The English concord in ansvver to Becane's English iarre: together with a reply to Becan's Examen of the English Concord. By Richard Harris, Dr. in Diuinitie.

❧ Becans Iarre. (Book 8)

VIII. Question. Whether the King by his owne proper authority, may conferre, collate, or bestow Ecclesiasticall benefices? (Book 8)

1. THat the King may conferre Ecclesiasticell liuings, M. Henry Salclebridge affirmeth pag. 121. in these words: Christiani Principes in suis Regnis, cum laude, propria authoritate, beneficia con∣••ulerunt. Christian Princes 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 Iesuita, non modo collationes beneficiorum ad Angliae Reges spe∣ctare, fed ad eosdem illos spectare, vti Ecclesiae Anglicanae Primates vel supremos Ordinarios &c. Do you heare Iesuite, the collation of benefices, doth not onely 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 su∣preme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, shall be able to present vnto free Chappells &c.

2. Now M. Tooker to the contrary denieth it, pag. 36. where talking of the Kings of England, he saith thus: Beneficia autem curata, vel non curata, non conferunt omnino in quē∣piam, maiora minoraue: multo minus dignitates Ecclesi∣asticas, sine Episcopatus, siue Archiepiscopatus per vniuer∣sum ambitum Regnisui. Eorum certè collatio vel institutio est, quorum est destitutio, id est, Episcoporum Comprouin∣cialium,

qui potestatem habent personas ipsassacrandi. Hoc habetiuris Regia Maiestas, quod minor & ••ubordinata po∣teslas habet, ius inquam nominandi & p••aesentandi apud nos &c. Kings doe not at all collate or bestowe vpon any man bene∣fices that haue care of soules, or not care, greater or lesser; and much lesse Ecclesiasticall dignities, vvhether Bishop••ickes or Archbishoprickes throughout the whole circuits of their King∣domes. For this truely belongeth vnto those, whose office it is to dispose there of, to wit, to the Compreninciall Bishops, who haue power to consecrate the saide persons on vvhome they bestowe them, Indeede the Kings Maiesty notwithstanding hath this right with vs in England, which an inferiour and subordinate power also hath, to wit, right so nominate and present vnto bene∣fices &c.

3. Behotde here a triple Iarre or discord betweene these two Authors, and this in a daily and vulges watter. The first is, that M. Henry Salclebridge saith, that the collasion of bene∣fices belongeth to the Kings of England, in that they he the Pri∣mates of the Church of England. M. Tooker saith to the con∣trary, 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 vertu•• of their supreme Ecclesiasticall I••∣risdiction may present 〈◊〉〈◊〉 benefices. M. Tooker ••••••rr••th, that in this point, Kings hauene more right, then their subiects, and other inferiour persons: for so he saith: Hoc habet iuris Re∣gia Maiestas, quod minor & subordinata potestas habet. The Kings Maiesty hath (in this point of conferring beneficer) the same right that an inferiour and subordinate power bath &c. Whether of these two then should King Iames belieue, if he had a fat benefice, or an Archbishopricke now to bestow?

English Concord.

HEere is also a Iesuiticall trifling altercation a∣bout words. Hainric by collation of Benefi∣ces vnderstandeth Presentation, Nomina∣tions to Benefices, the very Donation of Benefices: Doctor Tooker thereby concclueth the Institution of Presbyters, and the consecration of Bishops. D^r: Too∣ker acknowledgeth the Kings Presentation, Nomina∣tion, Donation: Hainric, by no meanes, attributeth to the king either Institution or Consecration as both of them being proper go the Bishops. The Kings presen∣thig of his Clearks to the Bishoppe, for institution of them into such Benefices with Cure, as respect the Kings hereditary right of Patronage, is nor much dif∣ferent from the presentations made by his subiects, who haue the like right of Patronage: vnlesse it be here∣in, viz that the King by his writ, may and doth com∣pell the Bishoppe (especially after recoucry by Quare Impedie) opposing himselfe therein, to institute fitte Clarks, presented by his Maiesty, or by other Patrons to the said Bishoppe.

But the presentation of certaine Benefices with Cure, after they haue continued void of any Incum∣bent, for the space of 18: Monethes appertaines vnto the King by way of lapse, as vnto the Supreme Ordi∣narie, in his Dominions, or the only Supreme Gouer∣nour of the Church therein; and that by the common lawes of England: as is expresly shewed, in Becano-Ba∣culus, Page 142. 150.

Moreouer, there are certaine Benefices with Cure, called Donatiues, which admit no Institution at all: of these the King by his owne Donation onely, without any either Episcopall Institution, or Archidiaconall Induction, makes the Clearks rightfull possessours.

Doctor Tooker knoweth well these triuial and vulgar matters (as Becane here calleth them), and beares in minde our most learned Soueraigne his words in his Monitory Preface, touching the Collation of Benefices, Page 33.

How often haue the Kings of France withstood the Pope, in such sort, that they would not yeeld vn∣to him the very Collation of Benefices?

And those other words concerning Bishoprickes receiued from Kings and Emperours, Page 29.

Euen the Pope also, with all obedience and sub∣mission, did acknowledge himself to hold his Pope∣dom of the Emperour. And Page 31. He that peace∣ably is desirous to know, in what sort the Bishops of Spaine, Scotland, England, Hungary, by ancient In∣stitution, euen vntill moderne innouation, came in, and were inuested by Kings, with quiet possession of their temporals purely, and intirely; he shall finde the same, by searching the liues of the Fathers, and by reading Histories. Walthram Naumburg. lib. de In∣uestit. Episc.

Behold then, how a threefold Concord ariseth out of that threefold Iarre which the Iesuit faineth.

The first Concord: Hainric saith, that the confer∣ring of certain Benefices belongs to the Kings of Eng∣land by way of lapse, as they are the chief Gouernours of the Church of England: Doctor Tooker affirmeth,

that the Collation of Benefices, lying void of any In∣cumbents aboue 18. Monethes, appertaineth to the King onely by way of lapse: and not to the Bishops or Archbishops; or to any other subiect.

The second: Hainric saith, that Kings by their own authority, haue oftentimes giuen Benefices: to weet, Donatiues. Tooker auerreth that the King may giue 40. 50. or moe, within the compasse of one yeare, if so many fall void.

The third: Hainric saith, that by the lawes of Eng∣land, Kings, because of their Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, present to free Chappels; and that none of their subiects, to weet, Bishoppes or Archbishops, haue authority to visit the said Chappels: D^r. Tooker, instructed by the same lawes, auoucheth that Kings onely haue that authority, and no subiects, but by the Kings grant.

Finally, if the hungry Iesuite, (who mindeth onely his meat, that is, far Benefices, or Archbishoprickes) can produce but one little, either word of Scripture, or sentence in Ancient Father, whereby it may appeare that the Collation of Benefices belonged to the Pri∣mate of the Christian Church as Primate; let him haue the victory: But if he cannot, vnlesse hee be more then impudent, let him seale vp his lips, and recognize those words of the Parisian Aduocate, Arg. 11. Page 25. That of Luk. 9. The Sonne of man hath not vvhere to rest his head; is Equiualent, with this: The Church by Diuine right hath no Territory.