THE ENGLISH JAR. OR DISAGREEMENT AMONGST the Ministers of great Britain, CONCERNING the kings Supremacy.  
Written in Latin by the Reverend Father, F. MARTINUS BECANUS of the Society of JESUS, AND Professor in Divinity.  
And translated into English by I. W. P.  
¶ Imprinted Anno M. DC. XII.   

THE PREFACE TO the Catholics of England.  
GOD save you Right HONOURABLE, and most worthy Champions. Give me leave awhile to interrupt your patience. And if it be not troublesome unto you, hear me a word or two. I will not hold you long. Two years ago I wrote two little books, concerning the King's Primacy: the one against the Apology, and Preface Monitory of the High and Mighty Prince, james King of Great-Brittaine: the other against the Torture of Tortus, or the Kings chaplain. This thing your Academics took heavily, and presently waged war against me in their King's quarrel; especially M. William Tooker, M. Richard Tompson, M. Robert Burhill, and M. Henry Salclebridge. Yet for all this I do not fly or fear. Nay there be many reasons which make me more courageous. First the equity of the Cause. Then your Faith and Constancy. And lastly the jars and deadly Discords of my Adversaries one against another.  
Concerning the right of the Cause, which I am to defend, what need I say any thing? I am to fight for the Church of Christ, for the honour and Obedience of Prelates, and for the example and custom of my Forefathers. And herein, shall I fear any man? Hath not your faith and constancy which is testified to the whole world, by your daily imprisonments, fetters, punishments, yea death itself suffered for Christ, already shaken off my drowsiness? Whom would it not animate and spur forwards: seeing that in this case, I may with good reason apply that saying of the Apostle unto you, Spectaculum facti estis Deo, Angelis, & Hominibus: you are made a spectacle to God, Angels, and Men? To God, who beholdeth your Combats, giveth you strength to get the victory, and prepareth a Crown for your Triumph. To Angels, who admire, that, living in this frail flesh, you do not fear the mighty powers of Hell; and withal rejoice, that so valiant Champions are committed to their charge. You are made a spectacle to men, who throughout the whole world are wonderfully incensed and stirred up by your example, virtue, and patience, to undergo the like combats and conflicts for Christ.  
Besides this, the disagreements and jarrings of my Adversaries amongst themselves are so many, and their forces so scattered & disordered, that I do not esteem them to be greatly feared. If perhaps you know not these their discords; here I offer and dedicate this little Book unto you, wherein it is particularly showed in what points they disagree. If your leisure serve you, read it, and hope well of the issue. In the mean while, I will prepare myself to the Combat, and when it is time, I shall entreat you to be the Spectators. Fare ye well, and take in good part, I beseech you, this m● Interpellation. From Mentz this month of November. 1611.  
Your most loving friend, Martin Becanus.   

THE ENGLISH JAR, CONCERNING the King's Supremacy.  
THE kings 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 K. 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 Becanus; M. Richard Tompson, 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 Becanus 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 Calvin in his Commentary upon the Prophet Amos, and others.  

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 then 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, quam per inopiam Latini sermonis, nobis Latinè esse licuit. Non enim dicimus, The King's Primacy, Regis Primatum, sed The King's Supremacy, Regis Suprematum: Quo vocabulo nos quoque deinceps utemur. Multùm enim disserunt 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 we will hereafter use. 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 properly, seeing that the word Primacy doth properly signify 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.   

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. Calvin did oppugn King Henry's Ecclesiastical Primacy. Again: Episcopus Roffensis, quòd Henrici Primatum Ecclesiasticum nollet confiteri, ad mortem producitur. The Bishop of Rochester, because he denied King Henry's Ecclesiastical Primacy, was brought forth to die etc. And again: 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 educar●tur excepto Primatus Ecclesiastici titulo, quem ei r●liquit. 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 Wintoni●nsis, Edmundus Londinensis, Cuthbertus Dune mensis, Nicolaus Wigorniensis, & Daius Cicestrensis ●piscopi, timidè restiterunt pu●ri Regis Primatui spirituali, imò simpliciter subscripserunt. The Bishops of Winc●ester, London, Durham, Worcester, and Chichest●r did fearfully withstand the Spiritual Primacy of the Child King, nay they absolutely subscribed thereunto etc.  
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 Comitijs Primatus Eccl●siastici 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 matt●rs: amongst whom is M. Doctor Andrew's, or the King's Chaplain in his Torture of Tortus pag. 90. where he writeth thus: N●que v●rò quoad spiritalia, alium nos Regi Primatum tribuimus, neque quoad temporalia alium Pontifici detrahimus● quam d●b●mus. Prior ille Regibus omni iure; posterior 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. ay, when I first read these words in the chaplains book, did think that he had taken these two, to wit, Primacy spiritual, & belonging to spiritual; as also these other, Primacy temporal, & belonging to temporal, for one and the same thing. But now it seems that the Defenders & 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 spiritual●m, sed Primatum qu●ad spiritualia d●b●ri Regibus omni iure. He (the Chaplain) doth not s●y, that Spiritual Primacy, but Primacy belonging to Spiritual, is due unto Kings by all right etc. And then again pag. 133. in fine: E●si ●nim R●gi tribuimus Primatum in ●cclesia non tam●n Primatum spiritualem a●t Ecclesiasti●um ●i t●ibu●mus: s●d pot●us ●rimatum quoad res & personas spirituales & Ecclesias●●cas. For although we give unto the King Primacy over the Church; ●et do we not give unto him Primacy spiritual or Ecclesiastical; but rather Primacy belonging to things and persons spiritual and Ecclesiastical etc. And M. T●mpson pag. ●●. of his Book also saith: Non dixit, Primatum Ecclesiasticum, aut Spiritualem, quasi formaliter intelligat; sed quoad Spiritualia, id est, obiectiuè & materialiter. The Chaplain said not, the Primacy Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, as though he understood it formally, 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 willbe answered you 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 an end? I doubt not but it is. What is the cause? Hearken to the common saying: What's quickly got, is quickly lost: as also to that of the holy Scripture: Si est ex hominibus consilium hoc, aut opus, dissoluetur. Act. 5.38. If this devise, or work be of men, it will be dissolved.   

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 he 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, whosoever should deny it, to offend against the public Profession of England. For so he saith pag. 177. Angliae Regem Anglicanae Ecclesiae Primatem esse, in professione publica Anglicana Veritatis sa●ris litteris 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. Took●r pag. 3. Olere autem malitiam ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud videtur, cum Regem Caput Ecclesiae, Primatemque confingas. It may see●e to ●auour of malice, and cry out upon your sausines, when as you feign the King Head, and Primate of the Church etc. And M. Burhill pag. 133. Nec Primatem quidem omnino Regem nostrum dicimus; multò v●rò minù● Primatem Ecclesiasticum. Neither do we at all, call our King Primate; and much less Ecclesiastical Primate etc.  
3. ●eere hence do I frame a twofold Argument. One out of M. tooker's words in this manner: He that affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church, is a saucy and malicious fellow. But M. Salcl●bridge affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church. Ergo, he is a saucy 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 w●s) 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 wit, 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 averreth, 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 expressly saith: That the King hath the Primacy of the Church; but yet he is not the Primate of the Church. And chose, The Archbishop of Canterbury hath not the Primacy of the Church; and yet is he Primate of the Church. So as he denieth these two consequences à Coniugatis, to wit. 1. 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. 1. The chaplain hath a Bishopric, Ergo, he is a Bishop. 2. M. Tooker is a Dean, Ergo, he hath a Deanery.   

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 divortium, se Caput Ecclesiae constituit. K. Henry after his divorce (from Q. Catherine) 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 antè temporibus visam, induit. Henricus enim Rex Caput ipsius Ecclesiae constituitur. In the mean while (to wit after his foresaid divorce) a Council was held at London, wherein the Church of ●ngland 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 book of his Chronology hath these words: Henricus anno 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: Ex qua dicendi formula, primam occasionem sumptam aiunt, 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 cis nova Comitiorum Decreta, & iu●●bantur iurciurando affirmare, Regim 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 Calvin in like manner upon the 7. Chapter of the Prophet Amos writeth thus: Qui tantopere extu●erunt H●nricum Regem Angliae, certè fucrunt homines in●en●●derati Ded●runt enim illi summam rerum omnium petestatem & hoc me graviter semper vulneravit. Erant en●m blasphemi cum vocarent cum summum Caput Ecclesia sub ●hristo. Those who so greatly did extol K. H●n●y of En●land 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 K. 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, tam in causis spiritalibus quam temporalibus Caput; Reverendo Thomae Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, salutem. Edward by the Grace of God, King of England, France and 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 appear by his letters written to other Bishop's subject unto him, thus: Thomas permissione divina Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus, per Illustrissimum in Christo Principem Edovardum Regem sextum, supremum in terris Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae & Hybernicae, sufficienter & legitimè authorizatus; Tibi Edmundo Londinensi ●piscopo, & omnibus fratribus Coëpiscopis, vice & nomine Regiae Maiestatis, quibus in hac part fungimur, mandamus, ut Imagines ex ●cclesijs 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 sixth, supreme Head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland, do in his majesties Name and place, which herein we supply, command you edmund Bishop of London, and all the rest of our Brethren Bishops, that Images be taken out of the Churches of every Diocese etc. And Doctor Sanders also in his book of the Schism of England saith thus: Quamprimùm visum est Henrici octavi mortem diwlgare, statim Edouardus Henrici filius, nonum aetatis annum agens, Rex Angliae proclamatur, & summum ●cclesiae Anglicanae in terris Caput, proximè secundum Christum constituitur etc. As soon 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, recepto à Patre & fratre titulo, Ecclesiae Caput per Angliam coepit appellari. Q. Elizabeth having received the (former) Title from her Father & Brother, began to be called Head of the Church throughout England etc.  
4. But now adays, under K. james, this title is put in jeopardy. 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 militiam, & clamitare audaciam tuam videtur illud, cum Regem Caput Ecclesiae, Primatemque confingas. It may seem to savour of malice, and cry 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 wantonness and boldness, for calling the King, Head, Pastor and Primate of Bishops.  
5. In this debate and jar then, what shall the King do? If he admit the Title of Supreme head of the Church of England, M. Tooker, & M. Burhill will no doubt murmur shrewdly. If he reject 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 a far greater too.   

V. Question. Whether the King's Primacy do consist in any Power, or jurisdiction Ecclesiastical?  
HERE now, is there a great jar 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 jurisdiction. To the first belongeth to effect or consecrate, and 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 pag. 14. where he saith: Reges non habent potestatem administrandi Sacramenta. kings have not power to administer Sacraments. It is also certain that he hath not jurisdiction of the interior Court, or Court of Conscience. For this in like manner doth M. Tooker confess pag. 63. Omnis iurisdictio (saith he) in foro interiori Sacerdotum est, nulla Regum. All jurisdiction in the interior Court (or Court of Conscience) belongeth to Priests, not any 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 distinguishing. M. Tooker affirmeth it pag. 305. in these words: Qui habet plenissimam & am●lissimam jurisdictionem in foro exteriore, potest eamdem dare & auferre. Rex eam habet Ergo potest eamdem dare & auferre. Totum hoc liquet ex V. & N. Testamento. He that hath 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 & new Testament etc. With him agreeth also M. Salclebridge pag. 140. Reges oleo sacro uncti, capaces sunt jurisdictionis spiritualis. Kings (saith he) anointed with holy oil, are made capable of spiritual jurisdiction etc. And then again in the same place out of the Laws of England. R●x (saith he) est persona mixta, urpote qui ●cclesiasticam & temporalem jurisdictionem habet, & quidem Supremam. The King is a person mixed, to wit, that hath both jurisdiction Ecclesiastical and Temporal, and that in the highest degree etc. And yet more pag. 144. Per leges ●cclesiasticas in hoc Regno approbatas, unus Sacerdos duo ben●ficia ha●ere non potest, nec Bastardus Sacris initiari. V●rùm Rex, ●cclesiastica potestate & iurisdictione, quam habet in utroque, dispensare potest. By the Ecclesiastical Laws approved in this Kingdom (of ●ngland) one Priest may not have two Benefices, nor a Bastard be made 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. Tompson pag. 80. of his book writing thus: ●rimatus ●ccles●ae non est d●●iniendus per iurisdiction●m. Ecclesiasticam, sed per gubernation●m supr●mam. The Primacy of the Church is not to be defined by jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, but by supreme Government etc. And again pag. 95. Diximus, Reg●m gub●rnar● quid●m Ecclesiastica● s●d non Ecclesias●i●è. We have said before, that the King indeed doth govern Ecclesiastical things, but not Ecclesiastically. And why I pray you? Because, forsooth, he hath not jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, but only temporal. And hereunto agreeth M. Burhill pag. 234. granting this negative proposition. Rex (saith he) nullam habet jurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam, nec in foro interiori, nec in exteriori. 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. tooker's Book pag. 305. in these words: Habet Rex omnem jurisdictionem spiritualem, in foro exteriori, exceptis quibusdam Censuris. The King hath all jurisdiction spiritual in the exterior Court, except in certain Censures etc. So as now to this question (to wit 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 not all. And lastly, with M. Burhill, and M. Tompson, That he hath none, no not any one jot at all.   

VI Question. Whether the King of his own Authority can assemble, or call together councils?  
1. NOv follow the jars and debates of our Adversaries, concerning the Offices and Functions of the King's Primacy, & they ●re 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 & deposing of Bishops. The fifth, 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, and therein sit as chief and 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 he can do 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 indi●●re omnium Ordinum Oecumeni●as, & in ijsdem praesidere. The King of ●ngland (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, de iure Synodos convocarunt. The Kings of ●ngland have by th●ir own supreme authority, and by ●●ght, assembled Synods etc.  
3 Now M To●ker in this point is very variable: one while contradicting himself, another while others. And this is manifest out of the divers testimonies he produceth. The first is pag. 37. where he hath these words: A quibus magis aequum est indici Concilia● quam ab illis● penes quos semper ●uit authoritas ●a congregandi? cum autem communit●r triplex pon● soleat Concilium, Generale, Prouinciale & Dioec●sanum; Concilium G●n●rale solius Papae jussu celebrari vultis, sed neque illud nisi ab Imp●ratoribus & Regibus simul consentient●bus hody indici debet. Prouinciale à Metropolita●o cum suis Suffragancis. Dioecesanum ab Episcopo cum Curatis● R●ctoribus, & Clericis 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 3. sorts of councils, General, Provincial, & 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 a days, unless Emperors & Kings do agree thereunto also. A Provincial counsel is to be assembled by the Metropolitan and his Suffragans: th●t of the Diocese by the Bishop thereof together with the Curates, Recto●s, and Clerks of ●he same Bishopric etc. Out of which testimony we may gat●er, that the K. of England cannot assemble a Council of his 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 Diocese, because that belongeth to the Bishop thereof. What then, I pray you, is left unto the King?  
4. Another testimony hereof is out of the same M. ●ooker pag. 41. in these wor●s: Abundè liquet ex Concilijs ipsis, & historia Ecclesiastica, ●r●uincial●a Concilia & Nationalia ab Imperatoribus a● Regibus fuisse congregata. It is abundantly manifest out of the Coū●els themselves, and the Ecclesiastical Histories, that Provincial and national Counsels 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 he saith, ●hat they must be assembled by Kings and Emperors. There, is distinguished o●ly a threefould Councell● to wit, General Prouinciall● ● and that of the Diocese: here now, is added a four●h, to wit, national.  
5. His third testimony is set down pag. 42. where he propo●eth this question: Quo igitur iure tantam sibi potestat●m arrogat Pontif●x solus? Num divino? ●y what right then, I pray you, doth the Pope challenge 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 tant●mmodo, & indicere Concilium, & statuere cum verborum solennitate; Visum est Spiritui sancto & Nobis &c. 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 fi●st Council at jerusalem, & 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 aut●m ius, & r●suit●ns ●x vt●oque, & iure Regio & Episcopali, est Legum sanctio & Synodorum indictio, & praes●dendi in iis praer●gatiu● & controu●rs●arū decisio, aliorumque actuum, qui his finitimi sunt ex●rcitium: quae f●rè ab origine Prima●us R●gij desc●ndunt, & communicantur Sac●r●oti●u etc. The decreing or enacting of Laws, the assembling of Synods & Prerogative of ●it●ing 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 in parted unto Priests etc. This now again, as you see, is contrary to that which he said next before. For there he will needs have the assembly of Synods or Counsels to belong by divine right to the Apostles: here, forsooth, 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.   

VII. Question. Whether the King can enact Ecclesiastical Laws, or no?  
1. IT is clear, that K. Henry the 8. did, aswell 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 di●bus vigilantissimus hic Ecclesiae Pastor Henri●us quo in posterum sciretur quae cui rite nupta esset, legem ediderat perpetuam de Nuptijs, Comitior●m etiam auctoritate ●onfirmatam, qua statuchatur, ut si quae p●rsonae in L●uitico non prohibitae, solo cons●nsu, per verba de praesenti, matrimonium, nulla carnis copula subsecuta, contraxerint●eae verò ambae postea, vel earum altera nuptijs cum altera persona in L●uitico non prohibita contractis, ca●nali copula easd●m consumma ●erint; hae post●riores quas firmasset copula, non priores illae, quas solus cons●nsus sta●u●ss●t, ratae atque legitimae haber●ntur: adeo, ut cum olim juris Gentium fuiss●t Regula, Nuptias non concubitus, sed consensus facit; ●am dein●●ps, H●nrici r●gula esse coeperit, Nuptias non consen●us, sed concubitus facit. Et tamin ips● Legis-lator contra suam ipsius regulam uxorem Annam Cliu●ns●m, cuius nuptias, non solo consensu, sed sept●m etiam mensium concu●itu firmau●rat, eo solùm praetextu r●iccit, i●saque viu●nte aliam superinduxit, quòd alt●ri, nes●io cui, cons●nsum antea praebuisse fin●●r●tur. Huius ergo legis tantop●re postea puduit ipsos Protestant's, ut mortuo Henrico, eam ipsi r●uocauerint, atque irritam f●c●rint etc. In these days, the most vigilant Pastor of the Church K. H●nry, that it might be known to posterity, what woman were lawfully married to another, enacted a perpetual 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 marriage by only consent, and by words de praes●nti, no carnal copulation following the same; and that the said persons, or either of them ●hould afterward contra●t with another person not prohibited in the Levitical law, & 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, tha● whereas the rule of the law of Nations in old time was, That consent, not carnal copulation did make the marriage lawful; now hereafter by the law of K. Henry, it began to be a rule, That carnal copulation, not consent did make marriage lawful. And yet for all this, the lawmaker himself K. Henry, did, against his own proper rule and law, reject Anne of Cleeve his wife, whose marriage was not only contracted by consent alone, but consummated also by seven months carnal copulation, upon this only pretence, that she had given 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 etc.  
2. Concerning his Vicar General (Cromwell) thus writeth also the said Doctor Sanders in the same book. Septembri mense, authoritate sua Vicaria, Canon's quosdam Ecclesiasticos quos Iniunctiones vocabat, sigillo Vicariatus sui munitos Archiepis●opis, Episcopis, Abbatibus & reliquo Clero praescripsit in quibus praeter cetera, iube●antur Parochi sub gravissimis poenis ut Orationem Dominicam cum salutatione Angelica, Symbolum item fidei & decem Decalogi praecepta aliaque huiusmodi, Anglicè in posterum in Ecclesijs docerent. In the month of September K. Henry's Vicar General, by the authority of his Office, prescribed certain 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: wherein amongst other things the Pastors of Church's were com●●nded, under most severe punishment hereafter to read in their Churches, the Lords prayer, the ave Mary, the Creed, and ten commandments in English etc.  
3. Now, our English Adversaries, that write in these days of the King's Supremacy, do not agree in this point. For that some of them say, that the enacting of decreeing of Ecclesiastical laws, doth by divine right belong unto Bishops; others say, that it belongeth to Kings and Emperors. The first opinion holdeth M. Tooker pag. 42. of his book, where he 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, & suffocato. It hath seemed good to 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 Apostles did by divine right. The other opinion holdeth M. Tompson pag. 80. where he affirmeth, that Bishops, and Counsels cannot enact or decree any Ecclesiastical law, which hath the force of law, unless Kings and emperors consent thereunto. His words are these: Decreta Conciliorum & Patrum, Ecclesiasticis Censuris, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantùm stetiss●nt, nisi legum vim Caesarea aura ipsis afflasset. The Decrees of the Counsels and 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. here 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 fecular Prince, which then 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 law. And the same power & authority have Bishops now a days, not Kings, nor Emperors.   

VIII. Question. whether the King by his own proper authority, may confer, collate, or bestow Ecclesiastical benefices?  
1. THAT the King may confer Ecclesiastical livings, M. Henry Salclebridge affirmeth pag. 121 in these words: Christiani Principes in suis R●●ni●, 〈…〉 authoritate, ben●ficia contul●runt 〈…〉 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 I●suita, non modò collationes ben●ficiorum ad Angliae Reg●s sp●c●are, sed ad eosd●m illos spectare, uti Ecclesiae Anglicanae Primates vel supremos Ordinarios etc. Do you hear jesuit, 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 conf●runt omnino in quempiam, maiora minoráue: multò minus dignitates Ecclesiasticas, sive Episcopatus, sive Archiepiscopatus per universum ambitum Regni sui. Eorum certè collatio vel institutio est, quorum est destitutio, id est, Episcoporum Comprovincialium, qui potestat●m habent personas ipsas sacrandi. Hoc habet juris Regia Maiestas, quod minor & subordinata potestas habet, ius inquam n●minandi, & praesentandi 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; & much less Ecclesiastical dignities, whether Bishopri●kes or archbishoprics throughout the whole circuit of their Kingdoms. For this truly belongeth unto those, whose office it is to dispose thereof, to wit, to the Comprovinciall 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 to nominate and present unto benefices etc.  
3. Behold here a triple jar or discord between these two Authors, and this in a daily and vulgar matter. The first is, that M. Henry Salclebridg saith, that the collation of benefices belongeth to the Kings of England, in that they be 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 unto benefices. M. Tooker averreth, that in this point, Kings have no more right, than their subjects, & other inferior persons: for so he saith: Hoc ha●et juris Regia Maiestas, quod minor & subordinata potestas habet. The King's Majesty hath (in this point of conferring benefices) the same right that an inferior & subordinate power hath etc. Whether of these two then should King james believe, if he had a fat benefice, or an archbishopric now to bestow?   

IX. Question. Whether the King can create, and depose Bishops, or no?  
1. MASTER Salclebridge saith, that he can. For thus he writeth pag. 121. Christiani Principes in suis Regnis, cum laud, propria authoritate, Episcopos crearunt & deposuerunt. Christian Prices, 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 Episcopal●m 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, de iure, atque cum laud omnium Ordinum Episcopos eleger●nt, ac proinde deponere potu●runt. The Kings of England of their own supreme authority, by right, & with praise of all manner Estates, have elected Bishops, and therefore they might depose them also etc. And then lastly: Constat, Christianos Prin●ipes cum laud Episcopos elegisse, & deposuisse, etiam Romanos. It is manifest, that Christian Princes, have elected, & deposed Bishops, yea Popes also, and that with their praise etc.  
2. Now M. Tooker, he denies in the place before cited that the King can create or depose Bishops. For there he assigning two things necessary for the ordaining or creating of a Bishop, to wit, Consecration of the person, & a Bishopric, addeth, that the King can perform neither of these two. For neither can he confer any benefice●, and much less a Bishopric or archbishopric; neither hath he any power to consecrated 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, quam ut cum Valentiniano filium se Ecclesiae profiteatur, & cum Theodorico Italiae Rege, se alumnum Ecclesiae, & discipulum Archiepiscoporum suorum, & 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 Theodoricus 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 sheepfold 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 Crammer, or by the King, were like unto Cranmer himself. Secondly whatsoever was done of them, by Episcopal authority or jurisdiction, was of no validity or force. Thirdly, that they, so ordained, are bound to restitution of all revenues and profits which they have reaped by their Bishoprics. What council now is there to be taken in this point? Let your Academics, I pray you, consider.   

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 and yet himself may be excommunicated by them, and expelled out of the Church of England, whereof himself is supreme Head. The former part hereof doth M. Tooker affirm pag. 15. in these worlds: 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 M. Tompson pag. 83. Excommunicare nullo modo ad Supr●matum Ecclesiae pertinet. To excommunicate doth no way belong to the Supremacy of the Church. And again pag. 84. Omnes fatemur R●gem excomunicandi potestatem nullam habere. We do all confess, that the King hath no power to excommunicate etc.  
2. The later part of the former point affirmeth M● Burhill pag. 137. when he saith: Quod Ambrosio licuit in Theodosium idem & aliis 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 is it 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 iustissimè 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 see, 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 he is above all persons, aswell Ecclesiastical, as temporal in his Kingdom: That he hath 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, & cast out of the Church of England, whereof he is supreme Head. I cannot understand this mystery.  
4. Hereunto will I add 3. arguments more, which will increase the difficulty. The first is: He that hath supreme, most ample, and most full jurisdiction Ecclesiastical in any Kingdom, may exercise all the actions, & 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 M. Tooker, and M. Salclebridg do confess: Ergo, he may exerci●e all offices belonging jurisdiction Ecclesiastical in the Kingdom of England: Ergo he may also excommunicate: for that excommunication which is denounced by sentence, is an act of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Or else chose, if you will thus: He that cannot exercise all acts of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in any Kingdom, hath not supreme, most ample, & most full jurisdiction Ecclesiastical in that Kingdom. But the King of England cannot exercise 〈…〉 of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in his Kingdo●e because he cannot excommunicate any man. 〈…〉 not supreme, most ample, and most 〈…〉 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, b●cause 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, h● hath power to excommunicate. The Minor is proved out of M. 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, a● the Chaplain pag. 41. and M. 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 h● excepteth Excommunication, wherein you see is to be noted again a contradiction in M. Tooker; for that he referreth Censures (amongst which excommunication is one) to the jurisdiction of the exterior Court. True indeed. Bu● 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 th● second, that the King hath not all jurisdiction o● the exterior Court.  
6. The third Argument is: That whosoever is subject to another in Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the exterior Court hath not supreme, mo●t ample, and full jurisdiction 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 M. Burhill doth confess: Ergo, he hath not supreme, most ample and most full jurisdiction Ecclesiastical in the exterior Court etc. Or, if you 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 doubt not, but you ma●ke well, that these things do not agree.   

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? M. Salclebridge saith he is pag. 163. in these words: Sic luce clarius ●st, Christianos Principes cum laud, Controuers●as fid●i dijudicasse & dir●misse, etiam in universalibus oct● 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, & fourth of Constantinople, and the second of Nice, wherein divers controversies concerning matters of faith were judged of, and decided; especially concerning the divinity 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 Eutyches and Dioscorus, & so of others. All these Controversies, saith M. Salclebrigde, were judged of, and decided by Kings and Emperors.  
2. M. 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 book: Olere autem malitiam, ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud vid●tur, cum Regem caput Ecclesiae, Primatemque confingas, omniumque causarum & controversiarum, quae ad fidem & R●ligionem pertinent judicem tribuas. It may seem to savour of malice, & cry out upon you sauciness, when as you feign the King to be head of the Church and judge of all causes and controversies which pertain unto faith and Religion etc. And again pag. 50●● Rex in suo Regno, omnibus superior sit, nulli subditus. Fidei judex ne appelletur quidem. Although the King, in his own Kingdom, be above all, and subject to none: yet he may not be called, in any case, the judge of our Faith etc. And pag. 313. Reges Christiani non sunt ●idei ac Religionis judices. Christian Kings are not judges of Faith & 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 r●all 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 and determination? M. Took●r, you see, would not go to the King. What? should they go to some other judge then? But M. 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, & 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 & 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? M. Salclebridge saith, that he is pag. 165. in these words: Audin, Controversias Episcopales ab Imperatore dir●mptas? Do you not hear Sir, that Episcopal Controversies have been decided by Emperors? etc. What M. Tooker thinketh of this point, is not well known. For s●me times he affirmeth it, as for example pag 24. thus: N●mini dubium est, quin in Primitiva Eccl●sia, d● r●bus & p●rs●nis Eccl●siasticis ius dic●r●nt Imperator●s. No man can doubt 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.   

XII. Question. Whence, & 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 King, or rather in that he is a Christian King, hath the Primacy of the Church? The former part of this point, M. Tompson seemeth to approve pag. 78. where he saith: Omnes Principes, ●tiam Pagani, obiectiuè habent supremam potestat●m in omnes omnino personas suorum 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 and Religion, at leastwise, so far forth, as belongeth to the manner and exercise thereof etc. And then again pag. 94. Primatus est Regium honum, quod Censurâ tolli non potest. Nec est absurdum, Regem v●lut Ethnicum, esse Primatem E●cl●siae. 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 Primatum de novo. An Ethnic King (saith he) when as he is instructed in Christ, or the Christian faith, doth not purchase thereby any new Primacy etc. To whom consenteth M. Burhill pag. 251. thus: Rex titulo R●gis temporalis potest sibi vindicare, & assumere Primatum Eccl●siae. 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 Lord of Fly now, he teacheth us a quite contrary lesson in his Tortura Torti ●ag. 39 where he averreth, that the Prima●y 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 not 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 s●ne ordine ad potestatem Ecclesiasticam. Is it not lawful then, to yield Allegiance to an Ethnic King? Nay rather not to yield i●, is a wickedness. For in an Ethnic there is true temporal power, and that without respect to Ecclesiastical powe● etc. And a little after. Rex quivis cum de ●thnico Christianus fit, non perdit terrenum ius, sed acquirit ius nowm. Itid●m cum de Christiano fit s●cut Ethnicus, vigore sententiae amittit nowm ius quod acquisierat: sed retinet terrenum ius in temporalibus: quod fuerat 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 Christi●n 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 in temporal things, which was proper unto him, before he became a Christian etc.  
3. So as according to the opinion of M. Tompson, and M. Burhill 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, and so to others, in other places. What now shall those men do, if the Turk should command them to follow the Alcoran? The King of Spain force them to he●re 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? ●ut then 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 Kings? 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?   

XIII. Question. Whether the King may constrain his Subjects to take the Oath of Prmacy, or no?  
1. HITHERTO have we treated of the jarring & disagreement of our Adversaries, abou● 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 and supreme Head of the Church of ●ngland, unto whom, as unto their Primate & supreme Head they will promise fidelity, no less in Ecclesiastical and Spiritual matters, then in Politic and temporal? This question hath two points. The first, whether the King of England doth de facto 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 K. 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 & duobus laicis, Aegidio Horno, & Clement Philpotto, quòd nollent Ecclesiasticum terreni Regis Primatum iuratò confiteri, exclusi è terris, 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 temporal King, being excluded from earth, were translated to a celestial glory of the eternal King etc. And then again: Proponebantur eis nova Comitiorum Decreta & iubebantur jure iurando affirmare, Regem Ecclesiae supremum esse Ca●ut. The new decrees of the Parliament were propounded unto them, & they were commanded to swear, the King to be supreme Head of the Church etc.  
3. Now that Queen elizabeth the daughter, followed herein her Father K. Henry, it is manifest by the form of Oath that she exacted of her subjects, which is this: ●go A. B prorsus testificor, & declaro in conscientia mea, Reginam ●sse solam supremam Gubernatricem & istius Regni Angliae & aliorum omnium suae Maiestatis dominiorum & regionum non minùs in omnibus spiritualibus atque Ecclesiasticis rebus vel causis, quam temporalibus: Et quòd nemo externus Princeps, Persona Praelatus, Status, vel Potentatus, aut facto, aut iure, habet aliquam iurisdiction●m, potestatem, superioritatem, praeeminentiam, vel authoritat●m ●cclesiasticam aut spiritualem in hoc Regno. Ideoque planè renuntio & repudio omnes forinsecas iurisdictiones, potestates, superioritates atque authoritates etc. ay A. B. do verily testify and declare in my conscience, that the Queen is the only supreme Governess, aswell of this Kingdom of England, as of all other her majesties dominions and count●eys, aswell in all spiritual and Ecclesiastical matters and causes, as in temporal: And that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate hath, either by fact, or right, any jurisdiction, 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 james, 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. palàm testor, & ex conscientia mea declaro, quod Maiestas Regia● unicus est supremus Gubernator huius Regni, omniumque aliorum suae Maiestatis dominiorum & territoriorum tam in omnibus spiritualibus sive Ecclesiasticis rebus & causis, quam in temporalibus: Et quòd nullus extraneus Princeps, Persona, Praelatus, Status aut Potentatus habet aut habere debet ullam jurisdictionem, potestatem, superioritatem, praeeminentiam vel authoritatem Ecclesiasticam, sive spiritualem intra hoc Regnum etc. ay A. B. do publicly testify, and in my conscience declare, that the King's Majesty is the only supreme 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 jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority Ecclesiastical or spiritual within this Kingdom etc. The later Oath called of Allegiance, beginneth thus: Ego A. B. verè & sincerè agnosco, profiteor, testificor, & declaro in conscientia mea coram Deo & Mundo, qùod supremus Dominus noster Rex jacobus etc. ay 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. Bo●h these Oaths are set down at large in his majesties Apology: and in both of them, his subjects are required publicly and openly to profess & acknowledge that King james is the supreme Governor, 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 jurisdiction in, or over the Church of ●ngland. Again the former of these Oaths was brought in by King Henry the 8. as his Majesty confesseth in his Apology in these words: Sub Henrico octavo primùm introductum est juramentum Primatus sub eo●ue Thomas Morus & Rof●ensis supplico af●●cti; idque partim ob eam causam, quòd Iuram●ntum illud recusarent. Ab eo deinceps omnes mei Praedecessores, quotquot sunt hanc Religionem amplexi, idem sibi, aut non multò 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 Roc●ester were beheaded; and that partly because they refused that Oath. From him all my Predecessors downward, 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 K. james himself.   

The second Point.  
6. The Question than is, whether all the King's subjects in England, are bound in conscience to take both these Oaths, as often as the King shall exact the same? Or whether they should suffer imprisonments, 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 lose their lives, together with the glorious Martyr's Sir Thomas More, and the Bishop of Rochester, then to ad●it 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 and scope of that Oath, did a little stagger at the beginning, whether they might with a safe conscience swear thereto, or no. Which doubt of theirs notwithstanding did not last long, but was soon taken away by Pope Paul the fifth, and Cardinal Bellarmine For the Pope forthwith directed two Apostolical Breves to the Catholics of England, and the said Card. wrote a letter to M. Blackwell then Archpriest of this affair. Both Pope and Cardinal do 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 ●art, so far forth as belongeth to some one article thereof: 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. ay, in favour and consolation of the Catholics, have determined to adjoin hereunto 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 doubtful: But, that the King is Primate, and 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 doubtful: Ergo, no man is bound in Conscience to swear the same. The Mayor is evident of itself, for that it is not lawful to affirm any thing which is either false or doubtful, and much less to swear the same. The Minor is proved thus: For that, is it judged apparently false, aswell amongst the Caluinists, as amongst the Catholics, that the King is Primate and 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 Primacy over the Church. 4. That he hath power & jurisdiction Ecclesiastical. 5. That the K. by his own proper Authority may assemble councils or Synods, and sit as chief Head or Precedent therein. 6. That he can confer benefices, or Ecclesiastical livings. 7. That he can create and depose Bishops. 8. That he is judge in Controversies of faith etc. So as truly, if these and the like points be doubtful and uncertain amongst those who adhere unto, and favour the King, seeing that some deny them, some affirm them: it followeth necessarily, that the King's whole Primacy is an uncertain thing. What rashness then, and imprudency 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 doubtful?  
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, to wit, to assemble Synods, to enact and decree Ecclesiastical laws, to confer benefices, to created Bishops, to determine controversies of faith, and the like. Therefore divers 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: ay 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 or dignity, whom he will etc. If this part only of the King's Offices should 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 hereunto; how then should Catholics be compelled to do the same, who do in no wise acknowledge 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 old Testament in ancient times: and therefore that this his Primacy must be contained 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: ay A. B. do openly testify, and in my conscience declare, that jeroboam is the only supreme Governor of this Kingdom of Israel, aswell 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, & therein reigned two distinct Kings, one whereof had no dependence of the other in temporal government. 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 division 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 reside in both Kingdoms, but only in one, and that ordinarily in juda: yet notwithstanding he was Head of all the Priests & 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 own Kingdom, from the jurisdiction and Power of a foreign High Priest: by what right then doth now King james of England do the same? especially, seeing he averreth, that he claimeth no more right or jurisdiction unto himself over the Church, than the Kings of the old Testament did?    

The Conclusion.  
1. ALL then that hath been hitherto said, may be reduced unto three heads. The first is, that the King's Primacy in the Church is a new thing, and first brought in by King Henry the 8. nor hitherto hath been heard of, or usurped in any other place then only in the Kingdom of ●ngland. The second is: that there be so many jars & disagreements of the English Ministry among themselves, concerning this Primacy, that it is not manifest nor 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 King; nor may the Subjects take the same.  
2. herehence three other questions which might be made concerning the Subjects, will easily be solved. There be three sorts of Subjects in England. The first, as some call them, are Henricians, who both acknowledge, & swear unto this Kingly Supremacy. The second sort are Puritans, or pure Caluinists, 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 doubtful and 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 hitherto we have showed. 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, & yet if they be commanded, do swear thereto? I answer: that they are perjured persons and Politicians. The reason is. Because they believe one thing, and swear another. They believe with Calnin, 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 thieves, 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 swear thereto. I answer: that they be just & upright men, who walk before God in truth & verity. They be sincere, who profess with their mouth, that which they think in their heart. They are wise indeed, 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 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 imprisonments, torments, punishments. Truly they are not therefore miserable but most happy. For so did our Saviour teach us in the Gospel, Matth. 5.10. Bl●ss●d are th●y● who suffer persecution for justice, for theirs is the Kingdom of heau●n. But than you will say: It is a hard thing to su●●er. How is that hard, which is done with joy and delight? Hear what is said of the Apostles, Act. 5.41. And they went from the sight of t●e Council rejoicing b●cause they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of jesus. Hear what ●●e Apostle saith of himself 2. Cor. 4. Superabundo gaudio in omni tribulatione nostra. I exceedingly reioy●e 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 joyful and full of comfort in all adversities. Rom. 8.18. The sufferings of these times, are not condign to the future glory, that shallbe revealed in us. And again R●m. 12.12. Rejoicing in hope: and patient in tribulation. And H●br. 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 ●or you, that doing the will of God, you may rec●yue the promise etc.  
8. Nor is the force of Charity less: Rom. 8.35. Who th●n shall separate us from the Charity of Christ? Tribulatio? or a●stresse? or fami●●? or nakedness? or danger? or persecution? or the sword? etc. But in all these things we overcome, b●cause of him that hath l●u●d us. For I am sure, that neither death, nor life, nor Angels, nor Principali●yes, nor Powers, neither things present, nor things to come, neither might, nor height, nor depth, nor other creature shallbe able to separate us from the Charity of God, which is in Christ I●sus 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, leaving you an example, that you may follow his steps, who did no sin, neither was guile sound in his mouth: who when he was reviled, did not r●uile● when he suffered, he threatened not; but delivered himself to him that judged him unjustly etc.  
10. And Hebr. 11.36. Others had trial of reproaches, and stripes: moreover also of bands and prisons: they were stoned, they were h●wed, they were tempted, th●y died in the slaughter of the sword: they went about in sheepskins, in goate-skins, needy, in distress, afflicted: of whom the world was not worthy: wandering in 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 l●t 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 yet resisted unto blood etc.  
12. And yet more, 2. Cor. 11.23. In very many labours, in prisons more abundantly, in stripes above measure, in deaths often. Of the jews five times did I rec●yue 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 journeying 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 ●unger 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 necessities, 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, & the Bishop of Rochester, when they rather chose to die, then to take an impious & 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 livings, and purpled in their own blood.  
S. Cyprian Epist. 9  
Pretiosamors haec est, quae emit immortalitatem pretio sanguinis s●i Precious 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 tempor●bus nostris gloriosus Martyrum san●uis illustrate! Erat antea in operibus fratrum candida: nunc facta est in Martyrum 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, quam inter ipsos carnifices interritum confit●ri Dominum D●um? quam inter saevientia saecularis potestatis tormenta, etiam extorto & ex●ruciato, & ex●arnificato corpore, Christum De● fi●ium, etsi recedente, sed tam●n lib●ro spiritu confit●ri? quam relicto mundo caelum p●ti●●e? quam d●s●rtis hominibus, inter Angelo's star●? quam coll●gam passionis ●um Christo, in Christi nomine factum ●ss●? What can happen unto any man, through God's divine 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 leaving 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?   
FINIS.