The I. Question. vvhether the King of England haue any Pri­macy in the Church?

1 THE first Iarre or contention then is, concerning the Name of Primacy. Many of our Aduersaries admit this Name: but M. Richard Tompson had rather haue it called Supre­macy then 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. [Page 8] Ergo he hath not the Primacy, but the Supremacy. The words of M. Tompson pag. 33. of his booke are these: Nos in Anglico nostro idiomate belliores longè sumus, quàm per inopiam Latini sermonis, nobis Latinè esse licuit. Non enim dicimus, The Kings Primacy, Regis Primatum, sed The Kings Supremacy, Regis Su­prematum: Quo vocabulo nos quoque deinceps vtemur. Multùm enim disserunt Primatus & Suprematus. Illud enim Potestatem eiusdem Ordinis videtur significare, hoc non item. We in our English tongue, do speake much more properly, then we can do in the Latin speach, through the penury therof. For we do not say The Kings Primacy, but The Kings Supremacy: which word we will heerafter vse. 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 vse the Name of Primacy, do eyther erre or speake improperly, if we belieue M. Tompson. For if they speake properly, seing that the word Primacy doth properly signify a Power of the same Order; they do plainely vnder­stand, that the King hath Power of the same order with the Bishops and Ministers of his Church. But this now according to M. Tompsons opinion, is an error: wherefore eyther they doe erre, or speake im­properly.

3. The other is, that a Coniecture may be made of the thing signified, from the word signifying. The word Supremacy is a new and lately inuented word, vnknown to the Ancient Fathers, not vsed [Page 9] in Scriptures, vnheard of in the Christian world. Moreouer, what doth it signify? The Supreme power (forsooth) of the King in the Church? Wherefore this is new also. Surely if the ancient Fathers, eyther Latin or Greeke, had knowne this power, they would haue found out at least some word, wherby to haue expressed the same properly. But this it seemes none of them did.

II. Question. vvhether that this Primacy, which the King hath in the Church, be Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall?

1 THIS is now another Iarre. Vnder King Henry the 8. and King Edward, this Primacy was alwaies called Ecclesia­sticall and Spirituall, as it appeareth out of Doctor Sanders, whose words are these: Caluinus Henrici Pri­matum Ecclesiasticum oppugnauit. Caluin did oppugne King Henryes Ecclesiasticall Primacy. Againe: Epi­scopus Roffensis, quòd Henrici Primatum Ecclesiasticum nollet confiteri, ad mortem producitur. The Bishop of Rochester, because he denyed King Henryes Ecclesia­sticall Primacy, was brought forth to dye &c. And againe: Multi in custodijs propter negatum Ecclesiasticum Regis Primatum detenti. Many were kept in prison, for denying the Kings Ecclesiastical Primacy. In like manner: Henricus mandauit vt filius in fide Catholica [Page 10] educar [...]tur excepto Primatus Ecclesiastici titulo, quem ei r [...]liquit. King Henry commaunded that his Sonne ( Edward) should be brought vp in the Catholick faith, excepting the title of Ecclesiasticall Primacy, which he left vnto 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 Spirituall Primacy of the Child King, nay they absolu [...]ly subscribed ther­un [...]o &c.

2. Vnder Queene Mary that succeeded to her brother King Edward in the Crowne, this Title of Primacy was taken away in a Parliament held at Lon­don, as witnesseth Iacobus Thuanus in the 9. booke of the History of his tyme, in these words: Antiqua­tus ijsdem Comitijs Primatus Eccl [...]siastici titulus. The title of Ecclesiasticall Primacy was abolished in that Parliament. The same was againe restored vnder Queene Elizabeth, as testifieth the same Author in his 15. booke &c.

3. But now in these our dayes vnder King Iames this matter is called into question: Some not daring to call it Primacy Ecclesiasticall and spirituall, but only Primacy belonging to Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall mat­t [...]rs: amongst whom is M. Doctor Andrewes, or the Kings Chaplaine 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 [Page 11] alium Pontifici detrahimus [...] quam d [...]b [...]mus. Prior ille Regibus omni iure; pos [...]erior hic Pontifici nullo iure debetur. Neyther do we attribute one Primacy, con­cerning spirituall matters vnto the King, nor do we take from the Pope any other Primacy, concerning temporall matters, then we ought to do. The first is due vnto Kings by all right; the later no way per­tayneth to the Pope &c. I, when I first read these wordes in the Chaplaynes booke, did thinke that he had taken these two, to wit, Primacy spirituall, & be­longing to spirituall; as also these other, Primacy tempo­rall, & belonging to temporall, for one and the same thing. But now it seemes that the Defenders & In­terpreters of the Chaplaine, to wit M. Tompson, and M. Burhill, do take it otherwise. For so writeth M. Burhill pag. 55. of his Booke, concerning this point: Non dicit, Primatum spiritual [...]m, sed Prima­tum qu [...]ad spiritualia d [...]b [...]ri Regibus omni iure. He ( the Chaplaine) doth not s [...]y, that Spirituall Prima­cy, but Primacy belonging to Spirituall, is due vn­to Kings by all right &c. And then againe 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 giue vnto the King Primacy ouer the Church; [...]et do we not giue vnto him Primacy spi­rituall or Eccle [...]i [...]ticall; but rather Primacy belon­ging to things and persons spirituall and Ecclesiasti­call &c. And M. T [...]mpson pag. [...]. of his Booke also saith: Non dixit, Primatum Ecclesiasticum, aut Spiri­tualem, [Page 12] quasi formaliter intelligat; sed quoad Spiritualia, id est, obiectiuè & materialiter. The Chaplaine said not, the Primacy Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall, as though he vnderstood it formally, but for so much as it belongeth to Spirituall, that is to say, obiectiuely and materially &c. In which sense the same Author pag. 95. saith. Dicimus Regem gubernare quidem Eccle­siastica, sed non Ecclesiasticè: We say indeed, that the King gouerneth Ecclesiasticall things, but not Ec­clesiastically.

4. So as if you aske in England, whether the King hath Primacy Ecclesiasticall or no? It wilbe answered you thus: King Henry, K. Edward, and Q. Elizabeth had Ecclesiasticall Primacy: K. Iames hath not Primacy Ecclesiasticall, but only so far forth, as it belongeth to Ecclesiasticall things. Hath then his Maiesty that now is lesse, then they had? So it seemes. Is then the Kings Primacy in England so nipped and pared in so short a space? So they say. Is it then almost decayed, and at an end? I doubt not but it is. What is the cause? Hearken to the cōmon saying: Whats 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 de­uise, or worke be of men, it will be dissolued.

III. Question VVhether the King, by vertue of this Primacy may be called Primate of the Church?

MAISTER Henry Salclebridge doth abso­lutely affirme 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 haue this point to be so certayne, and out of all doubt, that he thinketh, whosoeuer should deny it, to offend against the publike 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 publicke English Profession of Truth, grounded vpon the Sacred Letter.

2. M. Tooker, and M. Burhill do absolutely deny it. For thus wryteth M. Took [...]r pag. 3. Olere autem malitiam ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud videtur, cùm Regem Caput Ecclesiae, Primatem (que) confingas. It may see [...]e to [...]auour of malice, and cry out vpon your sau­sines, when as you feigne the King Head, and Pri­mate of the Church &c. And M. Burhill pag. 133. Nec Primatem quidem omnino Regem nostrum dicimus; multò v [...]rò minù [...] Primatem Ecclesiasticum. Neyther do we at all, call our King Primate; and much lesse Ec­clesiasticall [Page 14] Primate &c.

3. [...]eere hence do I frame a twofold Argu­ment. One out of M. Tookers words in this manner: He that a [...]irmeth the King to be Primate of the Church, is a sausy and malicious fellow. But M. Salcl [...]bridge 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 denyeth the King to be Primate of the Church, doth offend against the publicke Pro­fession of the Truth receyued in England. But M. Tooker denyeth the King to be Primate of the Church of England. Ergo, he offendeth against the publicke profession of the Truth receyued in Eng­land. So (I w [...]s) one Mule claweth another.

4. But now it may be demaunded, whether of them doth iudg more rightly in this case, M. Salcle­bridge, who affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church, or M. Tooker, that denieth it? This con­trouersy dependeth vpon another question, to wit, whether these two Names, Primate and Primacy, are necessarily cōnexed, or, as they say, Coniugata? M. Salclebridge thinketh that they are. Therfore, because he hath once affirmed the King to haue the Primacy of the Church, he consequently auerreth, 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 Chaplaine hath a Bishopricke, Ergo, he is a Bishop.

5. Now M. Tooker, he thinketh the contrary. [Page 15] For pag 6. of his booke he expressely 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; and yet is he Primate of the Church. So as he denyeth these two consequēces 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 Chaplayne hath a Bishop­ricke, Ergo, he is a Bishop. 2. M. Tooker is a Deane, Ergo, he hath a Deanery.

IIII. Question. VVhether the King, by reason of his Primacy, may be called Head of the Church?

THIS Title first began to be vsurped of King Henry the 8. as all Authors, aswell our owne as our aduersaryes, do testifie. For thus wryteth Iacobus Thuanus in his first booke of the Historyes of his times: Henricus post diuortium, se Caput Ecclesiae constituit. K. Henry after his diuorce ( from Q. Catherine) made himselfe Head of the Church &c. And Polydor Virgil lib. 27. of his History of England, saith: Interea habetur Concilium Londini, in quo Ecclesia Anglicana formam potestatis, nullis antè temporibus visam, induit. Henricus enim Rex Caput ipsius Ecclesiae constituitur. In the meane while [Page 16] (to wit after his forsaid diuorce) a Councell was held at London, wherin the Church of [...]ngland tooke to it selfe a forme of power, neuer heard of before. For that King Henry was appointed Head of the same Church &c. Genebrard also in the fourth booke of his Chronology hath these words: Henricus anno 1534. in publicis Comitijs se Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae appellauit. King Henry in the yeare of our Lord 1534. in publicke Parliament, called himselfe Head of the Church of England &c. Also Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England, saith: Ex qua di­cendi formula, primam occasionem sumptam aiunt, vt Rex Supremum Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae diceretur. By which manner of speach, it is said, the first occasion was taken, of calling the King supreme Head of the Church of England &c. And againe, in the same booke: Proponebantur cis noua Comitiorum Decreta, & iu [...]bantur iurciurando affirmare, Regim Supremum Ecclesiae esse Caput. The new Laws or Statutes of the Parliament were propounded vnto them (to wit, to the Kings subiects) and they were commaunded to sweare, that the King was head of the Church &c. Iohn Caluin in like manner vpon the 7. Chapter of the Prophet Amos wryteth 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 grauiter semper vulnerauit. Erant en [...]m blasphemi cùm vocarent cum summum Caput Ec­clesia sub [...]hristo. Those who so greatly did extoll K. H [...]n [...]y of En [...]land were men void of consideration. For they gaue vnto him the chiefe power of all [Page 17] things: and this point did euer gall me grieuously. For that they were blasphemers, when they called him the chiefe Head of the Church vnder Christ &c.

2. The same Title did K. Edward Sonne to K. Henry, and his Successour, vsurpe, as it may be seene by his Letters to Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury, which begin thus: Edouardus Dei gratia Angliae, Franciae, & Hyberniae Rex, supremum in terris Ecclesiae Anglicanae, & Hybernicae, tam in causis spiri­talibus quàm temporalibus Caput; Reuerendo 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 Ecclesiasticall as tem­porall: to the Reuerend, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, greeting &c. The same Title also did Bishop Cranmer giue vnto the said King, as appeareth by his letters wrytten to other Bishops subiect vnto him, thus: Thomas permissione diuina Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus, per Illustrissimum in Christo Principem Edouardum 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 parte fungimur, mandamus, vt Imagines ex [...]cclesijs cuius (que) dioecesis tollantur &c. We Thomas by Gods permission Archbishop of Can­terbury, being sufficiently and lawfully authorized by our most gratious Prince in Christ, King Edward the sixt, supreme Head on earth of the Church of [Page 18] England and Ireland, do in his Maiesties Name and place, which herein we supplie, commaund you [...]dmund Bishop of London, and all the rest of our Bre­thren Bishops, that Images be taken out of the Churches of euery Diocesse &c. And Doctor Sanders also in his booke of the Schisme of England saith thus: Quamprimùm visum est Henrici octaui mortem diuul­gare, statim Edouardus Henrici filius, nonum aetatis annum agens, Rex Angliae proclamatur, & summum [...]cclesiae Anglicanae in terris Caput, proximè secundum Christum constituitur &c. As soone as it was thought good to diuulge King Henryes death, by and by Edward his sonne, being of the age of nyne yeares, was proclaymed King of England, and ordayned supreme Head of the Church of England on earth, next vnder Christ &c.

3. Queene Elizabeth, although she were a woman, yet she thought her selfe no way inferiour to her Father or Brother. She therfore would be also called supreme Head of the Church of England. For so wryteth Iacobus Thuanus in his 15. booke of the Historyes of his time. Elizabetha, recepto à Patre & fratre titulo, Ecclesiae Caput per Angliam coepit appellari. Q. Elizabeth hauing receaued the ( former) Title from her Father & Brother, began to be called Head of the Church throughout England &c.

4. But now adayes, vnder K. Iames, this title is put in ieopardy. The Chaplaine (to wit M. Do­ctor Andrewes) doth admit the same in his Tortura Torti; but M. Tooker, and M. Burhill do reiect it. M. Tookers words, which a little before I recited are [Page 19] these: Olere autem militiam, & clamitare audaciam tuam videtur illud, cùm Regem Caput Ecclesiae, Prima­tem (que) confingas. It may seeme to sauour of malice, and cry out vpon your sausines, when as you feigne the King to be Head and Primate of the Church &c. And in like manner doth M. Burhill pag 133. re­prehend a certaine person of ouer much wantonnes and boldnes, for calling the King, Head, Pastour and Primate of Bishops.

5. In this debate and Iarre 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 murmure shrewdly. If he reiect it, what then will the Chaplaine say? Perhaps this conten­tion may be mollified, if the King, as he gaue to the Chaplayne the Bishopricke of Ely: so he would giue to M. Tooker, and M. Burhill two other Bishopricks. For then, least they might seeme vngratefull they would easily graunt this Title to the King, and a far greater too.

V. Question. VVhether the Kings Primacy do consist in any Power, or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall?

HEERE now, is there a great Iarre and de­bate amongst our English Aduersaries: nor can the same be easily vnderstood, vnlesse it be first well distinguished. Ecclesiasticall Power [Page 20] is threefold, as the Deuines do teach. One of Order; another of interiour Iurisdiction; the third of exte­riour Iurisdiction. To the first belongeth to effect or consecrate, and administer Sacraments: to the se­cond, to gouerne the Church in the interiour Court, or Court of Conscience; and to the third, belongeth to gouerne the Church in the exteriour Court. Now certaine it is, that the King hath not the Power of Order, by reason of his Primacy. For this doth M. Tooker confesse pag. 14. where he saith: Reges non habent potestatem administrandi Sacramenta. Kinges haue not power to administer Sacraments. It is also certaine that he hath not Iurisdiction of the interi­our Court, or Court of Conscience. For this in like manner doth M. Tooker confesse pag. 63. Omnis iu­risdictio (saith he) in foro interiori Sacerdotum est, nulla Regum. All iurisdiction in the interiour Court (or Court of Conscience) belongeth to Priests, not a­ny way to Kings &c.

2. All the question then is, whether the King hath Iurisdictiō Ecclesiastical in the exteriour Court or no? About this point are the Englishmen at a great iarre and variance amongst themselues: some affirming it, some denying it, others distinguishing. M. Tooker affirmeth it pag. 305. in these words: Qui habet plenissimam & am [...]lissimam iurisdictionem 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 Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court, can giue and take away the same (at his pleasure.) But the [Page 21] King hath this Iurisdiction. Ergo, he can giue and take away the same. Al this is manifest out of the old & new Testament &c. With him agreeth also M. Salclebridge pag. 140. Reges oleo sacro vncti, capaces sunt Iurisdictionis spiritualis. Kings (saith he) annoynted with holy oyle, are made capable of spirituall Iuris­diction &c. And then againe in the same place out of the Lawes of England. R [...]x (saith he) est persona mixta, vrpote qui [...]cclesiasticam & temporalem iurisdi­ctionem habet, & quidem Supremam. The King is a person mixt, to wit, that hath both Iurisdiction Ec­clesiasticall and Temporall, and that in the highest degree &c. And yet more pag. 144. Per leges [...]ccle­siasticas in hoc Regno approbatas, vnus Sacerdos duo be­n [...]ficia ha [...]ere non potest, nec Bastardus Sacris initiari. V [...]rùm Rex, [...]cclesiastica potestate & iurisdictione, quam habet in vtroque, dispensare potest. By the Ecclesia­sticall Lawes approued in this Kingdome (of [...]ng­land) one Priest may not haue two Benefices, nor a Bastard be made Priest. But the King, by the Iuris­diction and Power Ecclesiasticall, which he hath, can dispense in both &c.

3. M. Tompson, and M. Burhill do absolutely deny it: M. Tompson pag. 80. of his booke wryting 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 Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall, but by supreme Gouer­ment &c. And againe pag. 95. Diximus, Reg [...]m gu­b [...]rnar [...] quid [...]m Ecclesiastica [...] s [...]d non Ecclesias [...]i [...]è. We haue said before, that the King indeed doth gouerne [Page 22] Ecclesiasticall things, but not Ecclesiastically. And why I pray you? Because, forsooth, he hath not Iu­risdiction Ecclesiasticall, but only temporall. And hereunto agreeth M. Burhill pag. 234. granting this negatiue proposition. Rex (saith he) nullam habet Iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam, nec in foro interiori, nec in exteriori. The King hath no Iurisdiction Eccle­siasticall, neyther in the interiour, nor exteriour Court &c.

4. Now my Lord of Ely, he distinguisheth in this case, as may be seene in M. Tookers Booke pag. 305. in these wordes: Habet Rex omnem iurisdictionē spiritualem, in foro exteriori, exceptis quibusdam Censuris. The King hath all Iurisdiction spirituall in the exteriour Court, except in certaine Censures &c. So as now to this question (to wit whether the King, as he is Primate and Head of the Church, haue any Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall or spirituall in the exteriour Court,) we must answere thus: First with M. Tooker, and M. Salclebridge, That he hath most ample, most full, and supreme Iurisdiction. Second­ly with my Lord of Ely, That he hath indeed some, but not all. And lastly, with M. Burhill, and M. Tompson, That he hath none, no not any one iote at all.

VI. Question. VVhether the King of his owne Authority can assemble, or call togeather Councells?

1. NOv follow the Iarres and debates of our Aduersaries, concerning the Offices and Functions of the Kings Primacy, & they [...]re six in number, which may be disputed of. The first is, of assembling, or calling togeather of Synods. The second of enacting of Ecclesiasticall lawes. The third, of cōferring or bestowing of bene­fices. The fourth of creating & deposing of Bishops. The fifth, is about Excommunication. The sixt and last, is about the decision and determining of Con­trouersies. The question then is, whether these offices belong to the Kings Primacy? I will speake a word of ech in order.

2. First, it may be demaunded, whether the King by vertue of his Primacy, may of his owne au­thority, call or assemble togeather Synods, and therin sit as chiefe and head? This was certainly per­suaded that it might be done, in the tyme of King Henry, K. Edward, and Queene Elizabeth: but now vnder King Iames the matter is called into que­stion. M. Salclebridge pag. 121. affirmeth, that he can do it, in these words: Christiani Principes in Regnis suis cum laude, propria auctoritate Synodos conuocarunt, Con­stitutiones condiderūt, causas audierunt & cognouerunt. [Page 24] Christian Princes haue with great praise assembled Synods by their owne authority, in their Kingdomes, haue made Constitu [...]ions, heard and examined causes &c. And againe pag. 146. Rex Angliae potest Synodos indi [...]re omnium Ordinum Oecumeni [...]as, & in ijsdem praesidere. The King of [...]ngland (saith he) may as [...]em­b [...]e Generall Councells of all Orders or degrees, and therin sit as President or Chiefe &c. And pag. 155. he saith in like manner. Reges Angliae suprema sua au­thoritate, de iure Synodos conuocarunt. The Kings of [...]ngland haue by th [...]ir owne supreme authority, and by [...]ght, ass [...]mbled Synods &c.

3 Now M To [...]ker in this poynt is very variable: one while contradicting himselfe, another while others. And this is manifest out of the diuers testimo­nies he produceth. The first is pag. 37. where he hath these words: A quibus magis aequum est indici Concilia [...] quàm ab illis [...] penes quos semper [...]uit authoritas [...]a congregandi? Cùm autem communit [...]r triplex pon [...] so­leat Concilium, Generale, Prouinciale & Dioec [...]sanum; Concilium G [...]n [...]rale solius Papae iussu celebrari vultis, sed ne (que) illud nisi ab Imp [...]ratoribus & Regibus simul con­sentient [...]bus hodie indici debet. Prouinciale à Metropoli­ta [...]o cum suis Suffragancis. Dioecesanum ab Episcopo cum Curatis [...] R [...]ctoribus, & Clericis Dioeceseos &c. By whome is it more fit that Councells should be assem­bled, then by those in whose power hath alwayes authority byn to call them togeather? For wheras commonly there be 3. sortes of Councells, Generall, Proui [...]ciall, & of a particuler Diocesse: the Generall, Councell you will haue to be celebrated only by [Page 25] commandment of the Pope; but yet not so neyther now a dayes, vnlesse Emperors & Kings do agree therunto also. A Prouinciall Coun [...]ell is to be assem­bled by the Metropolitan and his Su [...]fragans: th [...]t of the Diocesse by the Bishop therof togea [...]her with the Curates, Recto [...]s, and Clarkes of [...]he same Bishop­ricke &c. Out of which testimony we may gat [...]er, that the K. of England cannot assemble a Councell of his owne authority. Not a gene [...]all, because that belongeth to the common consent of Kings and Emperours. Not a Prouinciall, because that pertay­neth to the Metropolitan. Not of the D [...]ocesse, be­cause that belongeth to the Bishop therof. What then, I pray you, is left vnto the King?

4. Another testimony heerof is out of the same M. [...]ooker pag. 41. in these wor [...]s: Abundè liquet ex Cōcilijs ipsis, & historia Ecclesiastica, [...]r [...]uincial [...]a Conci­lia & Nationalia ab Imperatoribus a [...] Regibus fuisse con­gregata. It is aboūdantly manifest out of the Coū [...]els themselues, and the Ecclesiasticall Historyes, that Prouinciall and Nationall Councels haue byn assem­bled by Emperours and Kings &c. This now is plainely repugnant to his former testimony. For there he affirmeth, that Prouinciall Councells are to be assembled by the Metropolitans therof: heere he saith, [...]hat they must be assembled by Kings and Em­perours. There, is distinguished o [...]ly a threefould Councell [...] to wit, Generall Prouinciall [...] [...] and that of the Diocesse: heere now, is added a four [...]h, to wit, Nationall.

5. His third testimony is set downe pag. 42. [Page 26] where he propo [...]eth this question: Quo igitur iure tantam sibi potestat [...]m arrogat Pontif [...]x solus? Num diuino? [...]y what right then, I pray you, doth the Pope challenge vnto himselfe alone so great power? Doth he do it by diuine right? &c. And a little after he addeth: Erat Apostolorum omnium, non vnius tan­t [...]mmodo, & indicere Concilium, & statuere cum verbo­rum solennitate; Visum est Spiritui sancto & Nobis &c. It belonged to all the Apos [...]les, not to one alone, to assemble a Councell, and with solemnity of words to ordaine; It seemes good vnto the Holy Ghost, and Vs &c. As if he would say; That as by diuine right, not S. Pet [...]r alone, but all the Apostles togeather with equall power did assemble the fi [...]st Coūcell at Ierusa­lem, & therin decreed that law, about eating of bloud and strangled meates: so in like manner, by diuine right, not the Pope alone, but all Bishops, with equall power, must assemble Councells, and decree Eccle­siasticall lawes. Surely, if it be so, then without doubt it followes, that the power to call or assemble Councells doth not belong, by the law of God, to secular Kings and Princes, but to the Apostles and their success [...]urs &c.

6. His fourth testimony is pag. 63. where he saith: Mixtum aut [...]m ius, & r [...]suit [...]ns [...]x vt [...]o (que), & iure Regio & Episcopali, est Legum sanctio & Synodo­rum indictio, & praes [...]dendi in ijs praer [...]gatiu [...] & contro­u [...]rs [...]arū decisio, aliorum (que) actuum, qui his finitimi sunt ex [...]rcitium: quae f [...]rè ab origine Prima [...]us R [...]gij desc [...]n­dunt, & communicantur Sac [...]r [...]oti [...]u &c The decre­ing or enacting of Lawes, the assembling of Syno­des [Page 27] & Prerogatiue of [...]it [...]ing therin as chiefe or head, as also the exercise of all other offices in this kind, is a certaine mixt Right, proceeding from both Kingly and Episcopall power: which things do in a manner come downe, or descend from the origen of the Kings Primacy, and are communicated or in parted vnto Priests &c. This now againe, as you see, is con­trary to that which he said next before. For there he will needs haue the assembly of Synods or Councels to belong by diuine right to the Apostles: heere, for­sooth, he will haue the same chiefely to belong to Kinges, and from them to be deriued vnto Bishops. These things do not agree one with another.

VII. Question. VVhether the King can enact Ecclesiasticall Lawes, or no?

1. IT is cleere, that K. Henry the 8. did, as­well by himselfe, as by his Vicar Generall ( Cromwell) enact Ecclesiasticall Lawes. For so saith Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England. His 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, vt 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 [Page 28] 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 at (que) legitimae haber [...]ntur: adeo, vt cùm olim iuris 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 tam [...]n ips [...] Legis-lator contra suam ipsius regu­lam vxorem Annam Cliu [...]ns [...]m, cuius nuptias, non solo consensu, sed sept [...]m etiam mensium concu [...]itu firmau [...]rat, eo solùm praetextu r [...]iccit, i [...]sa (que) 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 Prot [...]stant [...]s, vt mortuo Henrico, eam ipsi r [...]uocauerint, at (que) irritam f [...]c [...]rint &c In these dayes, the most vigi­lan [...] Pastor of the Church K. H [...]nry, that it might be knowne to posterity, what woman were lawfully married to another, enacted a perpetuall law con­cerning Marriage, authorizing the same by publicke Decree of Parlament: wherin it was orda [...]ned, that if any persons, not prohibited in the Leuiticall law, should contract marriage by only consent, and by words de praes [...]nti, no carnall copulation following the same; and that the said persons, or eyther of them [...]hould afterward contra [...]t with another person not prohibited in the Leuiticall law, & consumm [...]te the same by carnall copulation; that then these later contractes, which were consūmated by carnall copu­lation, not the former, that were agreed vpon by only consent, should be accompted for good and lawfull. In so much, tha [...] wheras the rule of the law [Page 29] of Nations in old tyme was, That consent, not carnall copulation did make the marriage lawfull; now heere­after by the law of K. Henry, it began to be a rule, That carnall copulation, not consent did make marriage lawfull. And yet for all this, the law-maker himselfe K. Henry, did, against his owne proper rule and law, reiect Anne of Cleeue his wife, whose marriage was not only contracted by consent alone, but con­summated also by seauen moneths carnall copula­tion, vpon this only pretence, that she had giuen her consent to another before, I know not whome; and vpon this fiction, he married another, she yet re­mayning aliue. And of this law afterward the Pro­testants themselues were so much ashamed, that after K. Henryes death, they recalled, and disanulled the same &c.

2. Concerning his Vicar Generall (Cromwell) thus wryteth also the said Doctor Sanders in the same booke. Septembri mense, authoritate sua Vicaria, Ca­nones quosdam Ecclesiasticos quos Iniunctiones vocabat, sigillo Vicariatus sui munitos Archiepis [...]opis, Episcopis, Abbatibus & reliquo Clero praescripsit in quibus praeter cetera, iube [...]antur Parochi sub grauissimis poenis vt Orationem Dominicam cum salutatione Angelica, Symbo­lum item fidei & decem Decalogi praecepta alia (que) huius­modi, Anglicè in posterum in Ecclesijs docerent. In the moneth of September K. Henryes Vicar Generall, by the authority of his Office, prescribed certayne Ecclesiasticall Canons, which he called Iniunctions, signed with the seale of his Office of Vicar-Generall, to the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and the rest [Page 30] of the Clergy: wherin among [...]t other things the Pastors of C [...]urches were com [...]nded, vnder most seuere punishmēt herafter to read in their Churches, the Lords prayer, the Aue Mary, the Creed, and ten Comaundements in English &c.

3. Now, our English Aduersaries, that wryte in these daies of the Kings Supremacy, do not agree in this point. For that some of them say, that the ena­cting of decreeing of Ecclesiasticall lawes, doth by diuine right belong vnto Bishops; others say, that it belongeth to Kings and Emperours. The first opi­nion holdeth M. Tooker pag. 42. of his booke, where he saith, that the Apostles in the first Councell at Hierusalem did enact this Ecclesiasticall law: Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis, nihil vltra imponere vobis oneris, nisi haec necessaria: vt abstineatis vos ab immolatis simulachrorum, & sanguine, & suffocato. It hath see­med good to the holy Ghost, and to vs, to lay no fur­ther burthen vpon you, then these necessary things: that you abstayne frō the things immolated to Idols, and from bloud, and that which is strangled &c. And this, saith he, the Apostles did by diuine right. The other opinion holdeth M. Tompson pag. 80. where he affirmeth, that Bishops, and Councels cannot en­act or decree any Ecclesiasticall law, which hath the force of law, vnlesse Kings and Emperours consent therunto. His words are these: Decreta Conciliorum & Patrum, Ecclesiasticis Censuris, & [...] tantùm stetiss [...]nt, nisi legum vim Caesarea aura ipsis afflasset. The Decrees of the Councels and of the Fathers had bene held but only for Ecclesiasticall censures, and pe­nalties, [Page 31] vnlesse the Emperours fauour had impar­ted the force of lawes vnto the said Decrees &c.

4. Heere now the Iarre is euident. For without doubt, that Ecclesiasticall law, which the Apostles decreed, had the force of a law: for that so much is gathered out of these words; Visum est, nihil vltra im­ponere vobis oneris, nisi haec necessaria. It hath seemed good, to lay no further burthen vpon you, then these necessary things &c. But this Ecclesiasticall law had not it force from any fauour of the Emperor, seing that neither Tyberius, nor Pilate, nor Herod, nor any other fecular Prince, which then liued, did by his fa­uour, authorize the force of the law; but that it came from the Apostles themselues. For that they, by their Apostolicall authority and power, which they had receiued from Christ, did decree, and promulgate that law. And the same power & authority haue Bishops now a dayes, not Kings, nor Emperours.

VIII. Question. vvhether the King by his owne proper authority, may conferre, collate, or bestow Eccle­siasticall benefices?

1. THAT the King may conferre Ecclesi­asticall liuings, M. Henry Salclebridge affirmeth pag. 121 in these wordes: Christiani Principes in suis R [...]ni [...], [...] authoritate, ben [...]ficia contul [...]runt [...] [Page 32] in their owne Kingdomes, by their owne proper au­thority, haue giuen or bestowed benefices, and that to their praise. &c. And then againe pag. 150. Audin I [...]suita, non modò collationes ben [...]ficiorum ad Angliae Re­g [...]s sp [...]c [...]are, sed ad eosd [...]m illos spectare, vti Ecclesiae Anglicanae Primates vel supremos Ordinarios &c. Do you heare Iesuite, the collation of benefices, doth not only belong to the Kings of England, but also it doth belong vnto them, as they are Primates or su­preme Ordinaries of the Church of England &c. And yet more: Rex ratione supremae suae Ecclesiasticae iurisdictionis praesentabit ad liberas Capellas. The King by vertue of his supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, shall be able to present vnto Free Chappells &c.

2. Now M. Tooker to the contrary denyeth 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, siue Episcopatus, siue Archiepiscopatus per vniuersum ambitum Regni sui. Eo­rum certè collatio vel institutio est, quorum est destitutio, id est, Episcoporum Comprouincialium, qui potestat [...]m ha­bent personas ipsas sacrandi. Hoc habet iuris Regia Maie­stas, quod minor & subordinata potestas habet, ius inquā n [...]minandi, & praesentandi apud nos &c. Kings do not at all collate or bestow vpon any man benefices that haue care of soules, or not care, greater or lesser; & much lesse Ecclesiasticall dignities, whether Bishop­ri [...]kes or Archbishoprickes throughout the whole circuite of their Kingdomes. For this truly belon­geth vnto those, whose office it is to dispose therof, [Page 33] to wit, to the Comprouinciall Bishops, who haue power to consecrate the said persons on whome they bestow them. Indeed the Kings Majesty notwith­standing hath this right with vs in Englād, which an inferiour and subordinate power also hath, to wit, right to nominate and present vnto benefices &c.

3. Behould heere a triple Iarre or discord betwene these two Authors, and this in a dayly 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 Iarre is, that M. Salclebridge saith, that Kings by their owne authority, haue con­ferred benefices. M. Tooker saith, that they neuer do, nor haue done. The third is, that M. Salclebridge saith, that Kings by vertue of their supreme Eccle­siasticall Iurisdiction may present vnto benefices. M. Tooker auerreth, that in this point, Kings haue no more right, then their subiects, & other inferi­our persons: for so he saith: Hoc ha [...]et iuris Regia Ma­iestas, quod minor & subordinata potestas habet. The Kings Maiesty hath (in this point of conferring be­nefices) the same right that an inferiour & subordi­nate power hath &c. Whether of these two then should King Iames belieue, if he had a fat benefice, or an Archbishopricke now to bestow?

IX. Question. VVhether the King can create, and depose Bi­shops, or no?

1. MAISTER Salclebridge saith, that he can. For thus he writeth pag. 121. Christiani Principes in suis Regnis, cum laude, propria authoritate, Episcopos crearunt & deposue­runt. Christian Prices, haue in their Kingdomes, by their owne proper authority created and deposed Bishops, and that with praise &c. And then againe pag. 144. Rex Angliae Archidiacono Richmundiae Epis­copal [...]m concessit Iurisdictionem. The King of England graunted Episcopall Iurisdiction to the Archdeacon of Richmond &c. And yet further pag. 155. Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate, de iure, atque cum laude omnium Ordinum Episcopos eleger [...]nt, ac proinde deponere potu [...]runt. The Kings of England of their owne su­preme authority, by right, & with praise of all mā ­ner Estates, haue elected Bishops, and therfore they might depose them also &c. And then lastly: Constat, Christianos Prin [...]ipes cum laude Episcopos elegisse, & depo­suisse, etiam Romanos. It is manifest, that Christian Princes, haue elected, & deposed Bishops, yea Popes also, and that with their praise &c.

2. Now M. Tooker, he denyes in the place be­fore cited that the King can create or depose Bishops. For there he assigning two things necessary for the ordayning or creating of a Bishop, to wit, Consecratiō [Page 35] of the person, & a Bishopricke, addeth, that the King can performe neyther of these two. For neyther can he confer any benefice [...], and much lesse a Bishopricke or Archbishopricke; neyther hath he any power to cō ­secrate persons. In so much, that in another place he confesseth, that it is so far off from King Iames to haue power to create or depose Bishops, that he would rather acknowledg himselfe for one of their schol­lers and Disciples. For thus he wryteth pag. 311. Serenissimus ac pientissimus Rex noster Iacobus non ha­bet quicquam antiquius & honorificentius, quàm vt cum Valentiniano filium se Ecclesiae profiteatur, & cum The­odorico Italiae Rege, se alumnum Ecclesiae, & discipulum Archiepiscoporum suorum, & Episcoporum libenter reco­gnoscat. Our most Gratious and most pious King Iames doth esteeme or accompt nothing more no­ble and more honorable, then with Valentinian (the Emperour) to professe himselfe a sonne of the Church; and with Theodoricus King of Italy most willingly to acknowledge himselfe a foster-child of the Church, and a disciple of his Archbishops and Bishops &c.

3. This Iarre now, as you see, is of great momēt. For if the King cannot create or ordaine Bishops, as M. Tooker saith he cannot; then it followeth eui­dently, that Thomas Cranmer who was made Archbi­shop of Canterbury by the King ( Henry the 8.) was no true, but a false Bishop; no pastour, but a robber; one that entred not into the sheepfold by the dore, but climbed vp some other way. Whereof againe ensue three other markable points. First, that all other Bi­shops, who were afterward eyther created by Crāmer, [Page 36] or by the King, were like vnto Cranmer himselfe. Secondly whatsoeuer was done of them, by Epis­copall authority or Iurisdiction, was of no validity or force. Thirdly, that they, so ordained, are bound to restitution of all reuenewes and profits which they haue reaped by their Bishopricks. What coun­ [...]ll now is there to be taken in this point? Let your Academicks, I pray you, consider.

X. Question. VVhether the King can excommunicate his obstinate subiects, or no?

1. HEERE now do our aduersaries ranke their King amongst ordinary men; & what they graunted vnto him before, heere now they seeme to reuoke. For they say, that the King cannot excommunicate any of his subiects and yet himselfe may be excommunicated by them, and expelled out of the Church of England, wherof himself is supreme Head. The former part herof doth M. Tooker affirme pag. 15. in these worlds: Rex non habet potestatem distringendi gladium spiritualem, vel quempiam excōmunicandi. The King hath no power to vnsheath the spirituall sword, nor to excommuni­cate any man &c. And the Chaplaine, my Lord of Ely, pag. 151. saith: Nos Principi censurae potestatem non facimus. We do not giue authority to our Prince to vse Censures &c. And againe M. Tompson pag. [Page 37] 83. Excōmunicare nullo modo ad Supr [...]matum Ecclesiae pertinet. To excommunicate doth no way belong to the Supremacy of the Church. And againe pag. 84. Omnes fatemur R [...]gem excomunicandi potestatem nullam habere. We do all confesse, that the King hath no power to excommunicate &c.

2. The later part of the former point affirmeth M [...] Burhill pag. 137. when he saith: Quod Ambrosio licuit in Theodosium idem & alijs in Regem simili de causa liceat &c. As it was lawfull for Ambrose to proceed against Theodosius; so is it lawfull also for others to proceed against the King, in the like cause &c. To wit (he would say) as it was lawfull for S. Am­brose being a Bishop, to excōmunicate Theodosius the Emperour; so in like manner is it lawfull for our Bishops ( of England) to excomunicate King Iames, if he offend in like manner. And then againe pag. 242. Supremus Ecclesiae Gubernator, potest eijci ex Ec­clesia. The supreme Gouernour of the Church, (to wit the King) may be cast forth of the Church &c. And pag. 267. Rex etsi iustissimè excommunica­tus, non amittit Primatum. The King, although he should be most iustly excommunicated, yet he doth not loose his Primacy. &c.

3. Now I do not see, how these things can possi­bly hang togeather, or agree with those which hither­to before haue byn att [...]ibuted to the King. For vnto him is attributed, That he is Primate, and the su­preme head of the Church of England: That he is aboue all persons, aswell Ecclesiasticall, as tempo­rall in his Kingdome: That he hath supreme, most [Page 38] ample, and full iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall, no lesse then politicall and temporall. And notwithstanding all this, being so great a person, yet can he not ex­communicate any one of his subiects, eyther Laicke, or Church-man, although neuer so rebellious and obstinate. Nay, although he be so great, as he is, he may neuerthelesse be excommunicated by his sub­iects, & cast out of the Church of England, wherof he is supreme Head. I cānot vnderstand this mystery.

4. Heerunto will I adde 3. arguments more, which will increase the difficulty. The first is: He that hath supreme, most ample, and most full Iurisdictiō Ecclesiasticall in any Kingdome, may exercise all the actions, & offices that belong vnto Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of that Kingdome. But now the King hath supreme, most ample, and most full iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the Kingdome of England, as M. Tooker, and M. Salclebridg do confesse: Ergo, he may exerci [...]e all offices belonging Iurisdiction Ecclesi­astical in the Kingdome of England: Ergo he may al­so excōmunicate: for that excōmunication which is denoūced by sentence, is an act of Ecclesiasticall Iu­r [...]sdiction. Or els contrariwise, if you will thus: He that cannot exercise all acts of Ecclesiasticall Iuris­di [...]ion in any Kingdome, hath not supreme, most ample, & most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasti [...]all in that Kingdome. But the King of England cannot exercise [...] of [...]cclesiasticall Iurisdiction in his King­do [...]e because he cannot excommunicate any man. [...] not supreme, most ample, and most [...] [...]l [...]siasticall in his Kingdome.

[Page 39]5. The second argument is this. He that giueth to another, power to excommunicate, without doubt hath power himself to excommunicate, b [...] ­cause no man can giue to another that which he hath not himselfe. But the King of England giueth power to his Bishops to excommunicat [...]. Ergo, h [...] hath power to excommunicate. The Minor is proued out of M. Tooker pag. 304. where he affirmeth, That the Bishops (of England) do receyue all their Eccle­siasticall Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court, from the King. But now, power to excommunicate be­longeth to Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court, a [...] the Chaplaine pag. 41. and M. Tooker pag. 305. expressely teach vs, saying: Rex habet omnem iuris­dictionem spiritualem in foro exteriori, exceptis qui­busdam censuris. The King hath all Iurisdiction spi­rituall in the exteriour Court, excepting certaine Censures. But now h [...] excepteth Excommunicatiō, wherin yow see is to be noted againe a contradictiō in M. Tooker; for that he referreth Censures (a­mongst which excommunication is one) to the Iu­risdiction of the exteriour Court. True indeed. Bu [...] yet he adioyneth two other things, that are con [...]ra­dictory. The first, that the King can giue vnto Bi­shops all Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court: and th [...] second, that the King hath not all Iurisdiction o [...] the exteriour Court.

6. The third Argument is: That whosoeuer is subiect to another in Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction of the exteriour Court hath not supreme, mo [...]t ample, and full Iurisdictiō Ecclesiasticall of the exteriour Court [...] [Page 40] But the King is subiect to some other body in Eccle­siasticall Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court, to wit, to the Bishop, because he may by him be excommu­nicated, by sentence, and cast out of the Church, as M. Burhill doth confesse: Ergo, he hath not su­preme, most ample and most full Iurisdiction Eccle­siasticall in the exteriour Court &c. Or, if you will, contrarywise thus: He that is subiect to no other in Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, cannot by any man be excōmunicate [...] by sentence. But the King now, if he haue supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, is subiect to no other in Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall: Ergo, he can­not by any other be excōmunicated &c. I doubt not, but you ma [...]ke well, that these things do not agree.

XI. Question. VVhether the King may be Iudge of all Contro­uersies in the Church?

1. CONTROVERSIES that arise in the Church are of two sortes: some are a­bout faith and Religion: others are con­cerning Ecclesiasticall affayres. The former of these questions then, is: Whether the King by vertue of his Primacy, be supreme Iudg of all Controuersies, which pertayne vnto faith and Religion? M. Salcle­bridge saith he is pag. 163. in these words: Sic luce clarius [...]st, Christianos Principes cum laude, Controuer­s [...]as fid [...]i dijudicasse & dir [...]misse, etiam in vniuersalibus [Page 41] oct [...] Concilijs &c. So as it is more cleare then the sūne, that Christian Princes, with prais [...], haue iudged of, and decided controuer [...]ies of faith, and that in eight Generall Councells &c. Which is as much to say, in the first of Nice, the first of Constantinople, that of Ephesus, Chalcedon, the second, third, & fourth of Constantinople, and the second of Nice, wherin diuers cōtrouersies concerning matters of faith were iudged of, and decided; especially concerning the diuinity of Christ, against the Hereticke Arius; of the diuinity 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 Controuersies, saith M. Sal­clebrigde, were iudged of, and decided by Kings and Emperours.

2. M. Tooker now, he affirmeth the quite con­trary, who by no meanes will haue Kings or Empe­rors to be Iudges of Controuersies of faith. For thus he writeth pag. 3. of his booke: Olere autem mali­tiam, ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud vid [...]tur, cùm Regem caput Ecclesiae, Primatemque confingas, omnium­que causarum & controuersiarum, quae ad fidem & R [...]li­gionem pertinent iudicem tribuas. It may seeme to sa­uour of malice, & cry out vpon you sausinesse, when as you feigne the King to be head of the Church and Iudg of all causes and controuersies which pertaine vnto faith and Religion &c. And againe pag. 50 [...] Rex in suo Regno, omnibus superior sit, nulli subditus. Fi­dei iudex ne appelletur quidem. Although the King, in his owne Kingdome, be aboue all, and subiect to [Page 42] none: yet he may not be called, in any case, the Iudge of our Faith &c. And pag. 313. Reges Christi­ani non sunt [...]idei ac Religionis Iudices. Christian Kings are not Iudges of Faith & Religion.

3. So as, if now in England there should chance to arise a dissention or debate concerning any point of Faith or Religion, as for example, concerning the r [...]all Pr [...]s [...]nce of Christ in the Eucharist; what should your Academicks heere do? To whome should your Cittizens, and the rest of the subiects haue recourse? Should they go vnto the King as iudge in this point, and aske his sentence and determination? M. Too­k [...]r, you see, would not go to the King. What? should they go to some other Iudge then? But M. Salcle­bridge he will admit no other. What then were best to be done in this case? Truly euen that, which hi­therto hath bin done in the debate of the Kings Su­premacy: to wit, alwayes to braule, and iarre thera­bout, & neuer end the controuersy. And what's the cause? In very deed no other, but for that some thinke one thing, some another, and they cannot, or rather will not find out the certaine & true Iudge, who can decide the matter. And this is the property of heretikes.

4. The other Question is, Whether the King be Iudg of all Controuersies, that concerne other Ec­clesiasticall affaires? M. Salclebridge saith, that he is pag. 165. in these wordes: Audin, Controuersias Epis­copales ab Imperatore dir [...]mptas? Do you not heare Syr, that Episcopall Controuersies haue bin decided by Emperours? &c. What M. Tooker thinketh of this [Page 43] point, is not well knowne. For s [...]me times he affir­meth it, as for example pag 24. thus: N [...]mini dubium est, quin in Primitiua Eccl [...]sia, d [...] r [...]bus & p [...]rs [...]nis Ec­cl [...]siasticis ius dic [...]r [...]nt Imperator [...]s. No man can doubt but that in the Primitiue Church, Emperors iudged of matters, and persons Ecclesiasticall &c. And yet pag. 23. he seemeth to deny it: Non est Princeps supra res, sed supra personas. The Prince (saith he) is not aboue the matters, but aboue the persons &c. And then againe pag. 49. Rex in suo Regno supremus est, non supra res, sed supra homines. The King in his owne Kingdome is the chiefe or principall, but yet not chiefe ouer thinges, but ouer men. And thus you see euery where nothing but iarring and disagree­ment.

XII. Question. VVhence, & 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 approue pag. 78. where he saith: Omnes Principes, [...]tiam Pagani, obiectiuè habent supremam potestat [...]m in omnes omnino personas suorum subditorum, & generatim in res ipsas, siue ciuiles sint, siue sacrae, vt in cultu diuino & Religione procuranda, [Page 44] saltem quoad modum & exercitium. All Princes, yea euen those that be Pagans, haue for the obiect of their supreme power, all manner of persons that be their subiects, and generally all thinges, whether ciuill or sacred, as in aduancing Gods honour and Religion, at leastwise, so far forth, as belongeth to the manner and exercise therof &c. And then againe 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 certaine Kingly right, that cannot be taken away by censures. Nor is it absurd, that a King, as he is an Ethnicke, be Primate of the Church &c. And yet further in the same place: Rex Ethnicus, cùm Christo initiatur, non acquirit Primatum de nouo. An Ethnicke King (saith he) when as he is instructed in Christ, or the Chri­stian faith, doth not purchase therby any new Pri­macy &c. To whome 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 temporall King, may clayme vnto himselfe and take vpon him the Primacy of the Church &c. And pag. 267. Rex etsi iustissimè excommunicatus, non amittit Primatum in rebus Ecclesiasticis. A King al­though he be most iustly excommunicated, yet doth he not loose his Primacy in Ecclesiasticall matters &c.

2. My Lord of Fly now, he teacheth vs a quite contrary lesson in his Tortura Torti [...]ag. 39. where he auerreth, that the Prima [...]y of the Church doth be­long to the King, not because he is a King, but be­cause [Page 45] he is a Christian King; and therfore Ethnicke Kings haue not Primacy in the Church, so long as they remaine Ethnicks; but do then receyue the said Primacy, when they are made Christians: and loose the same againe also, when they be excōmunicated. His words are these: An non Regi Ethnico praestare fidem fas? Imo nefas non praestare. In Ethnico enim est vera potestas temporalis, id (que) s [...]ne ordine ad potestatem Ecclesiasticam. Is it not law [...]ull then, to yield Allegi­ance to an Ethnicke King? Nay rather not to yield i [...], is a wickednes. For in an Ethni [...]ke there is true temporall power, and that without respect to Eccle­siasticall powe [...] &c. And a little after. Rex quiuis cùm de [...]thnico Christianus fit, non perdit terrenum ius, sed acquirit ius nouum. Itid [...]m cùm de Christiano fit s [...]cut Ethnicus, vigore sententiae amittit nouum ius quod ac­quisierat: sed retinet terrenum ius in temporalibus: quod fuerat illi proprium, priusquam Christianus fieret &c. Euery King, when as of an Ethni [...]ke, he becōmeth a Christian, doth not loose his earthly right, but getteth a new right. And so in like manner, when as of a Christi [...]n he becommeth as an Ethnicke, ( to wit by [...]xcōmunication) then by vigour of the sentence, he looseth that new right which he had gotten, but yet notwithstanding he still retayneth his earthly right in temporall things, which was proper vnto him, before he became a Christian &c.

3. So as according to the opinion of M. Tom­pson, and M. Burhill it followeth, that all Kings, whether Christians or Ethnicks, or of whatsoeuer other Sect or Religion they be, are Primates of the [Page 46] Church in their owne Kingdomes. Therfore all En­glishmen and Scots, who liue at Constantinople, are (by their sentence) subiect to the Turke in Ecclesia­sticall matters: as also they that liue in Spaine, are subiect 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 Turke should commaund them to follow the Alcoran? The King of Spaine force them to he [...]re Masse? The Pope to pray for the dead? and some heathen King perhaps compell them to I­dolatry? Shall they then obay these Princes com­maund? [...]ut then should they do against their Con­sciences. Shall they refuse to obay? Then farewell Primacy of the Church. Perhaps they will answere, that they will obay, when they thinke good. Shall therfore subiects be Iudges of their Kings? May then the Catholickes in England, say after this manner, If it pl [...]ase your Maiesty, in this point we thinke good to obay your Maiestyes commaund, but in that not?

XIII. Question. VVhether the King may constraine his Subiects to take the Oath of Prmacy, or no?

1. HITHERTO haue we treated of the Iar­ring & disagreement of our Aduersaries, abou [...] the nature, offices, & origen of the King [...] Primacy. Now there remaineth a certaine pra­cticall question, which toucheth the Consciēce to the [Page 47] quicke; to wit, whether the King may constraine or force his Subiects to sweare, that they acknow­ledge his Kingly Primacy, wherof we haue spoken before? Or whether they will acknowledg the King as Primate and supreme Head of the Church of [...]ng­land, vnto whome, as vnto their Primate & supreme Head they will promise fidelity, no lesse in Ecclesi­asticall and Spirituall matters, then in Politicke and temporall? 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 sub­iects? The other is, whether his subiects are bound in conscience to take such an Oath, if the King should exact the same? Of both these points seuerally I meane to speake a word or two.