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. COntrouersies that arise in the Church are of two sorts: some are about faith and Religion: others are concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires. The former of these questions then, is: Whether the King by vertue
of his Primacy, bee supreame Iudge of all Controuersies, vvhich pertaine vnto faith and Religion? Maister Salclebridge saith be is, pag. 163. in these vvords: Sic luce clarius est, Christia∣nos Principes cum laude, Controuersias fidei dijudicasse & diremisse, etiam in vniuersalibus octo Concilijs, &c. So as it is more cleare then the Sunne, that Christian Princes, vvith praise, haue iudged of, and decided controuersies 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 Ephe∣sus, Chalcedon, the second, third, and fourth of Constantino∣ple, and the second of Nice, vvherein diuerse controuersies con∣cerning matters of faith vvere iudged of, and decided; especi∣ally cuncerning the diuinitis of Christ, against the Hereticke Arius; of the diuinitie of the holy Ghost, against Macedonius; of one person of Christ, against Nestorius; of two Natures in Christ, against Eutiches and Dioscorus, and so of others. All these Controuersies, saith Maister Saclebridge, were iudged of, and decided by Kings and Emperours.
2. Maister Tooker now, hee affirmeth the quite contra∣rie, vvho by no meanes vvill haue Kings or Emperours to bee Iudges of Controuersies of faith. For thus hee vvriteth, pag. 3. of his books: Olere autem malitiam, ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud videtur, cùm Regem caput Ecelesiae, Primatem∣que confingas, omniumque causarum & controuersiarum, quae ad sidem & Religionem pertinent iudicem tribuas. It may seeme to sauour of malice, & cry out vpon your sausinesse, vvhen as you faine the King to be head of the Church, & Iudge of all causes and controuersies vvhich pertaine vnto faith and Religion, &c. And againe pag. 50. Rexin suo Regno, omni∣bus superior sit, nullisubditus. Fidei iudex no appelletur qui∣dem. Although the King in his owne Kingdome be aboue all, & subiect to none: yet hee may not be called, in any case, the Iadge of our Faith, &c. And pag. 313. Reges Christiani non sunt fidei ac Religionis Iudices. Christian Kings are not Iudges of faith and Religion.
3. So as, if now in England there should chaunce to arise a dissension or debate concerning any point of Faith or Religion,
as for Example, concerning the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist; vvhat should your Academicks heere do? To vvhom should your Cittizens, and the rest of the subiects haue recourse? Should they goe vnto the King as Iudge in this point, and aske his sentence & determination? Maister Tooker, you see, vvould not goe to the King. What? should they goe to some other Iudge then? But Maister Salclebridge hee vvill admit no other. What then vvere best to bee done in this case? Truly euen that, vvhich hitherto hath been done in the debate of the Kings supremacy: to vvit, alwaies to braule, and iarre therea∣bout, and neuer end the controuersie. And vvhat's the cause? In very deede no other, but for that some thinke one thing, some another; and they cannot, or rather vvill not finde out the cer∣taine and true Iudge, vvho can decide the matter. And this is the propertie of hereticks.
4. The other Question is, Whether the King be Iudge of all Controuersies, that concerne other Ecclesiasticall affaires? Maister Salclebridge saith, that hee is, pag. 165. in these vvords: Audin', Controuersias Episcopales ab Imperatore diremptas? Doe you not heare Sir, that Episcopall Controuer∣sies haue been decided by Emperours? &c. is hat Ma. Tooker thinketh of this point, is not vvell knowne. For sometimes hee af∣firmes it, as for example, pg. 24 thus: Nemini dubiū est, quin in Primitiua Ecclesia, de rebus & personis Ecclesiasticis ••us di∣cerent Imperatores. No man can doub: but that in the Primi∣tiue Church, Emperours iudged of matters, and persons Eccle∣siasticall &c. And yet pag. 23. hee seemeth to deny it: Non est Princeps supra res, sed supra personas. The Prince (saith he) is not aboue the matters, but abone the persons &c. And then a∣gaine 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 things, but ouer men. And thus you see euery vvhere nothing but iarring and disagreement.
BOth Doctor Tooker and Hainric, deny the King to be supreme Iudge in controuersies of faith: but in other controuersies, both of them agree, that Christian Emperours haue giuen iudgement vp∣on Ecclesiasticall persons, in Ecclesiasticall matters.
Heere then you see is no Iarre, but a full and perfect concord. Wherein the Iesuit is taken guilty of a dou∣ble falsehood. First, when hee blusheth not to write, that Hainric affirmeth, the King, by vertue of his su∣premacie, is supreme Iudge of all controuersies; when on the cōtrary, he deemeth no mortall man, nor King, nor Angel, can be that supreme Iudge: nor Saint Pe∣ter; according to that, It seemed good vnto the holy Ghost and to vs: and least of all, the Pope of Rome.
Lastly, hee constantly denieth, that any one of the Fathers euer numbred this dignity, of beeing supreme Iudge of controuersies, among the other duties of Pri∣mate of the Church, or Ecclesiasticall supremacie.
Secondly, though Becan saith, Hic vhique dissidium, nothing but iarring: yet in good sooth, [that Christi∣an Princes haue with commendation iudged & taken vp controuersies of faith; out of these words of Socra∣tes, Lib. 5. cap. 10. Theodosius called together a Councell of all Sects: and vvhen the Emperour vnderstood their manifold dissensions, hee commaunded them, that euery of their Sects should put in vvriting the particular articles of their seuerall faith. They put their opinions in vvriting accordingly. Then, when they vvere sent for to the Court, the Bishoppes of each Sect appeared and met together: the
Emperour taketh at their hands the vvritten scroules of their faith. Afterward, he shutteth vp himselfe in his Clo∣set alone, and most earnestly maketh prayer to GOD, that his Maiestie vvould helpe him to finde out the truth. Last∣ly, hee readeth euery confession seuerally, and hauing read them, be condemneth and teareth them all, except the faith of the Consubstantiall: that hee praised and approoued] not onely Hainric, but before him, Ma. Doctor Bilson the most graue & learned Bishop of Winchester, in his book of Christian obedience, printed at London, Anno 1586. and before him, that most excellently learned Iuell, Bb. of Salisbury, in the defence of his Latine Apo∣logie, gathered the same doctrine, and concluded the same opinion: the words are these, pag. 172. in the A∣pology; Theodosius Imperator, vt ait Socrates, &c. The Emperour Theodosius (as Socrates vvriteth) did not onely sit among the Bishops, but was also chiefe at the decision of the controuersie, and did rend in peeces the vvritings of the Haereticks, approouing the faith of the true professing Ca∣tholicks.
That which Hainric writeth heere of the contro∣uersies of faith, remembred by the Iesuit in the foure first generall Councells (as for the second Councell of Nice, it was rather a godlesse and trifling conspiracy then a Councell) wherein Emperours sate Presidents, and together with the consent of the Synod, gaue iudgements, and concluded those differences; that did also Bishop Iuell, write long before him, Part. b. cap. 13. b. 1. Pag. 522. out of Cardinall Cusanus, in his third booke De Concordia, cap. 16. whom we will soo∣ner belieue, then tenne thousand Becans: the words are
these; Sciendum est quod in vniuersalibus octo concilys semper invenio Imperatores, &c. This you must knowe, that in the first eight generall Councells, I alwaies find, that the Emperours, and their substitutes, with the Senate, had the supremacie and office of Presidentship: and vvith the consent of the Synode, gaue the iudgements and decisi∣ons.
Now Sir, I pray you, what other thing is this, then to iudge and take vp controuersies of faith? and yet the Iesuit turnes Iester in this so serious a matter; as if the gods of his societie had giuen him some great ad∣uantage: saying vpon his former weake inferences; So as if in England there should chaunce to arise a debate, &c. And I will follow his steppes, and turne his owne tearms vpon him in this manner:
So as if in Rome there should chaunce to arise a dis∣sension, or debate about any point of faith; as for ex∣ample, about the Popes supremacie, or (which is all one) his beeing vniuersall Bishoppe, what would the Academicall Fathers of the societie of IESVS doe? vvho haue suppressed the Sorbonists. What would the people of Rome doe, or other the Popes subiects? Should they goe to Pope Paul the fift, as their onelle Iudge and desire his sentence & determination? why then Pope Gregory the great (a farre wiser man) vvill stand against it. Should they goe and desire any other Iudge to take vp the matter? Surely, Bellarmine wil not endure that.
What were then best to be done in this case? Euen that which hither to hath beene done in the debate of the Popes supremacy. For the Papists haue euer beene at odds, and iarred, and could neuer end this contro∣uersie.
And what's the cause? In very deed no other, but for that some thinke one thing, and some another: and they cannot, or rather will not, finde out the cer∣taine and true Iudge, who can decide the matter. And this is the property of hereticks.
Againe, I will touch Becane in one instance, more neerely. If there chaunce to arise a controuersie a∣bout this point, or article of the Popes religion; An si∣des haereticis seruanda, Whether promise must be kept with hereticks, what will the Academicall Fathers of the societie doe? Will they goe to Pope Paul the fift? Becane will not like of that. Will they goe to any other Iudge? Barronius will not endure it; no, nor Ignatius Loyola, the Syre of all the Iesuits (who first inuented the Art of Equiuocation, and so the breach of faith) if hee were aliue.
Heere I might boinfinite: but I will confine my selfe in one or two examples. If it chance a dissension or debate to arise about the body of Christ in the Eucha∣rist; as whether it may be broken, or chewed with the teeth of them that care it; according to the Decree Part. 3. dist. 2. cap. 42. What would the Romane Ca∣tholicks doe in this case?
Would they repaire to Pope Paul the fist, as Iudge of this controuersie? Berengarius in his Recantation hath giuen warning to the contrary. Would they goe to Pope Nicholas? Bellarmine will not allow of him; vvho in his third booke and tenth chapter of this Sa∣crament of the Eucharist, vvriteth; Christus vere in Sacramento existit, sed non teritur, non roditur: Christ is trulie in the Sacrament, but hee is neither bitten nor chewed.
To conclude, if there arise a dissension at Rome, a∣bout the Reall presence; as for example, Whether Christs body be really present, but without bignesse, as Durand holdeth, in 4. Dist 10. q. 2. or with great∣nesse, but vvithout distinction of parts, as Decam in 4. q. 4. and thirdly, with bignesse, and all distinct parts, as Bellarmine, Lib. 3. cap. 5. De Euchar. what were then best to be done in this case? For the Papists are alwaies at odds & iarre about the corporall presence of Christ in the Eucharist: and the strife can neuer be taken vp. What's the cause? In very deede no other, but for that some thinke one thing, and some another: and they cannot, or rather will not, finde out the certaine and true Iudge, who can decide the matter. And this is the property of Hereticks.
But heere obserue with mee in the last place, the guilefull disposition of Becan; Doctor Tooker, pag. 23. affirmeth, that Princes are aboue the persons, and not the sacred things, as the vvord, Sacraments, and spiritu∣all graces of the Church: adding in the same page, Sole ipso, &c I vvill make it as cleare as the Sunne, that the chiefe care of the Prince, must be had for things and causes Ecclesiasticall: and that their supremacy especially consi∣steth in the execution of that function.
From hence the Iesuit maketh this collection; The King (by confession of Doctor Tocker) is not aboue some Ecclesiasticall things, as the vvord, and Sacra∣ments: therefore aboue no Ecclesiasticall things, as are the controuersies of Bishops; Against Doctor Tooker his expresse meaning in the same leafe.
Part. 6. cap. 13. Diuis. 2. Pag. 524.