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.
1. NOvv follow the Iarres and debates of our Aduer∣saries, concerning the Offices and Functions of the Kings Primacy, and they are sixe in number, which may be disputed of. The first is, of assembling, or calling together of Synods. The second, of enacting of Ecclesi∣asticall
lawes. The third, of conferring or bestowing of Benefi∣ces. The fourth, of creating and deposing of Bishops. The fift, is about Excommunication. The sixt and last, is about the de∣cision and determining of Controuersies. The question then is, vvhether these offices belong to the Kings Primacy? I will speake a vvord of each in order.
2. First, it may bee demaunded, vvhether the King by ver∣tue of his Primacy, may of his owne authority, call or assemble to∣gether Synods, & therein sit as chiefe & head? This was certain∣ly perswaded that it might be done, in the time of King Henry, K. Edward, and Queene Elizabeth: but now vnder King Iames, the matter is called into question. M. Salclebridge pag. 121. af∣firmeth, that be can dot it, in these vvords: Christiani Princi∣pes in Regnis suis cum laude, propria auctoritate Synodos conuocarunt, Constitutiones condiderunt, causas audierunt & cognouerunt. Christian Princes haue with great praise as∣sembled Synods by their owne authority, in their Kingdoms, haue made Constitutions, heard and examined causes &c. And again, pag. 146. Rex Angliae potest Synodos indicere omnium Or∣dinum Oecumenicas, et in ijsdem praesidere. The King of England, saith he, may assemble Generall Councells of all Or∣ders or degrees, and therein sit as President or Chiefe, &c. And pag. 155. hee saith in like manner, Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate, deiure, Synodos conuocarunt. The Kings of England, haue by their owne supreme authority, and by right, assembled Synods, &c.
3. Now Ma, Tooker in this point is very variable: one vvhile contradicting himselfe, another while others. And this is manifest out of the diuerse testimonies he produceth. The first is pag. 37. where hee hath these words: A quibus magis aequum est indici Concilia, quàmabillis, penes quos semper fuit au∣thoritas ea congregandi? Cùm autem communiter triplex ponisoleat Concilium, Generale, Prouinclale & Dioecesanū; Concilium Generale solius Papae iussu celebrari vultis, sed nequeillud nisi ab Imperatoribus & Regibus simul consenti∣entibus hodie indici debet. Prouinciale à Metropolitano cum suis Suffraganein. Dioecesanum ab Episcopo cum Cu∣ratis,
Rectoribus, & Clericia Dioeceseos, &c. By whō is it more fit that Councells should be assembled, then by those in whose pow∣er hath alwaies authority beene to call them together? For wher∣as commonly there be three sorts of Councells, Generall, Prouin∣ciall, and of a particular Diocesse: the Generall Councell, you vvill haue to be celebrated onely by commandement of the Pope; but yet not so neither now adayes, vnlesse Emperours and Kings doe agree therevnto also. A Prouinciall Councell is to bee as∣sembled by the Metropolitan and his Suffragans: that of the Diocesse by the Bishoppe thereof, together vvith the Cu∣rats, Rectors, and Clerks of the same Bishopricke, &c. Out of vvhich testimonie vves may gather, that the King of Eng∣land cannot assemble a Councell of kis ovvne authoritie. Not a Generall, because that belongeth to the common consent of Kings and Emperours. Not a Prouinciall, because that per∣taineth to the Metropolitan. Not of the Diccesse, because that belongeth to the Bishopot thereof. What then, I pray you, is left vnto the King?
4. Another testimonie heereof is out of the same Ma. Too∣ker, pag. 41. in these vvords: Abundè liquetex Concilijs ip∣sis, & historia Ecclesiastica, Prouincialia Concilia & Natio∣nalia ab Imperatoribus ac Regibus fuisse congregata. It is aboundantly manifest out of the Councells themselues, and the Ecclesiasticall Histories, that Prouinciall and Nationall Coun∣cells haue beene assembled by Emperours and Kings, &c. This now is plainely repugnant to his former testimony. For there hee affirmeth, that Prouinciall Councells are tobe assembled by the Metropolitans thereof: heere bee saith, that they must be assem∣bled by Kings and Emperours. There, is distinguished onelie a threefold Councell, to weet, Generall, Prouinciall, and that of the, Diocesse: heere now, is added a fourth, to weet, Nationall.
5. His third testimony is set downs pag. 42. vvhere he pro∣poseth this question: Quoigitur iure tantam sibi porestatem arrogat Pontifex solus? Num diuino? By what nighe then, I pray you, doth the Popechallenge vnto himselfe alone so great power? Doth hee doe it by diuine right? &c. And a little after hee addeth: Erat Apostolorum omnium, non vnius tantum∣modo,
& indicere Concilium, & statuere cum verborum so∣lennitate; Visumest Spiritui sancto & Nobis, &c. It belonged to all the Apostles, not to one alone, to assemble a Councell, and vvith solemnitie of vvords to ordaine; It seemes good vnto the Holy Ghost, and vs, &c. As if hee vvould say; That as by di∣uine right, not S. Peter alone, but all the Apostles together with equall power did assemble the first Councell at Ierusalem, and therein 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 de∣cree Ecclesiasticall lawes. Surely, if it be so, then without doubt it follovves, 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 successors, &c.
6. His fourth testimony is pag. 63. vvhere hee saith: Mix∣tum autem ius, & resultans ex vtroque, & iure Regio & E∣piscopali, est Legum sanctio & Synodorum indictio, & praesidendi in ijs praerogatiua, & controuersiatum decisio, aliorumque actuum, qui his finitimi sunt exercitium: quae ferè ab origine Primatus Regij descendunt, & communi∣cantur Sacerdotibus, &c. The decreeing or enacting of lawes, the assembling of Synodes, and Prerogatiue of sitting therein 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: vvhich things doe in a manner come downe, or descend from the origen of the Kings Primacy, and are com∣municated or imparted vnto Priests, &c.
This now againe, as you see, is contrary to that vvhich hee said next before. For there bee vvill needes haue the assembly of Sy∣nodes or Coūcells to belong by diuine right to the Apostles: beer, for sooth, hee vvill haue the same chiefely to belong to Kings, and from them to be deriued vnto Bishops. These things doe not a∣gree one with another.
HItherto, the contention hath been Gramma∣ticall about words and names: 1. Whether that supreme gouernment of the King in the Church of England, which all our Writers doe pro∣fesse, ought to bee called Primatus, or Suprematus; Primacy, or Supremacy? 2. Whether he that holdeth that supreme gouernment in the Church, of that his Primacy may be called Primate of the Church, or Head of the Church, or the onely Supreme Gouernour of the Church? 3. Whether that Supreme gouernment, or Iurisdiction, which is in all Ecclesiasticall matters, and aboue all Ecclesiasticall persons, ought to be called the Supreme gouernment of the Church, or the Supreme Iuris∣diction Ecclesiasticall?
These foolish and vnlearned questions,* 1.1 Saint Paul forbiddeth, vnworthy of Diuines: but, as it should seeme, not of a Iesuit. Let Becane tell me ingenuous∣ly, whether these six offices only appertaine to the Pa∣pall Primacy? Or whether there be not sixtie times six which may be called into question? Let him tell me, whether these offices doe properly pertaine to the Pri∣macy of Peter, and so to the Bishop of Rome?
Let him shew mee, where it is written; or that Pe∣ter had any Primacy at all: or that this his Primacy is contained or defined within the bounds and limits of these duties? or that euer Peter did exercise such offi∣ces as Primats of the Church: That is to say, let him manifest out of the Scriptures, what Councell Peter
summoned as Primate of the Church; what Ecclesiasticall lawes he made; what benefices hee collated; what Bishops he created, or deposed; of what controuersies hee was su∣preme iudge. These things if the Iesuite cannot shew, he is a pratler and no disputer: for all, yea the meanest of Bishops in the kingdome doe excommunicate; are therefore all those Bishops, Primates and Supreme go∣uernours in the vniuersall Church throughout the whole kingdome? our question is of one only Supreme gouernour of the whole Church in the kingdom. Make exception but of Excommunication alone, and Hainri∣cus by many expresse authentike writings, hath de∣monstrated, that Christian Princes haue with singu∣ler commendation, 1. Called Councells. 2. Made Eccle∣siasticall lawes. 3. Conferred benefices, although this see∣meth too grosse and greasie, whereof to make a part of Primacy. 4. Created, and deposed Bishops. 5. Taken vp and ended controuersies. But so granted, that no mortall man can be iudge of all controuersies, especially of faith. That Christian Princes of their owne authoritie, and with commendation haue summoned Councells; both Hainric and Dr. Tooker do expresly write in plain words. Neither is Dr. Tooker in this point either a∣gainst him self, or against Hainric. When that first coun∣cell was assembled at Ierusalem, whether did raigne Christian, or Pagan Princes? how idle is this? when the question is only about Christian Princes. what; is there no difference here betwixt a Iesuite and a Sophi∣ster? But if Peter was then the sole Primate of the Church, why did he not alone call that Synode? and why did Iames sit President in that Councell? what meane these words? Visumest nobis, it seemed good vn∣to
vs: and not rather it seemed good to Peter; or alone, or with the addition of Primate; or after this manner, it seemed good to our holy father Pope Peter, & after him to the residue of the Apostles and Elders. If Peter, or the Pope, bee Supreme iudge of all controuersies, what meane these words? Visum est spiritui Sancto, It seemed good to the Holy-ghost: and not rather it seemed good to Pope Peter, the Supreme iudge of all controuersies. This is a great mysterie: as if no mortall man but only the Holy-ghost, could be Supreme iudge of all controuer∣sies in the Church. And why may not prouinciall Coun∣cells becalled by the Metrapolitan,* 1.2 and Dioecesan, by the Bishops by vertue of Ecclesiasticall lawes made by Christian Princes? especially seeing (as Dr. Tooker rightly affirmeth) their indiction primarily appertay∣neth to the King, and from him may be deriued to the Bishops. These things doe excellently agree together.
2. Tim. 2.23.
Nouel. con∣stit. 123. leg. 13. et 133 Franc.