and more excellent, then that of Martyrs. With these, and other the like testimonies of holle writ, as Heb. 11. v. 36.2. Cor. 11. v. 23. et 12. v. 9 etc. that most reverend Archbishop Cranmer, and the reverend Bishops, Latimer and Ridley, being armed and encouraged, chose rather to suffer death, then to oblige themselves, with that impious Papal Oath. Whom followed very many in that glorious combat, burned in the flames, wherein they shined more, than those said burning and shining flames. Unto these may be added, the true catholic Protestants, who in Rome & Spain, under those hellish Furies, the most savage Inquisitors (more bloodily cruel, than that infamous Tyrant Busiris) are imprisoned, fettered, proscribed, & died purple red with their own blood. In, and of, whom, these following are verified, Psal. 116. ver. 15. Precious in the eyes of the Lord, is the death of his Saints. S. Cyprian, Epist. 9 O blessed Church of ours, which, in our days, the glorious blood of Martyrs hath made illustrious. Before, it was as white as snow, by the good works of the brethren: but now it is as red as Crimson by the blood of Martyrs. And the same Saint Cyprian, Epist. 24. What more happy and glorious thing, from Divine favour, can befall any man; then in the mids of their tormentors, undaunted, to acknowledge their Lord God? Then in the mids of most cruel tortures, inflicted by secular Power; with a body racked, mangled, quartered, and hewed in pieces, at their last gasp, freely to confess Christ the son of God? Then abandoning the world, to long after heaven? Then leaving men, to stand among Angels? Then to be made Christ's companion, in suffering with Christ, for Christ his sake? BECAN. Exam. NIL. Dr. HARRIS Reply. THe jesuit is utterly exhausted, and come to a Non plus. For unto all this last, and longest 13. chap. of the English Concord, hanging as an intoxicated Dart, in the liver of this jesuit, and of his Lord God the Pope, & other Popelings, he answereth not one word. The Epilogue. THus (Christian Reader) you have in this Reply, on the one side, the justification of the English Concord, in all the particulars thereof, of any moment: and on the other side, the utter overthrow, and dissipation, of the whole, and every whit, of this trifling Examen of Becan, consisting of nought else, but of the frothy repetitions, (ad nauseam usque) of the self same things, formerly set down in his English jar; adding only, some idle taxations of small escapes in printing, or transcribing, together with his virulent calumniations, and his false and unjust, yet very slanderous, and scandalous imputations, not only against me alone, or the other four Writers, whose sound, full uniform, and indissoluble agreement, this infernal torrent Becan, calleth the Concord of English Foxes: but also against all other English, most grave, godly, learned, sincere, and painful Preachers of divine truth; in that respect, being more, and more illustrious, within his Ma. Dominions, then in all the Christian world beside. These righteous servants, and great Ambassadors of the high God, zealous opposites to all vice, and promoters of all righteousness, and holiness: these planters of God's Vineyard, these builders of his own Temple: these holy Sowers, who by their laborious sowing of God's immortal seed, to weet, his word preached, in the hearts-ground of his chosen; and by God's rich blessing upon their sacred labours, beget many thousands sons and daughters of the heavenly Father, heirs of God's kingdom, and toynt heirs with his only begotten son: The black mouth of this railing Rabshekeh-Iesuit, blasphemously revileth, as lying, calumniating and parasite-overthrowers of all faith, religion, and ancient modesty: and the chief promoters of all contrary vices, in England: resembling them to Crows here, who pull up the tender blade, and devour the ripe Corne. Whereas their popish, enorm, and impious acts this way, do manifest to all the world, that they are indeed those Harpies, carrion Crows, and hellish brids of the devil, Mat. 13.7.19 which catch away that which was sown in the hearts, by those said godly Sowers. And moreover, those pestiferous and envious Enemies of God, and his Saints, who in that field of the Lord, Mat. 13. v. 25 sow their cursed rares, in which, the divine Malessie, by his said sacred Ministers, had formerly sown his good seed. To conclude; These said holy messengers, and Ministers of the Lord, being of conversation pure, godly, righteous, and sober: eating those meats which God hath created to be received by them with thanksgiving: 1. Tim. 4. v. 3 living with their wives in the holy estate of Matrimome, Heb. 13. v. 4 honourable among all men, (therefore among them): and lying chastened with their wines, in the marriage bed undefiled, Mal. 2. v. 15 thereby keeping themselves in their spirit, seeking and producing a godlyseed; This unclean jesuit, venting the doctrine of devils, 1. Tim. 4 v. 1.3. to wit, the catholich Romish doctrine, calleth therefore, Mancipia ventris, ac libidinis: Slaves to lust, and belly cheer. Whereas the Popish fasting, is feasting with delicacies: and the cleanness of their Popes especially, also of their Cardinals, Bishops, Abbots, Priests, jesuits, and other Popelings, is the most filthy and abominable uncleaneness, in their most unnatural Sodonietries: most brutish incests, with mother, daughter, sister, niece: and most dishonest whoredoms, & fornications, with masds, and married women, who confessing to them their wanton proneness to lust, their libidinous thoughts, desires, words, and deeds with other men; are thereby made a prey to their unlawful lusts, (either for hope of absolution, or fear of punishment, and ire of husbands or parents) to have their bodies abused by them, at their pleasure; making them, quae semelverec undiae limites transilierint, gnaviter in pudentes. Lastly, with Nuns, the most beautiful virgins that can be gotten from all parts of Christendom, but by those full fed and neighing horses, made most detestable projected whores. Witnesses so many thousand Infants, the fruits of their wombs, stifled, and buried, in waters, vault-earths', and other privy places, to hide their impurities: The Cage-cloysters of which unclean birds, were purposely devised, and erected to that filthy end. For when as these libidinous bondslaves, perceived, that no one woman, the lawful wife, could satiate the unbridled lust of any of them: the Mystery of iniquity took a course to fulfil the same, (though it would be in a manner, infinite) with all manner of variety, viz. of Stews of males and females: of open whore-Courtizans: of secret whore-Nunnes: of confessed whores, maids, and married women. And lest the soul of any one of them (as Lots righteous soul was) vexed with these monstrous, vagrant, & most filthy libidinous incontinencies, should confine himself and his desires to one woman, his wife in holy wedlock, they with incredible, both impudence and impiety, took this sorpentine-wise order for estoppel thereof, viz. by Canon unchangeable, solemnly, absolutely, & peremptorily, without all hope of any dispensation unto any therein, whomsoever, to prohibit any clergymen's marriages, as unlawful, and unclean adulteries. Take a view of the present estate this way, of the whole world, not only of Christians, but also of jews, Turks, and all other infidels: and read over the histories of former times, and places; and you shall not find so many, and so lewdly, yet politicly contrived villainies, for satiating all manner filthy lusts of their Priests, no not in Sodom itself, as are found in places, where the Popish Mystery of iniquity beareth sway. And yet this impure, & impudent jesuit, dare call the chaste married Preachers in England, Slaves to lust. Assuredly, there are a thousand popish Priests, for one Protestant Preacher, lust-slaves. Neither are here to be found (as they be in Rome, and Romish territories) open whore Courtesans, or cloistered whore Nuns, publicly authorized. Such sometimes, that is, in times of popish darkness, were here, and here infected many: but since the light of the Gospel came in, those fylths are abandoned, expelled, & utterly vanished hence. God the author & sanctifier of marriage, hath pronounced the marriages of our Preachers, to be honourable: Heb. 13. v. 4 but God, the consuming fire, hath threatened to judge popish Priests, adulterers, and whoremongers: upon whom he will rain, snares, stormy tempests, and brimstone of hell fire. Psal. 11. v. 6 This shall be the portion of their cup. Even the sour sauce, for their sweet lust-sinnes; (without their deep repentance). And herein, because I cannot err with Becan, I crave no pardon with Becan. FINIS.