This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.
MAister Henry Salclebridge doth absolutely affirme it. For thus be writeth pag. 140. Dico, Regem An∣gliae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Primatem esse. I say, that the King of England is Primat of the Church of Eng∣land.
Nay, he vvill haue this point to be so certaine, and out, of al doubt, that he thinketh, whosoeur should deny it to offend a∣gainst the publike profession of England. For so he saith pag. 177. Angliae Regē Anglicanae Ecclesiae Primatē esse, in professi∣one publica Anglicana Veritasis, sacris liter is nixae, ponitur. That the King of England, is Primate of the Church of Eng∣land, is founded in the publique English Profession of Truth, grounded vpon the sacred Letter.
2. M. Tooker. and M. Burhill doe absolutely deny it. For thus writeth M. Tooker pag. 3. Olere autem malitiam, ac cla∣mitare audaciam tuam illud videtur, cùm Regē Caput Ec∣clesiae, Primatemque consingas. It may seeme to sauour of malice, and cry out vpon your saucinesse, when as you feigne the King Head, and Primate of the Church, &c. And Ma. Burhill, pag. 133, Nec primatem quidem omnino Regem nostrum dicimus; multò vetò minus Primatem Ecclesiasticism, Nei∣ther doe wee at all, call our King Primate; and much lesse Ec∣ctesiasticall Frimate, &c.
3. Heer-hence doe I frame a twofold Argument. One out of M. Tookera words in this manner: Hee that affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church, is a sausy and malicious fel∣low. But M. Salclebridge affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church. Ergo, he is a sausy and malicious fellow. The other argument I frame out of M. Salclebridges words thus: He that denieth the King to bee Primate of the Church, doth offend a∣gainst the publique Profession of the Truth receiued in England. But M. Tooker denieth the King to be Primate of the Church of England. Ergo, he offendeth against the publique profession of the Truth receiued in England. So (I wis) one Mule claweth another.
4. But now it may bee demaunded, whether of them doth iudge more rightly in this case, M. Salclebridge, who affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church, or M. Tooker, that de∣nieth it? This controuersie dependeth vpon another question, to weet, whether these two Names, Primate, and Primacy, are ne∣cessarily connexed, 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, hee consequently anerreik, that the King is Primat 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 Chap∣laine hath a Bishoprick, Ergo, he is a Bishop.
5. Now M. Tooker, hee thinketh the contrarie. For pag. 6. of his booke hee expresty saith: That the King hath the Primacy of the Church; but yet hee is not the Primate of the Church. And contrariwise, The Archbishop of Canterbury hath not the Primacy of the Church; & yet is he Primate of the Church. So as hee denieth these two consequences à Coniugatis, to weet. I. The King hath the Primacy, Ergo, hee is Primate. 2. The Archbishoppe is Primate, Ergo, hee hath the Primacy. And per∣haps hee vvill deny these in like manner. I. The Chaplaine hath a Bishopricke Ergo, hee is a Bishop. 2. M. Tooker is a Deane, Ergo, hee hath a Deanery.
WHy should I schoole an Asse? with whom, gently to claw, and curstlie to kick, Mule-like, is all one? Or why should I rubbe your memorie, to recognize these your owne words: Iames, the most renowned & potent King of England,* 1.2 in his Apology, and monitory Préface to the Emperour, &c. endeuoureth to proue, that himselfe in Eng∣land, and euery King in his kingdome, is Head, or Primat of the Church.
There, you confound Head & Primat, as one thing: heere, by a two-fold question, you sepatate them, as diuerse things. So the Mule scratcheth himselfe.
The King doth make no expresse mention of the word Primat: yet, (as you say) hee endeuoureth to
proue, and proueth demonstratiuely, that he is Primat of the Church. Therefore, as the King, wee, and your lelfe, understand it; it is all one, to have the Primacy of the Church, and to be Primat of the Church. Sith then, weeagree in the thing, why doe you wrafig be about the name, heere, of Primat, as before of Primacy?
Doctor Tooker, and Maister Burhill, lume openlie professed, subscribed, and sworne, that the King is the onely Supreme Gouernour in, and ouer, all causes, and per∣sons, Eoclesiasticall vvithin his Realine: that is, ••h•• Hain∣rick, and Thomson, and your selfe vnderstand it, in one word, Primat. But Tooker, and Burhill, deny the King to be Primat of the Church. They doe so, & that right∣ly: to weet, in your popish sense, of Supreme Primat of the Church Sacer do tall or Episcopall. By which distincti∣on well vnderstood and vsed, it appeareth, that among vs, there is no Iarre at all, touching the Supremacy, or Primat.
Pag. 29
Refut. Apol. & Praef. monit. Re∣gis, pag. 17.