Whether the Pope may be Iudge of Controuersies For example these Popes following Pope Zepherinus or as some write Eleutherius Iudge of Montanisme of whome Beatus Rhenanus out of Tertullian against Praxeas noteth thus Episcopus Romanus Montanizat The Bishop of Rome is a Montanist or holdes vvith the Heretike Montanus Pope Liberius and Pope Leo both Arian heretikes iudges of Arianisme as appeareth by Alphonsus de Castro in his book of Heresies and by the Legend of Hillary Pope Anastasius iudge of Nestorianisme who as the saide Alphonsus there writeth fauouredthe Nestorian Heretikes Pope Honorius iudge of the doctrines of Sergius the Heretike of whom the Bishops in the sixt Councell of Constantinople action 13. write thus Wee haue anathematized or cursed or excommunicated Honorius vvho vvas Bishop of olde Rome because bee followed the opinion of Sergius in all things and confirmed his impious doctrines BECAN Exam. Page 97 OVt of Beatus Rhenanus who wrote Annotations vpon the book of Tertullian against Praxeas you cite these words Episcopus Romanus Montanizat that is the Bishop of Rome followeth the heresie of Montanus I haue often warned you of your deceitful Citations but all in vaine Beatus Rhenanus in his Annotations hath not those words but these Rectissimè egit c. The Bishop of Rome did very well who condemned that fained Prophecie of Montanus Which words are cleane contrary to those former vnlesse in your Grammar to receiue and to reiect Montanus signifie the same thing But I knowe the cause of your errour The Printer or some other besides the Annotations of Rhenanus had set downe in the margine of Tertullians booke certaine short notes which shew the matters there handled Therfore in a cortaine place he put these two words Episcopus Romanus The Bishop of Rome because the Bishop of Rome was there mentioned and a little after he put apart this word Montanizat is a Montanist because Tertullian defended the heresie of Montanus which the Pope had condemned You haning no regard of truth or faith conioyne those words thus Episcopus Romanus Montartizat I am asbamed of this Imposture or deceit Dr. HARRIS Reply IF there were but one dram of truth faith or modesty in this Iesuite he would not haue written so falsely deceitfully and impudently as here hee doth which I wil make most apparant in this Straine before I leaue him Tertullian following Montanus wrote his booke against Praxeas and in the beginning thereof he writeth thus Nam idem Praxeas tunc Episcopum Romanum agnoscentemiam prophetias Montani Priscae Maximillae et ea agnitione pacem Ecclesiis Asiae et Phrygiae inferentem falsa de ipsis prophetijs adseuerando et praecessorū eius auctoritates defendendo Coegit et literas pacis reuocare iam emissas et à proposito recipiendorum charismatum concessare Praxeas compelled the Bishop of Rome vvho at that time acknowledged or approued the prophesies of Montanus and in so doing brought peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia partly by affirming false things of those Churches and partly by defending the auctority of the Bishops predecessors to reuoke his letters of peace which he had sent and to cease from his further communicating vvith Montanus By which words of Tertullian it is cuident that the Bishop of Rome did then approue and by his letters maintaine the Hereticall Prophesies of Montanus Beatus Rhenanus in his edition of Tertullian besides his Annotations vpon him set footh his Marginall notes ouer against the text briefely expressing all-along the matters contained in the text ouer against these words of the text The Bishop of Rome acknowledging the Prophesies of Montanus and so bringing peace to the Churches he put these two Marginall notes viz. the former Episcopus Romanus Montanizat Because Tertullian saide The Bishop of Rome approoued Montanus The second Autoritas Romanorum Pontificum The authority of the Komane Bishops Because Tertullian said that the Bishop of Rome when he did Montanize by his letters sent brought peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia And heereto agreeth Rhenanus his Annotation vpon these wordes of Tertullian Episcopum Romanum Attende summam Romani Pontificis autoritatem etiam illis temporibus dum aliquid recipit aut damnat Obserue here the great authoritie of the Bishoppe of Rome euen in those times vvhen hec did eyther receiue or reiect anie thing To witte because once hee receiued Montanus but afterward reiected him So that it is most cleare that those vvordes The Bishoppe of Rome dooth Montanize is the verie Marginall note of Beatus Rhenanus conioyning all those three wordes Episcopus Romanus Montanizat without any separation of them by comma full point or any the like at the word Romanus as is to be seene in the Margine in all the editions of Tertullian euen by Papists as namely in the Edition of Renatus Laurentius de labar printed at Paris cum priuilegio An. 1580. where those marginall notes are set downe Their ownc Pamelius in his late Edition of Tertullian An 1608. leaues out those three marginal words Episcopus Romanus Montanizat And in his 7. annotation vpon those words Episcopum romanum sheweth himselfe griened at and much disliketh that those said three marginall words are extant in all former printed editions for thus hee writeth Quare eo magis improbanda aduocatio marginalis quae hactenus extat in excusis exemplaribus omnibus Episcopus Romanus Montanizat But if those margimall words Episcopus Romanus stood alone in the margin so full pointed because the Bb. of Rome is there mentioned then the word Montanizat set down in the margin separate frō the other two foresaid words because Tertullian doth there Montanize as this Iesuit would haue it Pamelius in common sense had no reason either to leaue our or dislike those three marginall words Iudge now gentle Reader how either pittifully ignorant if hee neuer read those said three marginall words in beatus Rhenanus his edition of Tertullian or if he did how shamefully impudent this Becane heere sheweth himselfe to be casting this aspersion vpon mee that I deceitfully alleaged those said marginall words conioyning them which in printed bookes stand separated and so applying that to the Bishop of Rome which the marginall note assigneth to Tertullian A more palpable vntruth could not be vuered Whereas he endeuoureth to iustific the same by citing these words out of Rhenanus his annotations Rectissime ergo egit Romanus Pontifex qui illam confictam Montani prophetiam damnauit The Bishop of Rome did well in condemning that fained prophecy of Montanus asking me whether it be all one to condemne approue Montanus hee doth manifest to the world how exceeding shallow he is not knowing whether he writ with or against himselfe Tertullian writing very distinctly of two seuerall times saith that the Bishop of Rome at the first approued Montanus and accordingly sent letters to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia signifying his communion with Montanus
* Deu. 13 10 Leurt 24.23 matter of religion and by Regall authoritie to punish the transgressors of them To call Councells of Synods by his authoritie f 1. Câ—ton 13.3 for reducing of the people to Gods worship h 2. Chr. 19.4 and purifying of the Templepolluted Touching persons To administer iustice vnto all of all sorts i 2. Chr. 29.5 who should be To speake as the Scripture doth The head of the Tribe of Leuie k 1. Sa. 15.17 no lesse then of the other Tribes The king no lesse of Clerkes then of Laikes To depriue the high Priest if he do deserue of his high Priesthood l 1. Reg. 2.27 In matters of Religion To breake down the high places To abolish strange worship m Exo. 32.10 to breake in peeces the brasen Serpent which Moses erected n 2. Reg. 18.4 In matters of Order To ordaine such things as pertaine to the comlinesse o 2. Chro. 24 12 Socrat. lib. 2 ca. 17 of GODs house and to suppressefriuolous and vnprofitable questions These by Dinine right are the rights of Regall Primacie To weet wherby the king may 1. Be called p Tort. Tort. p. 339 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Supreme head of the Church 2. Call Councells and presede in them 3. Make Lawes Ecclesiasticall 4. Constitute and depose the High Priests 5. Binde his subiects by oath to keep the lawes by him made To conclude hereby may the Aduersaries see that Regall Primacy is founded in the Scriptures and propagated from the first religious kings vnder the olde to the first religious Emperours and kings and so to our Soueraigne Lord King Iames vnder the new Testament and in that long distance of time nothing impaired or diminished What then neuer to decay I doubt it not What 's the reason Heare it out of Gods booke not out of triuials Iesuiticall q If it be of God Acts 5.39 you can not dissolue it Goe now Icsuite and play with your sooleries and very childish questions In the meane time let mee aske and answere in your owne words The Primacy Iesuiticall hath it lesse power in France for in Venice it hath none at all than it hath had there or else where So it appeareth Is it then in so short a time abated and diminished in France So men say Is it therefore neere his end I doe not doubt it What 's the reason Heare it from the Iesuites triuiall That which suddainly came for we know wel the swaddling clouts of Loyola the Iesuits Syre is soone gone BECAN Exam. Page 112 THE Primacie or Supremacie vnder King Henry King Edward and Qucene Elizabeth was Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall but vnder King Iames it is not so and what it will be is vncertaine Here is a Iarre Dr. HARRIS Reply IN my Concord booke I shewed in generall and in particular the Regall Primacy vnder K. Iames to be the selfe same which was vnder K. Henry K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth adding that it so would continue as certainely it will during this orthodoxall Religion among vs which I hope shall continue so long as the sunne and moone endure though the Iesuiticall and all other Papisticall bowels burst thereat I shewod it in general for that the Supremacie then was and now no lesse is The kings Supreme power in and ouer all causes and all persons within his kingdom Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall and therefore in the selfe same lawes of this kingdome then and now in force called The kings supreme Power Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall In particular I demonstrated the same by setting downe the most materiall points out of the expresse words of Scirpture wherein the kings saide Supreme power Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall consisteth in which saide both generall and particular points as there they are set downe all English Protestant Writers with full consent agree without any Iarre or difference whatsoeuer If this shallow Iesuite had had any sound matter in him in this his ExameÌ„ he would haue answered to the matter especially to those materiall points founded vpon the Scriptures and haue proued that either those particular points belong not to the office of Regall Supremacy or else that wee Protestant Writers iarre in some one or moe of those said materiall points gathered by the R. Bishop of Ely and there set downe as not warranted by holy writte to belong to kings but this Iesuite passeth them ouer with Noli metangere and onely sets before the Reader his twise sodden Ioathsome Colewoorts viz. That Mr. Burhill writeth thus We doe not giue vnto the king Primacy Spirituall or Ecclesîasticall but rather Primacy in and ouer causes and persons Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall whereas Mr. Burhil in his Appendix to the confutation of Eudaemon Page 283. cuts this Iarre all in sunder writing thus In the 21. chapter of my booke against Becane I purposely and plainly taught how the said Regall Primacy may be called both waies to weet Primacy Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall or Primacy in matters and ouer persons spirituall or Ecclesiasticall and that they who call it spiritual Primacy meane nothing else then wee vvho in regard of the cauillations and calumnies of the Aduersarie by Spirituall power vnder standing nothing else but power Sacerdotall or Episcopall call it Primacy in ouer causes and persons spirituall or Ecclesiasticall And that in the very thing there is no dissent at all among vs. What could be spoken more fully and plainly to put to silence the lying and iarring lips of this Iesuit BECAN Exam. Pag. 114. IT is your priuat fansy none but you will say that the King hath or that himselfe challengeth power to appoint or depose summos Pontifices the highest or chiefest Bishoppes vvho should rule ouer all the Christian vvorld and vvho dwell out of his kingdome as hee hath in his Preface monitorie protested Dr. HARRIS Reply BElike the Iesuit hath not read this Question in Saint Augustine and the answere vnto it Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Presbyter hocest Summus Sacerdos What is a Bishop but the chiefe Priest And accordingly Lactantius lib. 4. ca. 30. calleth euery Bishoprick Supremum Sacerdotium the highest Priesthood If the Iesuit could vnderstand Greeke I would produce Ignatius ad Trallianos putting the question and making answere vnto it as Augustine did thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What other thing is a Bishoppe but one hauing principality and power ouer all men Belike the Iesuit will be bold with Ruffin and tax him for calling Athanasius who was no Pope Pontificem maximum the highest Bishop But then comes in Hierom speaking of euery Bishoppe and dogmatizing thus Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet The safety of the Church dependeth vpon the dignity of the highest Priest With vs in England are not only Bishops but Archbishops also euen Primats that is Patriarks ouer whoÌ„ the King in his Supremacy is Supreme Gouernour whom as he may nominat and appoint so vpon
THE ENGLISH CONCORD IN ANSVVER TO BECANE'S ENGLISH JARRE Together with a Reply to Becan's Examen of the English Concord By Richard Harris Dr. in Diuinitie 2. Tim. 2.16 Stay profane and vaine babblings for they will encrease vnto more vngodlinesse AT LONDON Printed by H. L. for Mat. Lownes and are to be sold in Paules Church-yard at the signe of the Bishops head 1614. TO THE KINGS MOST EXCELLENT Maiestie Iames by the Grace of of God King of Great Britain France and Ireland Defender of the true auncient Catholick and Apostolike faith and Supreme Gouernour in all Causes ouer all persons Ecclesiacticall within his Dominions So ordained to be by the Diuine Masestie Most Gracious Soueragine THat busie pack-horse Iesuit Becan maintaining what in his small power lyeth diametrall opposition to your Maiesties rightfull supereminet power Ecclesiastical To make the same seem ludibrious in the eyes of his adherents as King Dauid dauncing before the Arke seemed to be in the eyes of prophane Michal in his printed empty pamphlet stiled Dissidium Anglicanú brought as it were vpon the vvorlds Theatre fiue English Protestant Writers in defence of your Maiesties said Supremacy namely the most learned Reuerend Bishop of Ely with his two Chaplaines Maister Thomson and Maister Burhill also Maister Doctor Tooker and my Selfe as iarring among our selues in many and materiall points of the said Supremacy and therevpon hee concluded that your Maiestie hath no iuct cause to vrge the taking of the Oath of Regall Supremacy vpon your subiects sith the defenders thereof in writing cannot agree in the main reall and essentiall parts of it Which pernitious proiect of the Aduersarie caused me in my most humble dutie loyall seruice to your Maiestie eftsoones to write my booke of English Concord therein shewing and prouing the sweet harmonie whereby all the fore said fiue Writers vtter the rightfull Supremacy of your sacred Maiestie Now because some of your Maiesties Popish and English subiects haue turned the said pamphlet of Becan out of Latin into English thereby to cause that poisonfull canker to spread further and that Roman leprosie to ouerrun the outward faces and inward hearts of English Papists on this side and beyond the Seas To countermine that serpentine plot viz. to suppesse or at the least to stay the further progresse of that running Canker it seemed good vnto your Maiestie to commaund the translating of my said booke into English which was done accordingly But before it could be printed Becan had written and sent to the last Frank-fort Mart his EXAMEN of my booke of English Concord which forced me to annex my REPLY and Refutation of his Examen in the Interim in English also because the other are in English intending with all conuenient speed to send the same Reply augmented beyond the Seas in Latin that this importune Aduersary may see his reed Examen shaken downe and shinered all to peeces and also may behold the English Concord fully maintained and iustified in euery part and parcell of Regall Supremacie I humbly confesse vnto your excellent Maiestie that it grieued me at my very hart to spend so many good houres in refuting the Almanack-pamphlets of this shallow and in very truth vnlearned Iesuit wherein is not to be found any learning reading or indicious discourse fitting a Father-Iesuit but onely boy-like wranglings about either seeming Iarres in vvords or syllables or escapes of the Transcriber Printer or Corrector in some abcedary letters in numerall figures in quoting the middle paragraph-word for the first vvord of the selfe same Canon vvhereas the very expresse words or the very substantiall matter according to the meaning of the Author and the purpose in hand was faithfully set downe These trifles which with his shamelesse calumniations vntruthes and scurrilities make vp the very bulke of his triobulare booke though they might well haue been let passe as things of nought or buried in silence yet because wise Salomon aduiseth Sometimes to answere a foole in his foolishnes least my silence heerin should cause this Iesuit to growe more insolent or the Popish sort in their vngrations and rebellious deniall of this Oath more confident I haue made this Reply to giue him more matter to vvorke vpon It beeing my setled resolution through Gods assistance whiles I breath to iustifie in vvriting against this Iesuit both the rightfulnesse of your Maiesties Supremacie and also the vniforme agreement of the said Writers therein The rather because though this Iesuit by his sillie scribblings brings shame and disgrace to the Pope whose cause he vndertaketh to defend yet is thought not the vnmeetest Emissary of his Vnholinesse for that this Popeparasite with his hard forhead dare set forth in print any thing for his Lord God the Pope against your sacred Maiâ—stie be it for the matter neuer so impiously grosse and for the manner neuer soimpudently sourrilous Wherfore having tasted of your Highnes most Gracious patronage in my former labours I am emboldned to present these also vnto your royall view beeing more desirous of your Maiest sole iudgement to approue the lines defending regall iurisdiction then of a whole Colledge or councell of our Aduersaries Because such is the desert of your royall minde and penne as vvas by Sabellicus attributed to Cicero Pulchriùs illi multo fuit Latinum sermonem quà m Romanum Imperium auxisse So is it more honour to your excellent Maiestie if such a Prince bee capable of accesse of Honour that you haue by writing propagated the religion of Christ then if by battell you had enlarged your Dominions and Great Britaines Monarchie The one beeing the price of the death of Iesus the other your most lawfull patrimony by the death of your royall fore-fathers Which the Lord graunt you may so long enjoy as your owne royall heart desireth and all your louing subiects doe say Amen Your Maiesties most humble and loyall subiect RICHARD HARRIS A PREFACE TO all English Papists who approue not the Gun-powder Treason aunswering the Preface of BECANE For as much as Becane hath discoursed of an English Iarre about the Supremacie I am willing to vse a few words vnto you but in no case to be troublesome with any tedious Oration About two yeares since Becane wrote two Libel-pamphlets touching the Kings Supremacie th' one against the Apologie and monitorie Preface of our most mighty and gracious Soueraigne IAMES King of great Britanne Th' other against a booke called Tortura Torti or rather against the author thereof the most reuerend Bishop of Ely The smoaky fumes of which Pamphlet for they contained no solide matter in them were dispelled by Dr. Tucker Mr. R. Tomson Mr. Rob. Burhill and by Hainricus Salo-brigiensis Notwithstanding Martin Becane abideth conceitedly obstinate although there be many things which might haue cooled his heate and taken from him all lust of further brawling And principally these First the iniquity of his Cause Then your indifferent equitie Lastly the manifolde
few Questions following I. Whether the King of England haue any Primacy in the Church or no II. Whether the Primacy of the King bee Ecclesiasticall and spirituall III. Whether the King by this Primacy may be called the Primate of the Church IIII. Whether by vertue of the same Primacy the King may be called Supreme Head of the Church V. Whether this Primacy consist in any Power or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall VI. Whether the King by reason of his Primacy can assemble or call together Councels and sit as President therein VII Whether he can make Ecclesiasticall Lawes VIII Whether he can dispose of Ecclesiastical liuings or Benefices IX Whether he can create and depose Bishops X. Whether he can excommunicate the obstinate XI Whether hee can be Iudge and determine of Controuersies XII From whence hath the King this his Primacy XIII Whether he can force his Subiects to take the Oath of Supremacy In these Questions doe our Aduersaries extreamely differ and disagree but especially these M. Doctor Andrewes in his Tortura Torti M. William Tooker Deane of Lichefield in his Combat or single Fight with Martin Bucane M. Richard Tomson in his Reproofe of the Refutation of Tortura Torti M. Robert Burhill in his Defence of Tortura Torti and M. Henry Salclebridge in his Refutation of Becane his Examen Besides these as opposite vnto them I will also cite Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England Genebard in his Chronology Polydor Virgil in his History of England Iacobus Thuanus of Aust in the History of his time Iohn Caluin in his Commentary vpon the Prophet Amos and others English Concord THe Regall Primacy in the Church of England is much more ancient then the Popish Primacy in the Romane Church The Regall Primacy had his beginning from the * Daniel chap. 7. v. 6 Ancient of Dayes vnder the most ancient Patriarchs It flourished magnifically vnder the Orthodoxall Kings Israeliticall and Euangelicall and now in England it flourisheth most of all vnder King Iames soundly sounded vpon the rock and built vpon the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets permanent for euer so that by the fall of raines the comming of flouds and the wine-blasts of any Iesuits whatsoeuer it cannot be so much as moued much lesse remooued and least of all rent and torne in peeces But of the Popish Primacy rightly saide Christ in the Gospell Euery Kingdome diuided in it selfe shall be desolate Now what and how great their Iarres and discords are I am to shew in handling these few Questions following English Concord BEcane in his booke of English discord and in his first Question demanded Whether the King of England haue any Primacy or Supremacy in the Church And I in my book of English Concord demaunded Whether the Pope haue anie Primacy in the Church considering that Saint Cyprian asserteth that Peter did neuer challenge or assume any such thing Epist ad Quintum 71. sect 3 as to say that he held the Primacy and that Chrysostome dogmatically writeth thus Whosoeuer desireth or affecteth the Primacy in earth as all Popes doe shall finde confusion in heauen Homil. 35 in Matth. Whereunto the Iesuite in his late book entituled Examen Concordiae Anglicanae The examination of the English Concord answereth or obiecteth thus BECAN Exam. THat they are not the words of Chrysostome Pag. 92 but of some other author ioyned with him 2. That these words are against our King desiring Supremacie in earth 3. That the Author speaketh promiscuously of both the Primaces Secular and Ecclesiasticall 4. but distinguisheth betweene the desiring and obtaining of the Primacy referring the one to vanitie and the other to the iudgement of God Dr. HARRIS Reply 1 I Doe commiserate the seely ignorance of this Iesuite Becane who knoweth not that these very words aforesaide are not onely canonized but also expresly fathered vpon Chrysostome in the Popes Canon law which the Iesuite dare not affront Dist 40. ca. Multi The wordes of the Canon are these Also Iohn Chrysostome Not euery one is a true Priest which is named a Priest Many Priests and few Priests Many in name but few in work Take heede therefore brethren how you sit vpon the Chayre because the Chayre doth not make the Priest but the Priest the Chayre c. The same Chrysostome Whosoeuer shall desire Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heauen neither shall he be numbred among the seruants of Christ Qui de Primatu tractauerit Who handleth or ambitiously speakes of or challengeth Primacy De Scriptor Ecclesiasticis And according to that Canon the most profound and famously renowmed Canonist euen by Bellarmine in his late booke to witte Henry Cardinall Hostiensis vpon the 15. Chapter of Penitency and Remission Cap. Cui Papa ascribeth these words vnto Chrysostome as to the Author of them thus And so in the Penitentiall Court the Pope is made lesse and his Confessor greater and this Chrysostome insinuateth Dist 40. Multi Wherefore the Iesuite may take from mee thus cleared this falsity vnto himselfe or else hee must returne it ouer To the Authoritie of their Apostaticall Church To their authentike and ordinary glosses and explanations of the Gospell To the decrees of the Romane Bishops To their chiefest Canonists and Diuines for in the writings of all those he may finde sentences written in that Worke called the Imperfect Worke alleaged as out of Chrysostom 2. By the expresse words of the foresaid Canon it is manifest that the words of Chrysostō are by their Canon law referred vnto Priests and Priests onely who sit vpon the Chayre in expresse tearmes often repeated Whereby it appeareth what a seely and vnmannerly Sophister this Iesuite is who thence frameth his Argument against our King drawne thus into form syllogisticall as indeed from thence it can be drawne no otherwise What Priest soeuer desireth Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in Heauen The King of England is a Priest desiring Primacie in earth Therefore he shall finde confusion in heauen Were this Iesuite in our Vniuersitie Schooles he wold be hist out as an absurd Dunse for arguing Our gratious King is no Priest but detesteth their Priests and Priesthood as Antichristian Hee is by the grace of God the high and potent Monarch of Great Britanne France and Ireland and vnder Christ made of God without any ambitious desire of his Primate or Supreme Gouernour ouer all persons and in all causes Ecclesiasticallor Temporall within his Dominions maugre the beard of the Pope and all his Shauelings But if the Iesuite will rightly assume out of the Maior proposition set down in the said Canon law he must take the triple crowne of Primacy from the Popes head and wrap it vp in the dust of Confusion thus What Priest soeuer though it were Peter himselfe doth challenge or ambitiously desire Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heauen But the Popes of Rome haue and now most of all doe challenge
misliked the one for vanitie and approued the other as a good thing giuen by God whereas the expresse words of Chrysostome are cleane contrary thus Nune scimus c. Now vve knowe that a good vvorke is one thing and the Primacy of honour is another thing And that it is good to desire a good thing but to couet the Primacie of honour is vanitie To shut vp this point The Christian Reader may here vnderstand that the Pope euen by the vertue of this testimony of Chrysostome set down in and authorized by the Canon law is incapable of Ecclesiasticall Primacy For if he be no Priest indeede he can be no Ecclesiasticall Primate indeede But by this Canon indeede he is no Priest because he is no Priest Opere in Priestly work that is as S. Paul expounds it to preach the vvord in season 2. Tim. 4.2 1. Pet. 5.2 Heb. 5.14 out of season c. or as Saint Peter explaines it To feede Christs flocke vvith the sincere milke or strong meat of the vvord or as Chrysostome here describes it To serue his inferiours by ministring vnto them all that hee hath receiued from Christ ready not onely to neglect his owne profit to procure theirs but also if neede vvere to lay down his life for them The Pope therfore being lesse in nothing then in this work is by the expresse words of this Canon nothing lesse then a Priest indeede and by necessary ineuitable consequence nothing lesse then Ecclesiasticall Primate indeede Here is now high time for this Iesuite to lay-vnder his shoulders for support of the tottering Primacy of his Pope very sore shaken by this Canon law-shot and ready to fall down into the dust Wherein pittiful is the Popes case who in this conflict for his defendour bath so seelie a weakeling and so ignorant a Iesuite as this Becane is and hereafter will more and more appeare to be English Concord BEcane in his book of Iarre in his second Question demanded Whether that Primacy of the King be Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall And I in my booke of Concord Page 4. and in my second Question demanded Whether that Primacy of the Pope be Secular and Temporall Because on the one side the Pope Lucifer-like asserteth All power to be giuen vnto him as vvell in heauen as in earth Which power Pope Boniface the eightth went about to put in practise vvhen hee endeuoured to strike a Terrour into Kings Princes Nations and people on the earth rather then to plans Religion in them And on the other side Chrysostome saith They who belieue not the Iudgement of God nor feare it abusing their Primacy secularly turne it into the Secular And Christ saith first vnto Peter I vvill giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen not of earth and then of himselfe My kingdom that is my Primacie which to the Pope is in stead of his kingdome is not of this world Ioh 18.36 If it vvere of this vvorld my seruants would surely fight that I should not be deliuered to the Iewes And this said diametrall opposition betwixt the Primacy of Christ and the Primacy of the Pope-Antichrist caused Pasquill to write in verse no lesse truely then eloquently thus Christus regna fugit sed vi Papa subingat vrbes Spinosam Christus Triplicem gerit ille coronam Abluit ille pedes Reges his of cula praebent Pauit oues Christus Petit hic Regna omnia mundi Pace venit Christus venit hic radiantibus armis Christ worldly kingdoms offered did eschew The Pope by force seeks kingdoms to subdue A Crowne of Thorne our Sauiour Christ did beare The Pope a triple Crowne of gold doth weare Christ vvasht the feet of his disciples all But all must kisse the Popes feet great and small Christ fed his sheepe and lambs most carefully The Pope to worldly kingdoms casts his eye Christ to his owne both milde and meeke did come The Pope with Armes the world doth ouerun Here is a matter very dangerous to the Popes Primacy which this shallow Iesuite not daring to denie and yet not able to answere vnto it leauing it as it were the body flyeth onely vpon the shadow that is the Citation as it followeth BECAN Exam. OVs of Gratian Page 92. Dist 9. cap. Innocen you 〈◊〉 the Pope asserting All power to be giuen to him as well in heauen as in earth but falsly For in Dist 9. there is no such Canon to be found Yea runne ouer all the Distinctions that are in Gratian yet you shal not finde it Indeede there is such a Canon in the second part of the Decree 22. Question 4. which begins thus Innocens but there it no mention of those words which are cited by you Dr. HARRIS Reply IS this beseeming the grauitie of Iesuiticall Fatherhood so childishly to snatch after flyes that is Escapes in Citations either of the transcriber or composer or correctour and sometimes peraduenture of the Author himselfe seeing those escapes are so frequent in most bookes printed The Glosse of the Canon law is so accurately and iudiciously written that the most learned Canonists circ it often for good Canon law as they doe the very text of the Canon law and yet the saide accurate Glosse faileth often in the Citations which it vseth whereof these two Escapes may serue for a taste viz. Dist 81. ca. Si qui verb. Emendent The Glosse citeth Dist. 22. ca. Nullus and yet in that Distinction there is no such chapter to be found Againe in Dist. 96. ca. Si Imperator verb. Definimus the Glosse citeth Cause 20. Quest 3. ca. Quasitum and yet there is no such chapter or Canon to be found in that third Question nor in that twentieth Cause If this Iesuite had written against the Authors of that learned Glosse he would haue strewed vpon them as he hath done vpon me in like case these his rhetoricall flowers or rather boyish scurrilities viz You cite the Canon falsely You haue not read the Canon You vnderstand nothing How ost shall I warne you to cite truly It irketh mee to warne you so often I see I doe but lose my my labour in desiring you to cite truely since I can obtaine nothing c. In Page 8. of my English Concord I cited Iewell his Apologie part 4. cap. 21. Dinis 7. collecting certaine reasons to proue that which I there alleaged Iewell for proofe of his collections cited First 9. q. 3. Neque ab Augusto Secondly Dist. 40. Si Papa Thirdly Dist. 19. Si Romanorum For my part the authoritie and most profound learning of that reuerend Father bred such a reuerence in mee towards him that I would not so much as examine the saide Citations but set them downe as I found them written in his booke Now the Iesuite in his Examination of the saide Citations finding some small slips in some of them bestowed vpon the Bishop through or by my sides these scurrile and disgracefull flowers
following You profit nothing I vvill teach you once againe It casilie appeareth that you neuer saw either the Glosses or Canons Such Glossators out of England are of no estimation Who would not admire the insolency of this Iesuiticall Bragadochio obiecting ignorance to the incomparablie learned Bishop Iewel vnto whom in the indifferent iudgement of any equall and indicious Readers of the writings of them both Becane is not worthy to holde the candle or to carry his books after him This I thought meete gentle Reader to signifie vnto thee in generall because this trifling disputer in his whole discourse following about Citations dooth nothing else but misspende the time in such emptie sopperies As for this Citation in particular viz. Dist. 9. ca. Innocent The very truth is it was onely the fault of the Transcriber for those very words D. 9. ca. Innocent written I expuncted with mine owne hand before any Iesuiticall censure passed ouer them The matter comprised in the words which I cited viz. That all power is giuen to the Pope as vvell in heauen as in earth was a thing so well knowne to all papists of any reading and also acknowledged as an article of popish faith that for proofe thereof I set downe no Citation in the Margine of my booke But now least this vnlearned Iesuite hauing read so little as by all his writings may appeare in the Canon law or popish Councells or Canonists should imagine that no proofes of the said matter are to be found in them I will direct him for his schooling sake first to the Canon law Dist 22. ca. Omnes Where Pope Nicholas speaketh thus Christ himselfe alone founded the Romane Church and erected it vpon the rock of faith when he gaue to Peter clauiger of eternall life the rights of the Empire earthly and also heauenly What is this else but more plainely translated into English thus He gaue to Peter and consequently to the Pope all power in heauen and earth But it may be the Iesuite would faine see the place where the very words are written Therfore Secondly I doe direct him to the popish Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Leo the tenth in which Councell Stephanus the Bishop of Petracha spake thus openly with great applause In the Pope is all power aboue all powers as well in heauen as in earth Thirdly I direct him to the most famous Canonist Abbot Panormitan who super prima primi de Electione cap. Venerabilem verb. Transtulit writeth thus The Pope may vpon very great cause transferre the Empire from one nation to another because he can doe vvhatsoeuer God can doe otherwise Christ had not beene so diligent a father of his family if he had not lest one on earth in his place vvho can doe all things that Christ himselfe can doe By this it is plaine that as All power in heauen and earth was giuen to Christ So all power in heauen earth is giuen to the Pope And consequently it is as plaine that as Christ is God so the Pope is God For better vnderstanding of which consequent I send the Iesuite to that learned and iudicious yet popish Writer Marsilius Patauinus who relateth out of Bernard thus All things were giuen to Christ because he was the eternall Sonne of God And Christ doth challenge to himselfe all things by the right of creation and merit of redemption And vvhosoeuer takes these vnto himselfe makes himselfe indeede God 2. Thes 2.4 That is as Saint Paul describeth him the popish Antichrist sitting in the temple of God as God shewing himselfe that he is God or rather exalting himselfe aboue all that is called God or worshipped Which may better appeare by Becanes solution of these two Questions following First whether as to Christ and Pope All power is giuen in heauen and earth so both Christ and Pope haue one and the same name giuen to them viz. The name aboue euery name that at the name of the Pope Phil. 1.9 as at the name of lesus euery knee should bow of things in heauen in earth and vnder the earth Vnto this former questioÌ„ I suppose Becane would say Respondetur quod sic that is affirmatiuely because in his Examen pag. 133. he saith The Pope Peter was receiued into the fellowship of the name and dignity of the indiuiduall vnity or Godhead Then the second questioÌ„ goes further thus whether at the name yea at the feete of the Pope all should not doe more than bow the knee since the greatest Emperours must fall downe flatte with their faces on the ground to kisse his feete and with their necks stretched out must receiue and entertaine his feete trampling vpon them and lastly as it is challenged at this time must offer readily their throats to be cut at the Popes pleasure Before I leaue this Straine I must set downe that which the Glosse out of the foresaide Canon Omnes D. 22. inferreth viz. thus Argumentum quod Papa habet vlrumque gladium et spiritualâ—m et temporalem This argueth that the Pope hath both the swords Spirituall and Temporall Euen as the Canonists also thence gather the Popes supreme power temporall euen ouer the Empire to conferre it to vvhom he will and to transferre it whence and whither he will And so the Pope falleth into the iust condemnation of God and Confusion in heauen whereof we heard before out of Chrysostome Here two great mischiefes are necessarily inferred pat vpon the Popes head the former That he is that Antichrist and his Primacy Antichristian The later That the Pope by reason of that his Primacy lieth deepely plunged into hellish confusion And yet here the Iesuite Becane is as mute as a fish so miserable a desendour of the Pope is he even that Becane who in the Preface to his Examen wished that he might be the kings valiant Champion to desend his Cause Now surely his Maiestie should be maincly wel holden vp through his great store of ignorance more grosse then euer I perceiued in any Iesuite Writer whatsoeuer English Concord BEcame in his Iarre Question 3. demanded Whether the King by reason of his Primacy may be called Primate of the Church And I in my Concord demand Whether the Pope by reason of his Primacy Anton. de Rosellis may be called as popish Writers call him King of Kings and Lord of Lords For example Boniface 8. vvho in time of solemne supplications vvent apparelled right as the Emperour himselfe Crowned vvith a golden Crowne Caesar like glistering in an embroidered gowne and a naked sword carried before him at his commandement Can ye Vide vit Dond in Sexco ô Academicks for the Iesuite often speakes to you beholding this spectacle forbeare laughing Vnto this the Iesuite saith no more but as followeth BECAN Exam. YOu cite out of the life of Boniface 8. vvhich is in the sixt booke of the Decretals these words Boniface 8. In time of solemne â—pplication but falsery There is no such
thing there neither yet in Platina vvho is vvell knowne to have written the life of Boniface accurately Peraduenture you found some such thing in the English fables but they out of that Iland carry no credit Dr. HARRIS Reply YEs I finde it in the Paralipom Vrspergensis page 365. thus Papa Bonifacius 8. ipso apparatu in Iubilaeo qui tunc Romae agebatur se solenniter ostentauit Primo quidem solenni die in Pontificalibus apparens populo Apostolicam ill is benedictionem impartitur postero die Imperiali habitu infula Caesarea insignis gladium ante se nudatum iussit deferri et sedens alta voce testatur Ecce duo gladij hic Boniface 8. in time of Iubile shewed himselfe the first day in his Pontificall robes the second day in his Robes Imperiall to witte the imperiall Crowne on his head c. and a naked sword borne before him vvith proclamation thus Beholde here two swords And there I reade also this exclamation Vides O Petre successorem tuum Et tu Salutifer Christe cerne tuum vicarium vide quò ascendit superbia Serui Seruorum tuorum Oh Peter thou seest vvhat manner of successour thou hast And oh Saniour Christ beholde thy vicar and see vvhither the pride of the Seruant of thy sernants hath ascended Further in Auentine vt ex concilio Vangionum I finde this written viz. The Pope vsurpeth both the Empire and high Priesthood as Decius and other vvorshippers of false Gods vvere vvont to doe The Iesuite mistooke my purpose in that marginall note Vita Bonif. 8. in Serto which was not to shew where it is written viz. that Boniface went in processioÌ„ Emperor-like apparelled but that the Christian Reader might be directed to a writing authenticall where he might see Pope Boniface 8. pictured out in far worse more odious colours namely at the end of the sixt book of the Decretals thus In the yeare 1294 Boniface got the Popedome but not without the crime of ambition and of other ill feats He pretermitted nothing vvhich either fraudor ambition could compasse Hee vvas so proud that hee contemned all men There are some vvho vvrite that hee suborned and priuily sent certaine men vvho in the night by a voyce sent downe as it vvere from heauen entering the Chamber of Pope Caelestine a simple man should perswade him to relinquish his Popedome if hee vvould be saued This is notorious that vvhen Prochetes the Archbishop of Geneua vvas before him on his knees vpon Ashwednesday vvhereas according to the manner the Pope should throwe ashes vpon his head say Remember man thou art but ashes and to ashes thou shalt returne Boniface cast ashes into Prochetes eyes and said Remember man thou art a Gibelline and vvith the Gibellines to ashes thou shalt returne The same Boniface sent his letter to Philip King of France first to exhort him and if that vvould not serue to threaten him to undertake the Hiernsalem expedition Philip commits that Legate to prison vvhereupon the Pope sends the Archdeacon of Marbon to command the King in the Popes name to dismisse his Legat and if he refused to tell him in the hearing of all men That because of his contumacy and violating the law of nations The kingdo â— of France was deuolued to the Church of Rome But Sarra sent by King Philip tooke the Pope prisoner and so brought him to Rome vvhere vvithin 35. dayes after for very griese of minde he perished In this sort dyed Boniface vvho indeauoured to cast terrour into the hearts of Emperours Kings Princes Nations and People rather then to sowe religion among them who also endeanoured to giue kingdomes and to take them awaie to put in and to put out vvhom hee vvould Learne all Princes both Secular and Ecclesiasticall learne by his example to rule the Cleary and people not proudly and contumcliously as hee did Behold here gentle Reader First how great the ignorance of this Iesuite is who knew not that the Treatise of the life of Boniface set down in the sixt of the Decretals was made by Platina Secondly how vnluckily the ignorance of this Iesuite here is which hath ministred vnto mee so iust an occasion to publish afresh vnto the world what a most shamelesse and odious Tyrant Pope their most renowmed Pope Boniface the eight was English Concord Becane in his Iarre and fourth Question demaunded Whether by reason of his Supremacy the King may be called the Supreame head of the Church And I in my Concord and 4. Question demanded Whether the Popeby reason of his Primacy may be called the supreme head of the Church considering that Gregory the great writeth thus What vvilt thou answere to Christ the head of the vniuersall Church Lib. 4. Epist. 38 at the tryall of the last iudgement vvho endeuorest by the name of Vniuersall Bishop much more by the name of the Supreme head of the vninersall Church to bring into subiection all his members vnto thee Vnto this though it touch the Pope necre the Iesuite in his Examen answereth not one word English Concord BEcane in his fift Question demanded Whether the kings Primacy consist in any power or iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall And I im my fift Question demanded Whether the Primacy of the Pope consist in any power or iurisdiction Temporall That is in a dominion temporall and coactiue considering that Christ saide thus The Kings of the nations beare rule ouer them but ye shall not be so and that Bernard writeth thus peremptorily Luke 22.25 Consider ad Eugâ—n lib. 2. It is plaine that dominion is forbidden the Apostles Therefore presume thou to vsurp to thy selfe either as a Soneraigne the Apostleshippe or as an Apostle the Soueraigntie Thou art plainely forbidden one of them If thou vvilt haue both together thou stalt lose both Otherwise thinke not thy selfe to be excepted out of the number of those of vvhome the Lord complaineth saying They ruled but not by mee And yet Martin Polon Boniface the 8 giueth the King of France to vnderstand that hee is chiefe Lord in matters Spirituall and Temporall through the vvhole vvorld and commands the saide King to acknowledge that he holds the Kingdome of France of him because it is hereticall to thinke and holde the conâ—rarie In like manner saide Pope Adrian The Emperour raigneth by vs Auentin 1.6 vvhence hath hee the Empire but from vs Beholde it is in our power to giue it to vvhom vvee vvill And according to their Canon law Kings and Emperours by the command and vvill of Christ receiue their power from the Pope as * Extran Joan. 22 Cum inter nonnullos in Gloss from their Lord God Hereunto the Iesuite makes answere as followeth BECAN Exam. Page 94. In the 7. Page you cite ex cap. Cum inter nonnullos Extrau Page 22. these vvordes Kings and Emperours c. I knowe not vvhether more falsly or ridiculouslie Indeede falsely because in that Chapter there is no such
beincorrigible I belieue that he may be thereof accused It easily appeareth that you neuer saw the Canons or Glosses You are better seene in fables Dr. HARRIS Reply BY this it is manifest that this Iesuit neuer saw or ranne ouer cursorily the Canons Glosses but is better seene in scurrilities Otherwise hauing the 40. Dist ca. Si Papa before him in the verie next page of the next leafe to the Canon Si Papa and there in the Glosse cap. Non nos verb. quis enim with the same view hee might haue read these words Semper praesumitur pro Papa vt 93. Dist. cap. 1. Vnde sacrilegij instar esset disputare de facto suo Vel die quod facta Papae excusantur vt homicidia Samsonis furta Haebraeorum et adulterium Iacob Vt extra de diuortijs Gaudemus The Pope is presumed alwaies to be good Therefore it were a kinde of sacriledge to dispute of his fact vvhose fact viz. murder is excused as those of Samson and his thefts as the thefts of the Hebrewes and his adulteries as the adultery of Iacob This stuffe is plaine enough but it is too too filthy Therefore with what face or shew of any little skillin the Canons or Glosses could the Iesuite deny the Gloss to haue any such vvords since the very words are there in the Glosse to be found Againe considering it was the Bishop Iewell and not I as my printed booke of Concord pag. 8. shewed who cited Dist. 40 cap. Si Papa hee sheweth himselfe to be of proiected impudencie who durst so basely thinke and write of that most learned Bishop viz. That hee neuer saw the Canons or Glosses If the Glosse write contrary it writeth contrary to it selfe and to the expresse words of the Canon it selfe Si papa which are these Papae culp as redarguere praesumit mortalium nullus quod cunetos ipse iudicaturus a nemine est iudicandus nisi deprehendatur a fide deuius No mortall man presumeth to reprehend the Popes faults because he is to iudge all and to be iudged of none vnlesse he be found Apostat from the faith The Gloss in 22. q. 2. ca. Non liceat saith plainely and not as here Credo I belieue or thinke Nullus mortalium papam possit iudicare Extra de Elect. ca. Innotuit Dist 40. Si Papa No man liuing may iudge the Pope Heresie as the Gloss Dist. 40. Si Papa saith well makes the Pope no Head of the Church But other Crimes cannot make him no head and so long as hee is Head of the Church by the Canon law he is the Church and aboue generall Councels Emperours and all mortall men liuing Therefore saith Innocent the Pope Dist. 96. ca. Satis euidenter It is shewed euidently enough that the Secular power can neither binde nor loose the Pope plainely called God by the godly Emperour Constantine now it is manifest that God can not be iudged of men And in 9. q. 3. Aliorum he concludeth thus God vvould haue the causes of other men to be determined by men but he hath questionlesse reserued the Bishop of this Sea to his owne iudgement He vvould haue the successors of blessed Peter to owe their innocencie to heauen only and to keepe a conscience inuiolate to the triall of the most subtile Discussor It is manifest that the faithfull euery where are subiect to the Pope vvhen as he is designed Head of the whole Body This being the maine and cleare doctrine of the Romish Catholike faith it is much to be feared least that the Pope reading what Becane hath here written viz. That the Pope may be iudged and if he be incorrigible deposed not for Heresie alone but also for other notorious crimes will not onely be much ashamed of him as of an vnlearned Iesuite and casheer him as a miserable defendour of him but also excommunicate him as an Heretike and an Impugner of his Maiesticall Primacy whose honour will soone bee buried in the dung-hill If hee may be iudged for his crimes notorious English Concord BEcane in his eightth Question demaunded Whether the King may conferre Ecclesiasticall Benefices And I in my eightth Question demaunded Whether the Pope may conferre Ecclesiasticall Benefices Here I did instance in the Collations of Ecclesiasticall Benefices in France made by the King of France and not by the Pope for proofe whereof I produced the Epistle of King Philip the faire to Pope Boniface the eightth thus Philip by the Grace of GOD the french King to Boniface bearing himselfe for highest Bishoppe c. Let your greatest fooleshippe knowe that the collation or bestowing of the Church-liuings doe pertaine to vs by our right Regall and that the fruites of them during the vacancie are ours That the Collations made alreadie by vs or heereafter to bee made are of force and validitie and vvee repute them fooles and mad men vvho thinke othervvise Vnto this the Iesuite in his Examen answereth not one word English Concord BEcane in his Iarre and ninth Question demanded Whether the King can create and depose Bishoppes And I in my Concord and ninth Question demaunded Whether the Pope may create and depose Bishoppes Heerein I shewed how blasphemously against Christ the sole head of the Church these Popes parasites write of Papall Primacy touching this point Durand De Minist et ordin li. 2 All Bishops descend from the Pope as members from the head and of his fulnes they all receiue Petrus de Palude The Church hath not any power of Iurisdiction but from Peter From Peter after Christ all spirituall power is deriued Bellarmine The Pope alone is Iure diuino by Gods word or right diuine but Bishops by the Popes law or by Papall ordinance Hereunto the Iesuite in his Examen maketh no answere as though such blasphemies were currant among them for good Popish-catholike doctrines English Concord BEcane in his tenth Question demanded Whether the King may excommunicate stubborn and disobedient persons And I in my tenth Question demanded Whether the Pope may excommunicate and depose stubborne Emperours who vvill not obey the Popes vvill as it vvere * De Translat Epist ca. Quanto in Glosla reason it selfe And here I mentioned the Treatise of Bellarmine against William Barclay published Anno 16 11 with this inscription Of the power of the Pope in matters Temporall Which said Treatise by publike edict in France was first adiudged to be burnt and so it had beene but for the restlesse importunitie of the Iesuits yet afterward by publike edict was it vnder a great penaltie forbidden to be bought solde or read as a Trentise erronious seditious schismaticall and pestilent This also the Iesuite in his Examen is content to passe by for that belike he would not stir vp againe that ill sauour of Bellarmines exceeding great disgrace therein English Concord BEcane in his Iarre and eleuenth Question demaunded Whether the King may be Iudge of Controuersies And I in my Concord and 11. Question demanded
and so procuring great peace to those Churches Whereupon Rhenanus marginall note was The Bishop of Rome doth Montanize But Tertullian saith againe that he afterward by the means of Praxeas reuoked his said letters and reiected Montanus Whereupon euen on the text word reuocare Beatus Rhenanus his annotation is this Rectissime ergo Ro Pontifex egit c. Therefore right well did the Bishoppe of Rome to condemne Montanus Doth not this shew apparantly that the Bishop of Rome was once a Montanist but after recanted And doth not the Iesuit feele this his owne weapon retorted into his owne hart BECAN Exam. Pag. OVt of the Councell of Constantinople you cite these words Anathematizari curauimus Honorium c. You follow the fraud of the Grecians who vpon enny inserted the name of Honorius when as it is plaine or certaine constat that Honorius vvas not there condemned as Bellarmin de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap. 11. proueth out of the Library â—â—eper Athanasius and others Dr. HARRIS Reply IN asserting Honorius to be a Monothelit heretick I doe follow three generall Councells viz. the 6. act 13. the 7. act the last and the eight act 7. And two Popes Agatho in his Epistle to Constantine the Emperour to be seene in the Synod 6. act 4. and Pope Lco 2. in his Epistle at the end of the 6. Synod And further I follow then owne Pontificall of the Popes liues in Leo 2. besides many as learned Writers as Bellarmine by whom it appearech manifestly that Honorius was an Heretick Our English man Harding in his booke against Bishoppe Iewell page 131. of Pope Honorius writeth thus Now at length Ma. Iewell you say that which hath some face of truth for Honorius indeed fel into the heresie of the Monothelits And this is the only Pope who may iastly be burdened with heresie Pope Leo 2. in his Epistle to the Emperour at the end of that 6. generall Councell hath these words We accurse Honorius who hath not lightened this Apostolick Church with Apostolick doctrine but by wicked treachery hath laboured to subuert the vndefiled faith In this my citation I sollow not as this fulse Iesuit saith the Greeke fraude but the edition of Councells by their owne Binnius Tom. 3. thus Concilium Constantinopolitanum tertium sextum vniuersale in quo ducenti octoginta et nouem Episcopi sub Agarhone Papa Constantino Pogouato Imperatore An. 680. et 631. Pag. Binnij 67. act 13. Impia execramur dogmata Sergij Cyri Pyrrhi et Theodori quos Agatho Papa abijcit vtpote contraria rectae fidei sentientes quos Anathemati submitti definiuimus Cum his verò simul proijci à sancta Dei Catholica Ecclesia simulque anathematizari praeuidimus Honorium qui fuerat Papa antiquae Romae eo quod inuenimus per scripta quae ab eo facta sunt ad Sergium quia in omnibus eius mentem secutus est et impia dogmata confirmauit We detest the impious doctrines of Sergius Cyrus c. whom we haue accursed vvith these we haue also cast out of Gods holy Catholick Church and accursed Honorius who was Pope of old Rome because vve found by those things vvhich he wrote to Sergius that he was vvholly of Sergius opinion and confirmed his impious doctrines Heere if I would hunt after Butterflies as this tryfling Iesuit doth I could tax him for his ouer-sight or ignorance in putting downe Athanasius for Anastasius But leauing this vnlearned Iesuit to correct his errors vnto Bellarmine hcere obiected against mee I say that Anastasius writing of the Popes liues in the life of Pope Leo 2 setteth downe Honorius among the hereticks who were condemned by the sixt generall Councell And for further answere I referre Bellarmine vnto Mr. Dr Whitaker Controuers 4. cap. 6. and to Mr. Dr. Reynolds his Conference against Hart ca. 7. Diuis 2. who both very largely and learnedly haue refuted all which Bellarmine hath written materiall for the cleering of Honorius By these Pope Hereticks the Christian Reader may learne what a dangerous thing it is to make the Pope Iudge of all Controuersies And further hee may heere obscrue with what deep silence the Iesuit letteth passe The Pepes Liberius and Leo for Arrian hereticks and Pope Anastasius for a Nestorian heretick So worthy a champion defender is Becane of the Popes Primacy English Concord BEcane in his Iarre and 12. Question demanded Whence the King hath his Primacy And I in my Concord Quest 12. demaunded Whence the Pope hath his Primacy Whether of Christ who said Ioh. 18. v. 36.1 Pet. 5. v. 3. Ro. 13. v. 1. My kingdome is not of this vvorld or of Peter Who forbade his fellow Presbyters to dominere ouer the Clergie much more ouer Kings Or rather of the Diuell Mat. 4. v. 9. Luk. 4. v. 6 who said I will giue vnto thee all the kingdoms of the vvorld and the glory of them for that is giuen to mee and I giue it to vvhom I will And euen so said the Diuels heire Pope Adrian Whence hath the Emperour his Empire but from vs Behold it is in our power to giue it to whom we will By these sayings it is demonstrated that the Pope hath his Primacie not from Christ but from the Diuell Yet heere the Iesuit hath not one word to answere for his Popes Primacy English Concord BEcane in his Iarre and 13. Quest demaunded Whether the King may compell his subiects to the oath of Primacy And I in my Concord and 13. Quest demaunded Whether the Pope may compell his subiects that is all Christians to the oath of Primacy Because according to their Canon law Dist 81. ca. Siquis What Christian soeuer will not obey the Popes precept euen to kill his Soueraigne and natiue King runnes into the sinne of Idolatry Heathenisme Especially the Bishops who 〈◊〉 etyed to the Pope by oath Aenae Sylnaus ad Mogunt That if they gaine-say the Pope though they speake the truth yet they sin against their oath made to the Pope Lastly De Rom. Pont. l. 4. cap. 5. because Bellarmine saith If the Pope should commaund vice or forbid vertue the Church were bound to belieue vertue to be euill and vice to be good BECAN Exam. Page 99 YOu cite out of Gratian Dist 81. cap. Si quis these vvords of the Pope If any will not obey our precept c. You have not read this chapter neither is the beginning of it Si quis but Si qui. Neither doth the Pope there decree that hee incurres the sinne of Idolatry who vvill not obey him in killing his nature King as you calumniate but the Priests and Deacons who after admonition will not abstaine from fornication and also they vvho will presume to heare those Priests and Deacons in their publique Ministery beeing interdicted to enter the Church Consult with the Canon and you shall find it Dr HARRIS Reply IHaue read that Canon ouer diligently more often
as a vertue it is presently good and the Church is bound in conscience to beleeue it to be good The like is to be said of Adulterie Incest Idolatrie Blasphemy VVhat needes now the Pope to dispence with these sinnes seeing that by his commanding of them to be done he makes them euen vertues That which Bellarmine affirmeth here to bee an absurditie and impossibilitie their great learned VVriters Schoolemen and Canonists as Ockam Cusan Antonin Sanders Turrecremata Zabarella Canus Alphonsus Hostiensis and Panormitan their Popish Councels as the 5. Roman vnder Symachus Councel of Basill yea the very Canon law Si Papa Dist. 40. grant and dogmatize to weet That the Pope may erre not onely in precepts of manners but more then so in doctrines of faith and also be an heretike Among the synodicall Epistles in the Councels of Basill thus wee read Many Popes are saide to haue fallen into errours and heresies It is certain that the Pope may erre The Councell hath often times condemned the Pope in respect as vvell of his heresie in faith as of his lewdnesse in life And touching the Canon law in this point Panormitan de Electio et Elect. potest ca. Significasti writeth thus The Councell may condemne the Pope of Heresie as in Dist. 40. Si Papa where it is saide that the Pope may be an heretike and may be iudged and condemned of Heresie VVho then could haue thought that Bellarmine would haue beene so shamelesse a flatterer of the Pope as to write that the Pope can not erre according to that of Alphonsus against Heresies Lib. 1. ca. 4. Non credo aliquem esse adeò impudentem Papae assentatorem vt ei tribuere hoc velit vt nec errare nec in interpretatione literarum sacraruÌ„ hallucinari possit I do not think that there is any one so impudent a flatterer of the Pope as to say he can not erre or be deceiued in interpretation of the Scripture To conclude I would learne of Bellarmine what answere he will make to this question of Erasmus writing vpon 1. Cor. chap. 7. thus If it be true which some assert That the Pope can neuer erre iudiciously vvhat vse is there of general Councells or of learned Diuines or Lawyers in those Councells vvherefore lyeth an appeale to the Councell or to the Pope himselfe better taught wherefore should there be any Vniuersities or any in them to busie or disquiet themselues in the questions of faith vvhen as all men may learne the certaine truth of one man onely how commeth it to passe that the decrees of one Pope are contrary to the decrees of another Pope And further I wil demaund why the Pope suffereth so many controuersies to be vndecided for example these three 1. Whether the Virgin Marie vvere conceiued without sinne or not 2. Whether the Popebe aboue a generall Councell or a generall Councell aboue the Pope 3. Whether the Pope haue supreme power in the Temporalls of all Princes Kings and Emperours Directly or Indirectly especially considering that the most learned Popish VVriters bitterly and irreconcileably dissent in these points This Iesuit Becane Page 101. in the winding vp of his most ignorantly-grosse and vniust censures of my false citations as he falsely speakes First tells me with a lying mouth and a brasen face that I neuer read the Authors which I haue cited But the Iesuit shall find feele by this Reply that I haue read and diligently perused them BECAN Exam. SEcondly That I may knovv if I haue read the history how that moe then 400 false citations were by Bishop Eureux noted to be in Plessaeus his booke of the Eucharist and that Plessaeus was publiquely coÌ„nicted of that crime before Henry 4 King of Fraunce Dr. HARRIS Reply I Read that story ouer in French from the beginning to the end partially written against Plessaeus wherein I find but 9 citations whereof Plessaeus and the Bishop disputed before the King Howsoeuer Plessaeus at that time daunted as may seeme by the Maiesticall presence of the King who had then forsaken the Orthodoxall faith which once hee for a long time professed and to his vttermost maintained and whom then notwithstanding outward shewes of indifferencie Plessaeus found indeed aduerse to him wholly addicted to his Aduersary did not so well iustifie those citations of his as either himselfe desired or his friends expected yet afterwards in his Booke printed he hath in particular maintained his said citations vnto the which booke I reâ—erre the Iesuit BECAN Exam. Page 102. THirdly Becane giues me his fatherhoods counsell to be warned by Plessaeus harms yet after his Iesuiticall lying manner he tells me withall That had my booke beene as large as that of Plessaeus vvhere there vvere 400. false citations in his booke according to the proportion there would haue beene in my booke a thousand Dr. HARRIS Reply THe learned Bishop did not tax Plessaeus his citations as this friuolous Iesuit doth mine for the ouersights of the Composer or Transcriber mistaking one syllable for another one word for another one name for another or one Canon for another so that the substance of the matter according to the meaning of the Author or truth it selfe were truly cited Which graue and learned course if Becane had kept with mee he should haue found none no not any one false citation of that kind as this Reply doth demonstrate wherein is iustified the very substance of all yea the very words and syllables almost of all the citations set downe in my booke of English Concord Therefore with strange impudencie doth this Iesuit say that my false citations in proportion would haue growne to a thousand as though none to none had any proportion Neuerthâ—lesse hereafter because this trifling Iesuit fowleth for feathers that is escapes in printing throgh the composer or Corrector I will be Corrector my selfe as my weighty busines will permit In the meane time gentle Reader vouchsafe to obserue what a warie course this Iesuit in his writings taketh duly proportioned to his very small learning and reading viz. to vse in a manner none or very few citations of any kind but onely to set downe with his penne whatsoeuer his empty braines conceiue After which course it were no hard thing to write a booke as large and as materiall as commonly his are euery weeke throughout the yeere one Now the Iesuiticall Syrts are past heereafter wee shall ride in the calme of apparant vniforme Concord touching the Kings Supremacie how soeuer this turbulent Iesuit like those restlesse wicked ones spoken of by Esay whose waters cast vp myre and durt endeuour to trouble the waters with the myre and durt of his Iesuiticall discord which by this Reply following is returned home and impacted vpon his owne face English Concord IN these Questions the Aduersaries dissent extreamely On the one side Augustinus Triumphus Aluarus Pelagius Hostiensis Panormitanus Syluester Henricus Gaudauensis Rodericus Sancius Alexander Alensis
IN England the King doth but nominate some to be Bishops They are chosen by the Deane and Chapter The King approueth and ratifieth the Electiò but they are consecrated Bishops only by Bishops And therupon without any grant therof froÌ„ the King they haue ipso facto Episcopall function and Iurisdiction in externall Court Whereby it is apparant euen by this Iesuitesinterpretation of the words that our Bishops doe not descend from our King as the Romish Bishoppes descend from the Bishop of Rome who receiue the gifts of the Holy-ghost and the vertue and effect of their preaching from the Pope and so descend from him as members from the Head which Pope saith Bellarmine is the onely Bishoppe iure diuino by the word of GOD and all the rest of the Bishoppes Archbishops Patriarkes are but his Curates iure humanâ— by the wordor inspiration of the Pope Inspirante Petro as Leo saith The Pope breathing on them the Holy-ghost All English Academicks would detest such descending of our Bishops froÌ„ the King who giueth vnto our Bishops chosen and consecrated their Baronries and Iurisdiction coactiue by corporall or temporall mulcts which is Dr. Tookers meaning herein but not Iurisdiction meerely sacerdotall or Episcopall viz. to excommunicate to giue Orders to confirme c. And so here is still the Concord maintained BECAN Exam. Pag. 134. THE rest vvhich you cite out of Hostiensis and the Abbat you neither cite vvell nor understand It irketh mee to warne you so oft and to obtaine nothing Dr. HARRIS Reply TRuely I vnderstand that Martin Becane is a very vnlearned and slugge Iesuite as shall in this place manifestly appeare In the meane time I pray you Christian Reader to obserue how the case is now altered touching the Popish Headship from that it was heretofore for euen as Antichrist groweth on to his height of impudency and impietie so the Headship increaseth Heretofore the Pope was said to be not simply the Head of the Church as Christ is but the inferiour-ministeriall Head now hee is growen to be the Supreme Head equall with Christ as hauing the same Tribunall and Consistorie that Christ hath and being able to doe all that Christ can doe To proue this I cited the words of the two most famous and iudiciously learned Canonists that euer were Cardinall Hostiensis and Abbat Panormitane and in the margine of my booke I quoted rightly the places where those words were written The matter you see to be of the greatest moment and most fitting to the dispute of the Head of the Church here in hand yet the Iesuite hath no other thing to answere but this you doe not cite those wordes well nor vnderstand them Whereof Christian Reader be you iudge after that I haue produced at large their owne words which are as followeth Panormitan Super prima primi de Electione cap. vener abilem verb. Transtulit Papa transtulit imperium in Germanos Papa autem hoc potuit facere ex magna causa concurrente cum possit facere quicquid Deus potest Alias Christus non fuisset diligens Paterfamilias si non dimisisset in terris aliquem loco sui qui expedientibus causis possit omnia facere quae ipse Christus Hanc regulam firmauit Hostiensis in cap. Quanto De Translatione praelatorum vbi dicitur quod cum Dei et Papae idem sit consistorium omnia potest facere quae ipse Christus excepto peccato Sed improprie excipit peccatum quod Peccatum non cadit sub potentia imò sub impotentia The Pope translated the Empire to the Germanes The Pope might doe it vpon great cause because be can do whatsoeuer God can doe Otherwise Christ had not beene a diligent father of his family if hee had not left one in his owne stead on earth who as causes require can do all that Christ himselfe can doe This rule hath Hostiensis confirmed in cap. Quanto de translat Praelat where it is said that seeing there is but one and the selfe same Consistory of God and the Pope The Pope can do all things that Christ himselfe can doe except sinne But Hostiensis improperly excepted sinne because sinne falleth not vnder power but rather vnder impotency or weakenesse By these their words thus at large set downe it appeareth that I cited the words well and knew what I cited euen enough to demonstrate that the Popish Primate is a blasphemous Head and that our King is no such Head Both which are appatant to any man of reading but this slugge Iesuite is so vnlearned that hee vnderstandeth nothing which hath any sound learning or iudicious reading in it ⧠Becans Iarre V. Question Whether the Kings Primacy do consist in any Power or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall HEERE now is there a great Iaure and debate amongst our English Aduersaries nor can the same be easily vnderstood vnlesse it be first well distinguished Ecclesiasticall Power is threefold as the Diuines doe teach One of Order another of interiour Iurisdiction the third of exteriour Inrisdiction To the first belongeth to effect or consecrate and to 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 dooth M. Tooker confesse page 14. vvhere he saith Reges non habent potellatem administrandi Sacramenta Kings haue not power to administer Sacraments It is also certaine that be hath not Iurisdiction of the interiour Court or Court of Conscience For this in like manner doth M. Tooker confesse pag. 63. Omnis jurisdictio saith be in foro interiori Sacerdotum est nulla Regum All Iurisdiction in the interiour Court or Court of Conscience belongeth to Priests not ance vvaie to Kings c. 2. All the question then is whether the King hath Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall 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 distingnishing M. Tooker affirmeth it pag. 305. in these words Qui habet plenissimam amplissiman iurisdictionâ—min foro exteriore potest candem dare auferre Rex eam habet Ergo potest eandem dare auferre Totum hoc liquet ex V. N. Testamento Hee that bath most full and ample Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court can giue and take away the same at his pleasure But the King hath this Iurisdiction Ergo he can giue and take away the same All this is manifest out of the old and new Testament c. With him agreeth also M. Salclebridge pag. 140. Regesoleo sacro vncti capaces sunt Iurisdictionis spiritualis Kings saith be anointed with holy oyle are made capable of spiritual IurisdictioÌ„ c. And then again in the same place out of the Lawes of Eng. Rex saith be est persona mixta vtpote
qui EcclesiasticaÌ„ temporaleÌ„ iurisdictioneÌ„ habet quideÌ„ Supremá The king is a person mixt to wit that hath both Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall and Temporall that in the highest degree c. And yet more p. 144. Perleges Ecclesiasticas in hoc Regno approbatas vnus Sacerdos duo beneficia habere non potest nec Bastardus Sactis initiari Verùm Rex Ecclesiastica potestate iurisdictione quam habet in vtroque dispensate potest By the Ecclesiasticall Lawes approned in this Kingdom of England one Priest may not have two Benefices nor a Bastard be made a Priest But the King by the Iurisdiction And Power Ecclesiasticall which hee hath can dispense in both c. 3. M. Tompson and M. Burhill doe absolutely deny it M. Thomson pag. 80. of his booke writing thus Primatus Ecclesiae non est definiendus per iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam sed per gubernationem supremam The Primacie of the Church is not to be defined by Iurisdiction Ecclesisstical but by supreme GouernmeÌ„t c. And againe pag 95. Diximus Regem gubernare quidem Ecclesiastica sed non Ecclesiasticè Wee haue said before that the King indeed doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically And why I pray you Because for sooth be hath not Iurisdiction Ecclesiatically but onoly Temporall And heerounto agreath Must Buchill pag. 234. granting this negatine proposition Rex saith he nullam habet Iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam nec in foro interiori nec inexteriori The King hath no Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall neither in the interiour nor exteriour Court c. 4. Now my Lord of Ely hee distinguisheth in this case as may be seene in M. Tookers Booke pag. 305. in these vvords Habet Rex omnem iurisdictionem spiritualem in foro exterioti exceptis quibusdam Censuris The King hath all inrisaction spirituall in the extoriour Court except is certain Consures c. So as now to this question to weet vvhether the King as hee is Primate and Head of the Church haue any Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall or spirituall in the exteriour Court we must anâ—were 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 notall And lastly with M. Burhill and M. Thomson That hee hath none no not any one iote at all English Concord Pag. 38 THese are the very expresse words of the law of England which is now in force Star 1. Elzab That Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction vvhich was exercised heeretofore or lawfully might be exercised by any spiritual or Ecclesiasticall power to visit the Ecclesiasticall state order also to reforme to bring into order and to correct Ecclesiasticall persons all errours heresies schismes c. is for euer vnited and annexed to the imperiall Crowne of this kingdome vvhereby the King of England through his full power by his Letters Patents may assigne authorise such persons being naturall borne subiects as he shall think meet to exercise execute vnder his Highnes all manner of Iurisdictions priuiledges and preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction within his Highnesse Dominions Now all Protestant English Writers in the Oath of Supremacy which they haue takeÌ„ Lorament Primat in Apol. Reg. pag. 56. haue openly testified in their conscience declared that they will with all their power ayde defend all Iurisdictions Priuiledges and prehemiâ—eâ—ces vnited and annexed to the Crowne of this kingdom Wherefore all plainly agree in the thing it self But that which the Iawes of Engl. call Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction define to be the supreme Gouernmet in all Ecclesiasticall things ouer all Ecclesiasticall persons M. Thomson would rather call Supreme Gouernment The R Tortur Tort. p. 151 Bishop touching this matter writeth thus This I vrge that the IurisdictioÌ„ which Abbesses haue with you is ordinary spirituall IurisdictioÌ„ For the Abbat hath ordinary in her administration the Abbess is equalled with the Abbat And what should let it Because they cannot exercise censures excoÌ„municate But excoÌ„munication doth not directly belong to the key of order In 4. SenteÌ„ Dist 18. q. 2. art 2. Aquinas asserteth this Excommunication is no act of the key directly but rather of the externall court And it is a common opinion with you that he that hath not the key of order may excommunicate Those things which are of order and the inner court are denied to women but things belonging to the outward court are coÌ„municated to Layiks of those things there is no reason but that women may be capable As Stepha d'Aluin doth stiffly argue for his Abbesses and therein takes our part the Sorbon approuing his opinion therein Although we ascribe not to our King power of Censure and therein you giue much more to your Abbesses then we to our Prince Ma. Burhill demes the King to haue any Iurisdiction in the outward court to weet Sacerdotall So the King of England hath all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction that is Supreme and Regall wherof onely our controuersie is but no Sacerdotall no none at all and yet without any Iarre whatsoeuer But oh Becane can you without blushing if there be but a graine of pudency in you obstinatly detract froÌ„ most religious Kings all supreme Iurisdiction properly Regall when women of whom St. Paul 1. Tim. 2. v. 12. I permit not a woman to vse authority ouer the man with you are capable Fran. Steph. D' Aluin de Potestat Episc Abbatú Abbatiss ca. 2.3 4.11 c. and partakers of Spirituall Iurisdiction Sacerdotall or Episcopall viz. Of power to excoÌ„municate Clerks to absolue to visit to institute to present to Benefices Prelatures dignities Ecclesiasticall yea of hauing all administration as wel spirituall as temporall but only of those things of order wherof a woman is incapable Lastly al those things which Salobrigiensis doth heer recite touching Kings anointed with sacred oyle c. Mixt persons c. which may dispense against lawes Ecclesiasticall are transcribed out of the expresse words of the common lawes of England which in this kind of argument might haue satisfied to the full BECAN Exam. Pag. 139 THomson saith expresly that The Primacy of the Church is not to be defined by Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but the law of England doth so define it Thomson saith that The King doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically therefore his Iurisdiction is not Ecclesiasticall Burhill detracteth from the King all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in the outward Court that is as you say Sacerdotall but Tooker faith that All iurisdiction of Priests is in the inward Court The Bishop of Ely saith The King hath no Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the outward Court but onely power of Censure And saith againe The King hath not power of censure But Hainric and Tooker say The King hath all supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction The English law saith The King hath all manner
nothing hindred but that they might excommunicate because according to Tho. Aquinas Excommunication is not an act of Order or inward Court but of the outward And I in my English Concord set downe the particulars of that ordinary spitituall Iurisdiction of Abbesses viz. To excommunicate absolue visit institute conferre benefices present to Benefices Prelatures and Dignities Ecclesiasticall and to haue all Administration of the Monesteriall Monialls or Nunnes as well Spirituall as Temporall but onely those things of order vvhereof a vvoman is incapeable ex Tractatu doctissimo out of the most learned Treatise of Father Stephen Dr. Aluin entituled thus A Treatise of the Power of the Abbats and Abbesses printed at Parise 1607. authorized solemnly to be printed and in very singular manner allowed with high commendation by the Diuines of Parise deputed for examination of all bookes to be printed there In my margine notes I directed the Iesuite to the particular chapters of that Treatise where the said Stephen doth not onely assert those particulars but also solidly and indiciously proue the same by the Canon law and best Canonists writing comment vpon that law Notwithstanding this Iesuite as though his nose bled turneth aside from all these so many words so many pressures of him and saith but this It is false Abbesses with vs haue no power to excommunicate Did euer any Iesuite so vnlearned as this Becane is and here shewes himselfe to be vvrite with penne Stephen D'Aluin doth not only say it but from sound premisses conclude it The Iesuit leauing the premisses vnanswered or vntouched denieth the conclusion and sinking vnder the burden of the respondent will rather play the opponents part and so obiecteth these two emptie Canons nothing to the purpose 23. q 5. cap Multerem The former is of priuate women that they should be subiect to their husbands and not vsurpe authoritie ouer other men as to teach them publikely to iudge them to rule or raigne ouer them to weet as the Glosse expounds it in temporalls If this Canon should be vnderstood generally of all women for Abbesses are not there once mentioned then Mathilda Countess of whom the Gloss in L. vlt. cod de Arbit maketh such honorable mention could not command or iudge them who were her subiects as Countess nor Q. Mary so much commended by al Papists might raigne as Queen ouer her English subiects By what right or law then did shee shed innocent bloud of so many Martyrs Archbishops Bishops Priests Laiks of all sorts Sexes and Ages exceeding much till she replenished England from corner to corner as Manasses did Ierusalem Angel in rep quā cod de fidei com et in L. Foeminae F. de reg iur is et in L. cum praetor F. de iudic saith that He saw a certaine Queen named Ioan sitting in the Regall seate and giuing sentence of death against them of Balso The latter Canon saith that Monialls or Nunnes De senten Excoman ca. De Monialibus laying violent hands vpon Clerks should or might be absolued by the Bishop which is true when either the Abbess is not exempted from Iurisdiction Episcopal as many of them are not or when the Pope doth not giue or deriue from himselfe as Head ordinary Spirituall Iurisdiction to the said Abbesses as to many of them hee doth for then it is a ruled case especially amongst the Canonists though peraduenture this seely Iesuit be ignorant therof that they may by vertue of that ordinary Spirituall Iurisdiction excōmunicate absolue institute visite c. those Ecclesiasticall things onely excepted which pertaine to the key of order Indeed the Schoolmen as Thomas Aquinas in 4. dist 19. q. 1. art 1. et 2. q. 3. ad 4. also dist 25. q. 2. art 2. q. 1. ad 2. And Paladanus Durand in 4. dist 19. q. 1. art 1. Syluester verb. Abbatissa and Dominicus Soto in 4. Dist 20. q. 1. art 4. deny to Abbesses Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction or dinary yet they acknowledge the same as delegated vnto them from the Pope But the Canonists proceede further for they hold that the very dignitie of the Prelature and excellencie of the offices of Abbesses dooth giue vnto those Ecclesiasticall women to weet Abbesses Spirituall Iurisdiction not only delegated but euen ordinarie ouer their Monialls or Nunnes and this they gather out of the Canon law De Maior et Obed. cap. Dilecta where Pope Honorius 3. commands obedience to the Abbesse of Brubigen who had suspended Clericos suae Iurisdictioni subiectos ab officio et beneficio The Clarkes vnder her from their office and benefice This is a more plentifull and sound answere vnto these two Canons so fondly objected then the Iesuite deserueth and so we may leaue him here But because this point now in hand doth so neerely touch the Kings Supremacy or his Supreme Iurisdiction Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall to stifle this Iesuite herein once for all and euer hereafter I will proceede to the further declaration and demonstration hereof wherein I will obserue this course following viz. to proue out of the Canon law or Canonists ancient and moderne or both First in generall that all Laicks Males or Females are capeable of Iurisdiction Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall in the outward Court euen to Excommunicate Dist. 32. ca. Praeter hoc verb. Ducibus in Glossa Laicus de mandato superior is potest suspendere clericos et excomunicare quia Excommunicatio est potius Iurisdictionis quam or dinis Ext. de Elect. Transmissam Dist. 63. c. Adrianus etc. In Synodo D. 96. c. Bene quidem et c. Nos ad sidem et causis matrimonialibus 35. q. 5. Ad sedem 2. q. 5. c. Mennam Io. Hoc tamen videtur alienum a laico cum de rebus spiritualibus se non intromittat vt Extra de Indi Decernimus imo vt ibt dicitur prohibetur praelatis vt talia Laicis non committant tamen Dominus Papa qui habet plenitudinem Potestatis posset committere vt Excommunicarent Bar. A laick to weet male or female for some of the Canons here cited by the Glosse concerne the males but others especially the last concerne the females directly as that 2. q. 5. Mennam may suspend and excommunicate clarkes by command or commission from the superior especiallie of the Pope viz. by Spirituall power delegated because excommunication is not of Order but of Iurisdiction in the outward Court Dist. 96. c. bene quidem in the Glosse § Praeter Romanum Papa quamlibet causam Ecclesiasticam committere potest laico The Pope may delegate to a Laick spirituall Iurisdiction of Externall Court whereby to heare and determine any cause Ecclesiasticall More distinctly thus 1. Of Laik males Dist. 96. Bene quidem in gloss verb. Laico Non licuit Laico homini sacer doti anathema dicere vel excommunicare iure suo sed ex delegatione Papae bene A Laik man could not lawfully by his owne right or power excommunicate
but because they are set downe there not only as Canons or Doctrines allowed but also as Essentiall parts of holy writte and Canonical Scripture so neither Assuerus Ordinance was not any Law or Canon of Bishop was is or euer shall be According to that of Saint Hierom vpon the 89. Psalme Quamuis sanctus sit aliquis post Apostolos quamuis disertus sit non habet authoritatem No man be hee neuer so holy or eloquent after the Apostles hath any authoritie The Canons and Doctrines of the Apostles are the foundations whereupon the Church of Christ is built Ephes 2.20 and containe that absolute certainety of Diuine truth that If an Angell from heauen should teach otherwise he should be accursed Agreeable to that of Saint Augustine Contra liter Petilian lib. 3. ca. 6. De quacunque re quae pertinet ad sidem vitamque nostram non dicam si nos sed si Angelus de coelo nobis annunciauerit praeterquaÌ„ quod in Scripturis legalibus et euangelicis accepist is Anathema sit Bee it of any thing that pertaines to faith or maners I do not say if vve but if an Angel from heauen preach otherwise then is set down in the scriptures Legal Euangelicall let him be accursed But of all other Lawes Canons and Writings Origen in his first Homilie vpon Hieremy writeth thus Sensus nostri et enarrationes sine his testibus non habent fidem Our iudgements or decrees and our Explanations vvithout these witnesses haue no credit And these witnesses saith Augustine De Pec. mer. et Remiss lib. I. cap. 22. nec falli possunt nec fallere Can neither deceiue nor be deceiued Therefore when Constantine the great had gathered those 318. Bishops to the famous Councell of Nice by way of instruction he gaue vnto them the Apostles Canons and Doctrines set downe in the Scripture as their Directorie rule whereby to make and square their Ecclesiasticall Canons Theodoret lib. 1. cap. 7. reports the wordes thus Euangelicae et Apostolicae literae c. The writings of the Euangelists Apostles and Prophets do plainely instruct vs in the vvill and minde of God Therefore laying aside contention let vs seeke out of those oracles diuinely inspired the vnsolding of things propounded Therefore what horrible blasphemy is this in the Iesuit to assert first that the Bishops their lawes and writings are of like inspiration and authority to binde the Conscience as the Canons and Doctrines of the Apostles contained in the Scriptures Secondly that it mattered not whether those Canons and Doctrines were written in Gods booke or no. Because Aristotle faid of all lawes Scriptaene sint leges an non scriptae interessenibil videtur Wheras Tertullian saith against that Heretike Hermogenes Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina Sinonest scriptum timeat vae illud adijcientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum Let Hermogenes shew it written or else let him feare that curse which is appointed for those vvho adde to or take from the Scripture And touching Philosophers the same Tertullian in the said book writes thus in capital letters Haereticorum Patriarchae Philosophi Philosophers are Arch-fathers of Heretikes Secondly That the Apostles Canons Doctrines set downe in Scripture are but humane Canons and Doctrines Which then saith Augustine de vnitat Eccl. contr Petilian cap. 3. were to be taken away His words be these Auferantur de medio quae aduersus nos inuicem non ex diuinis Canonicis libris sed aliunde recitamus Quaeret fortasse aliquis cur vis ista auferri de medio Quia nolo humanis documentis sed diuinis oraculis Ecclesiam sanctam demonstrari Away vvith all those authorities that either of vs alleage against the other but those that are taken out of Canonicall Scripture If any aske why I would haue all other authorities put away I answere because I vvould haue the Church demonstrated by Diuine Oracles not humane documents Plus aliquid dicam saith Chrysostome in his second Homily vpon Pauls second Epistle to Timothy Ne Paulo quidem obedire oportet si quid dixerit proprium si quid Humanum I will say more Paul him selfe is not to be beleeued If hee speake any thing of his owne if he speake only as a man Therefore Saint Paul of his Canons and Writings saith thus If any man thinke himselfe to be a Prophet or Spirituall 1. Cor. 14.37 let him acknowledge that the things vvhich I write to you are the Commandements of the Lord. How great is this Iesuiticall impietie and how abhominable too call Diume Oracles and Gods commandements Humane documents But this is not all The Iesuit addeth out of Vlpian for a generall rule That thesole will of the Prince is sussicient to make a law to be of force to binde Christians to obey for conscience sake for of such lawes only we here dispute Whence this impiety should necessarily follow that because Nabuchodonosor the Law-maker vsed all his Monarchicall power and authoritie to make a decree That euery subiect of his should fall downe and worship the golden Image which he had set vp Sidrach Mishak and Abednego were bound in conscience to fall down and worshippe it Heretofore we haue found the Iesuit to be very vnlearned but in this passage he declares himselfe to be impious also and blasphemous BECAN Exam. Page 169 WHere read you that the fift Councell of Constantinople vvas celebrated vnder Theodosius You alwayes erre Indecde the words you cite are in the first Councell of Constanunople viz We pray your Clemency to confirme the Councells decree The reason of which words you saide was this That alt though those Fathers made a decree which had force of an Ecclesiasticall law and force to compell by Ecclesiasticall censure yet they prased the Emperour to confirme the decree by adding a constraining force through temporall punishments If this your reason whereby you defended Thomson be good why doe you aske me another If if be not good why did you not answere for him better If Thomson meane that Prelates may by their owne authority make lawes Ecclesiasticall to bind their subiects to the keeping thereof by â—â—â—sures Ecclesiasticall but cannot vrge them by punishments Corporall and that Kings should onely subseruire serue vnder the Prelates as their outward executors hangmen or the like he consenteth with vs. Otherwise there is no Concord Chuse which you will Dr. HARRIS Reply COncord What concord hath Christ with Belial The beleeuing Protestant with the Idolatrous Papist The seruants of Christ with the sworne slaues of Antichrist Wicked Nahash the Ammonite would not couenant with the Gileadites for peace vnlesse he might thrust out all their right eyes and bring shame vpon all Israell The Iesuit here more wicked than Nahash protesteth that he will haue no concord with vs vnlesse he may not only bring shame vpon Israel but quench the light and glory of Israel to weet that our Kings casting their Crownes at the Popes nay at
controuersies of faith but in other controuersies both of them agree that Christian Emperours haue giuen iudgement vpon 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 double falsehood First when hee blusheth not to write that Hainric affirmeth the King by vertue of his supremacie 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 Peter 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 Primate of the Church or Ecclesiasticall supremacie Secondly though Becan saith Hic vhique dissidium nothing but iarring yet in good sooth that Christian Princes haue with commendation iudged taken vp controuersies of faith out of these words of Socrates 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 Closet alone and most earnestly maketh prayer to GOD that his Maiestie vvould helpe him to finde out the truth Lastly 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 Part. 6. cap. 13. Diuis 2. Pag. 524. in the defence of his Latine Apologie gathered the same doctrine and concluded the same opinion the words are these pag. 172. in the Apology 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 Catholicks That which Hainric writeth heere of the controuersies 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 sooner 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 decisions 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 aduantage 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 dissension or debate about any point of faith as for example 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 controuersie 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 certaine 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 about this point or article of the Popes religion An sides 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 Eucharist 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 Catholicks 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 Sacrament 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 about 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 greatnesse 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 spirituall 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 consisteth 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 Sacraments therefore aboue no Ecclesiasticall things as are the controuersies of Bishops Against Doctor Tooker his expresse meaning in the same leafe BECAN Exam. Pag. 204. YOu say Haintic and Tooker doe not dissent heerein Richard I admire your impudencie Hainric saith Christian Princes commendably haue determined controuersies of faith Tooker saith Christian Kings are not Iudges of faith These are vtterly repugnant there in none so blinde vvho may not heere see a Iarre For if they be no Iudges how can they iudge And if coÌ„mendably they iudge matters of faith they must needes bee Iudges of faith It is certaine Hainric is of opinion that the King is supreme Iudge of faith amongst men in this life or vvhich is all one the supreme President of Councels GOD onely is absolutely the supreme Iudge or President of Councels Wee say The Pope amongst men is supreme Iudge You say The King or Emperour Dr. HARRIS Reply HEere is nought else but the empty froath of the selfe-same things reiterated Doctor Tooker saith The King is not supreme Iudge in controuersies of faith amongst men Hainric averreth the same Hainric saith Christian Kings laudably haue iudged and determined matters of faith Doctor Tooker knoweth and acknowledgeth the same Impudencie it selfe would hardly say there were any iarre heerin But the Iesuit cannot conceiue how one may commendably determine a controuersie in any matter vnlesse he were the onely supreme Iudge euery vvhere touching that matter As though Iames did not determine that controuersie of faith in the CouÌ„cell of Hierusalem Act. 15. v. 19. And yet the Iesuit will not permit Iames to be supreme Iudge in controuersies of faith As though Daniel did not commendably iudge determine the controuersie touching the chastitie of Susanna and yet Daniel was no supreme Iudge of womens continencies or incontinencies When in the first Nicen Councell the controuersie amongst the Bishops was Whether Bishops Priests Deacons or Subdeacons should sleepe vvith their wiues which they had maried before they were in orders And when the rest of those Fathers wold haue made a Canon prohibiting the vse of their wiues Paphnutius grounding himselfe vpon that in Scripture Mariage is honour able among all men and the bed vndefiled determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The companie of man and vvife to be cleanenesse and chastitie And therevpon saith Sozomen Lib. 1. cap. 22. Paphnuij sententiam approbauit Concilium et de hac re nullam legemtulit sed eam in cuiusque arbitrio non in necessitate poni voluit The Councell approeued his sentence and would not make any such Canon but left it free to the choice of euery one of them And yet Paphnutius vvas no supreme Iudge of all such matters The Iesuit would disdaine to call Hosius Bishop of Corduba supreme Iudge in controuersies of faith yet Athanasius in his second Apology writeth thus of him In qua Synodo dux ille et Antesignanus non fuit Qua Ecclesia istius Praesidentiae non pulcherrima monumenta retinet In vvhat Councell hath not Hosius beeâ—e chiefe and President vvhat Church is vvithout some notable monuments of his Presidentship But why doth not the Iesuit answer vnto Socrates who writeth the very same that Hainric affirmeth herein and much more in the Proem to fift booke where hee hath these words Passim in historia Imperatorum mentionem propterea fecimus quod exillo tempore quo Christiani esse coeperunt Ecclesiaenegotia exillorum nutu pendere visa sunt atque adeo maxima Concilia de eorum sententia et conuocata fuerunt et adhuc conuocantur Therefore in this history haue we mentioned the Emperors because since they first became Christian the Churches affaires depended vpon them and the greatest Councels were and are assembled by their command Surely if to bee Presidents in those greatest Councels be all one as to be supreme Iudges of faith so the Iesuit heere would haue iâ— how can it be avoided but that Emperours were supreme Iudges in those controuersies handled in the said Councels and so in controuersies of faith for such controuersies vvere handled in them seeing that as that great learned man and Cardinall Cusanus in his book of Concord Lib. 3. chap. 16. writeth and he writeth as he sound it That Emperours or other Senatours vvere alwaies Presidents and had the Primacie in those said greatest Councels The Iesnit cannot deny but that Cusanus so writeth vvherefore then doth hee not shape Cusanus his aunswere VVherefore Because a man may as soone expect water out of a Flint-stone as any indicious learning or reading from this so vnlearned and shallow Iesuit If the Pope should be that vniuersall Bishop or supreme Iudge of còtrouersies in faith then as said Pope Gregory the great If he erre in the faith all the members of Christs Church then liuing must erre in the faith Then Hereticks Apostates from the faith and the principall Authors of that Apostasie that is Antichrists viz. Popes may be supreme Iudges of controuersies in faith Which is impious and absurd For as Lyra in Math. cap. 16. saith Constat c. It is certaine that many Popes haue beene Apostates from the faith Therefore we hold no man to be supreme Iudge in controuersies of faith because All men are lyers Therefore we say The Lord alone is supreame Iudge because as Augustine against Cresconius the Grammarian lib. 21. chap. 2. saith Dominus semper veraciter iudicat Ecclesiastici autemiudices sicut homines plerumque falluntur God iudgeth alwaies truly others euen Ecclesiasticall Iudges are most commonly deceiued BECAN Exam. Pag. 206 TOOker heerein followeth your King vvho in controuersies of faith sendeth euery man to his owne priuate conscience for so he vvriteth in his Praeface Monitotory Opto vt velitis I wish you would diligently read ouer the Scripture to take from thence the rule of faith and to place the foundation of your faith in your owne certaine knowledge and not in the vncertaine opinion of others Which is all one as if he had said There is no certaine iudge in the matter of faith but euery one is to rest in