D^r. HARRIS Reply.

I Knowe the Iesuite heerein belyeth this State most impudently: by which, none but traite­rous, or at least, seditious obstinate Cacolikes (& not any one meerly for faith or religion) haue been or are imprisoned, exiled, dispoyled, or executed.

2. The Iesuit here confesseth, that those said trai­tors were Catholikes; and themselues (euen the Gun-powder-traitors) confessed that their treason was vndertaken for their faith and religion. So trai­terous and dangerous to Christian States is the Ie­suited Popery.

3. This Becane in his cōscience thinketh that these words, You are made gazing stocks, were and are most fitly and truely to bee applyed to Garnett, that cunning, but arch-traitour; viz. when hee was dis­membred, and his head and quarters fixed on high, to be gazed on.

4. The present Iesuited Romish faith, is impious heresie, and Idolatrous blasphemy: the religion is grosse superstition, and open rebellion against God [Page 2]and the King; or rather an open profession of the lawfull killing of Kings (Gods Anointed) by the meanest vassals of the said Kings, authorized by the Pope to kill them. As it is plainely set downe by Suarez, in his late booke against our King, Lib. 6. chap. 4. imprinted by publike authoritie with pri­uiledge. Therefore by all lawes diuine and humane, why may not all such Iesuited Cacolikes be most iustly imprisoned, dispoyled, exiled, or executed as guiltie of high treason, for this their traiterous and rebellious faith and religion so stiffely maintained by them? especially, when as by their owne popish doctrine, Hereticall obstinate Schismatikes (such as indeede all those Cacolikes are) may be impri­soned, and dispoyled of goods, lands, and life it self: and when as so many thousand deare Saints of the Lord, meerely for their orthodoxall faith and pure religion, haue beene in their bloudy Inquisition, and other popish persecutions, most sauagely tortured, euen to death. Therefore with great impudency doth he charge vs with shedding the bloud of Mar­tyrs for faith and religion; from which wee are as free, as they therein are guilty.

5. No small number of popish Martyrs, so ca­nonized and enrowled amongst them, were in truth haynous and diabolicall Traitors against the King, Queen, and State heere; and accordingly were here executed: therefore, indeede these words, You are made agazing stock &c. the Iesuite applied to Trai­tors, to wit, such popish Martyrs.

6. Lastly, the exceeding clemency of our King [Page 3]towards the now imprisoned seditious and treache­rous Cacolikes is such, that they fare more delici­ously and liue more sportfully (I might well haue said, riotouslie) then millions of his Maiesties good subiects doe, who enioy their libertie. This is too too well knowne. And this, forsooth is that hard-hard vsage, and hot persecution, which hath bred this Iesuiticall exclamation.

English Concord.

THe Regall Primacy, in the Church of Eng­land, is much more ancient then the Popish Primacy in the Romane Church. The [Page 5]Regall Primacy had his beginning from theDaniel 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 [Page 6]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:

D^r. 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 [Page 7]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 [Page 8]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 (as their right) Primacy in earth; [Not onely ouer the whole Cleargy (contrary to that Inhibition of S. Peter. 1. Pet. 5. v. 3. Not as Lords ouer Gods He­ritage) but also ouer Kings: and that not only in Spiri­tualls, but also in their Temporalls: viz. in their Goods, [Page 9]Reuenews, Crownes, Kingdomes, liberties and lines; As their chiefest Iesuite Writers, Bellarmine & Sua­rius, and this meane Iesuite Becane, haue not beene ashamed to dogmatize in their late publike writings: some whereof haue beene euen by State-Papists, in their Parliaments censured and condemned, as sedi­tious & pernitious against Kings prerogatiues roy­all, crownes and dignities. And some of them by vs, here lately haue beene purged by fire.] and also most ambitiously haue and do desire and practise to get the Popedome; and being opposed therein, do by all, euen bloudy meanes, endeuour to retaine the same;Onuphr, in Chronie. Rom. Pont. as the thirtie Schismes in the Church of Rome about the Popedom (wherof the last & worst lasted by the space of fiftie yeers together, raysed and con­tinued by the ambitious desire thereof in the Popes themselues; euen to the shedding of the liues bloud, of two hundred thousand christians, caused by two Antipopes at once) doth more then demonstrate. To instance this ambitious desire in one, but their principall one and chiefetaine, Hildebrand the first, who with brasen face did openly vndertake to de­pose the Emperour from his Empire: The Car­dinall Beno, who liued with Hildebrand and knewe him too well, writeth thus of him; Hildebrand poysoned sixe Popes, to make his waie to the Popedoma. Nauclere reporteth that the clergy saide, Pope Hil­debrand was excommunicated by the Bishops of Italy, as hauing defiled the Apostolike Sea with Simonie, &c. And Abbat Vrspergensis writeth,Anno. Dom. 1080. that the Councell of Brixia censured Pope Hildebrand [Page 10]as an vsurper of the Sea of Rome; not appointed by God, but intruding by fraude & money. And to speak in ge­neral, as Mantuan saith, of Rome and Romanists;

Where all things come for money, there is no probabilitie, that the Popedom (there more worth then all things else) should come freely without money, &c. Rome is no changeling: of which the Iesuites may read in the Canon law, thus: Roma fundata fuit a praedonibus, adhuc de Primor dijsretinet; dicta Roma, quasirodens manus.

Roma manus rodit: quos rodere non valet, odit.

Rome was first founded by thieues, and sauoreth still of her beginnings.

By th' hand Rome byteth States: and whom shee cannot bite, she hates.

If Rome bite all not giuing; sans gifts, shee popes none liuing.

Now since the Assumption is so plainely proued, we may thus conclude,

Therefore the Popes of Rome shall finde confusion in Heauen.

Hence the Popish Antichrist is by the Apostle tearmed fitly, Filius perditionis, The sonne of perdition or confusion.

Moreouer, from the words of Cyprian, is this Syl­logisme (as canon-shot) directed against the verie heart of the Popes Primacy, thus: If Peter did not, ne could challenge to himselfe Pri­macy; then the Pope hauing no Primacy, but as Peters successour, cannot challenge Primacy to himselfe: But Peter could not challenge Primacy to himselfe (as Cyprian here saith,De Simple Praelator and else where proueth thus: Hoc erant vti (que), &c. The rest of the Apostles vvere the same that Peter vvas, endewed vvith like fellowship of Honour and Power.)

Therefore the Pope cannot challenge the Primacy.

This of Cyprian the Iefuit passeth ouer, dry-foot: and not without cause; seeing hee could get no baulme from Gilead to cure this deadly wound gi­uen to the Pope, by Saint Cyprians foresaid Canon­shot.

3. The Iesuite doth here shamefully bely Chryso­stom, affirming that hee speakes promiscuously of both Primacies, Secular and Ecclesiasticall; where­as most distinctly hee writeth thus of them: Do­minus introduxit, &c. The Lorde brings in a diffe­ference betweene worldly, or temporall Princes, and Ecclesiasticalls: because the Princes of the vvorld are therefore made, that they might rule ouer their subiects, and serue themselues of them, 1. Sam. 9 ver. 11. &c. and spoyle them to their owne profit and glory (according to the saying of God to Samuel; ‘This shall be the manner of your King: hee will take your sonnes for his Chariot­driuers, Captaines, and Husbandmen; and your Daughters for Apothecaries, Cookes, and Bakers: [Page 12]he will take your fields and vineyardes, and giue them to his seruants, &c.)’

But the Princes Ecclesiasticall are therefore made, that they may serue their vnderlings, and minister vnto them all things which they haue receiued from Christ: That they should neglect their owne profit, and procure the profit of others: and if neede be, that they should not re­fuse to die, for the safety or saluation (pro salute) of their inferiours. Therefore if these things be so, there is cause and profit to desire the Secular Primacy; but to desire the Ecclesiacticall, there is neither reason nor cause. For what wise man would hasten vvillingly to submit him­selfe to seruitude, labour, griefe, and such a danger, as to render an account for all the Church, before the inst Iudge? vnlesse peraduenture, he thinke there is no iudge­ment of God, or feares it not: as one, abusing his Ecclesi­asticall Primacy secularly, changeth the Ecclesiasticall into the Secular.

Than which words, what could be written more distinctly and plainely, against this lying Iesuite, and his Popes Primacy; to stop the mouth of the one, and to plucke vp the other by the rootes? I meane the Primacy Papall, which is now become the high­est temporall Primacy in the earth: of which, the Emperours, as vassals, holde their Imperiall crowns, yea their liues; and yet neither of these, but during the Popes pleasure. And this is with them become an article of the Romish faith. Hence it is, that his Maiesties subiects are forbidden by the Pope, in their oath of Allegiance, to sweare, that, what in them lieth, they will preserue the life of their So­ueraigne, [Page 13]against the Papall, and all other forrain pow­er; because (as the Pope hath definitiuely set it down) they should therein deny the faith. Is not this his Ec­clesiasticall Primacy become Temporall, or rather Dia­bolicall? Therefore euery good Christian, from Chry­sostome here is to learne, That the Pope either thinketh there is no God, or Iudgement of God to come; or that the feare of God, and of his Iudgement, is not before his eyes. Surely, if the popish Primacy be that Ecclesiasti­call, here described by Chrysostome; the Pope will no longer contend for it; he will soon hate it worse than dogge or snake.

4. The Iesuite here either very ignorantly, or ve­ry impudently abuseth his Reader; whom hee would make belieue that Chrysostome in that Homily, so di­stinguisheth the Primacy of Honour, to witte Ecclesi­astical, from the obtaining of that Primacy; as though he 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 [Page 14]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, [Page 15]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:

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.

D^r. 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: [Page 17]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. Ne (que) 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 [Page 17]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 [Page 19]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 [Page 20]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 questiō, 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 questiō 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 vlrum (que) gladium, et spiritual [...]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: [Page 21]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.

D^r. 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 [Page 23]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 processiō 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, [Page 24]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^• 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, [Page 25]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 Eug [...]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 con [...]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, asExtran. Joan. 22 Cum inter nonnullos. in Gloss. from their Lord God.

Hereunto the Iesuite makes answere as followeth.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

EXcuse mee (Christian Reader) vttering the truth of this scornefull Iesuite, in more tart manner, here and there, than otherwise is vsuall with me, or fits my disposition.

If euer there were, or be, an ignorant slug, trifling lie friuolous, boyish lie scurrilous, & a lying, forsooth, Fa­ther Iesuite▪ this Becane is one, & among such may bear the bell: as I wil make it appeare before I dismisse him.

His boyish scurrilities are two: In the former, hee asketh whether Iohn and Page, be all one with mee? A question fitter to be made by a Petite school-boy to his fellow, then by a Father, Iesuite, to an ancient Di­uine. In the second, hee would cut-off all my hope to attaine the degree of Batchelour. The Iesuite may knowe that I am a Doctour in Diuinity, of 19. yeares standing; it may bee, as ancient Doctour as himselfe. Howsoeuer that; I dare boldly auerre this; that Be­cane, in comparison of Doctour Harris, is (in man­ner) but an Abecedary scholler in the varietie of all good literature diuine and humane; in all the liberall sciences; and in all the learned tongues: as he shal find, to his shame, if therein hee dare grapple with mee. I must confesse, and say with Saint Paul, I vvas a foole to boast my selfe. But the scurrilous disgracings of this seelie Iesuite haue enforced mee.

As his scurrilities, so his lies are also two: The former, That I cited out of the Chapter Cuminter non­nullos, [Page 28]Pag. 22. whereas in my paper book, it was cited thus in short: Extrauag. 22. ca. Cum inter nonnullos. But the transcriber, corrector, or compositor put-in, Page. And is not this a boyish feather for the boyish father-Iesuite to play withall? As though such ouersights in printing, are not vsuall? This Iesuite himselfe, Exam. pag. 98. will haue, an escape of farre greater moment to passe in the printed books of Tertullian against Praxeas.

His second vntruth is; That I cited it so falsly, not of ouersight, but of meere ignorance, and dulnesse. Alas for this feely ignorant, and (here) impudently lying Ie­suite! vnto whom, vpon pawne of all my books, I will vndertake and performe it, to read Lectures out of the Canon law; in the studie whereof I haue spent more weeks, yea moneths, then this Iesuite hath bestow­ed houres.

His extreame ignorance in the Canon law, is made Here apparant in these 3 points following. First, in that he confoundeth the 6. book of the Decretals, with the Extrauagants; whereas they are distinct parts of the Canon law: which law is diuided into these 6. gene­rall parts;

• 1. The Decrees, gathered by Gratian.
• 2. The Decretals, compiled by Gregory 9.
• 3. The Sixt of the Decretals, made by Boniface 8.
• 4. The Clementines, by Pope Clement the fist.
• 5. The Extrauagants of Iohn 22.
• 6. The Extrauagants common, made by diuers Ro­mane Bishops, after the Sixt of the Decretals.

The second point of his ignorance is in confoun­ding. cap. Cum inter. with cap. Cum inter nonnullos: viz. as like as an apple is to an oyster.

The third point, who in his ignorance is apparant is in citing thus: Extrauag. Cum inter Ioan. 22. Dever­borum significatione. When as the Canon or chapt. Cum inter. is to be found, neither in that Title Deverborum significatione, nor in all the Extrauagants of Ioan. 22.

Now therfore the Iesuit is to answere mee, to those fine questions, touching the three points of his verie grosle ignorance in the Canon law heere manifested.

• 1 Whether the Decretalls & Extrauagants be all one with him?
• 2 Whether Boniface and Iohn be all one with him?
• 3 Whether 8. and 22. be all one?
• 4 Whether cap. Inter. and cap. Inter nonnullos be all one?
• 5 Whether a chapter of a Title, extant; and a chap­ter of the same Title, not extant; be all one with him?

And then let the indifferent Readr iudge, whether any child could be more foolish in citing, than he; and how vndeseruedly he obtained his degree of Doctor­ship.

The truth is, that place, viz. Extrauag. Ioan. 22. cap. Inter nonnullos in gloss. was cited by mee, to shew, that Kings receiue their power, non simply, of the Pope; but more then so, viz. of the Romish Bishop, as of Their Lord God the Pope.

The Iesuit, Eudaemon Ioannes, writing in defence of the Iesuit-traytor-Garnet, saith, he could not find in a­ny printed booke of Extra. Ioan. 22. those words: Our Lord God the Pope. Yet afterwards finding those verie words, he ingenuously confessed the same.

I knowe not, neither doe I much care, whether Be­cane haue like ingenuitie in him: but sure I am, these [Page 30]verie words are in that Gloss:Printed in folio at Pa­ris. Auno 1513. Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam, conditorem dicti decreti, non potuisse sta­tuere proat statuit, hareticum censeretur. To belieue that our Lord God the Popo, &c. Is not this pretie heathenish blaspnemie? The heathen called their Emperour, Our Lord God Domitian. The Papists call their Primar, Our Lord God the Pope.

English Concord.

BEcane in his Iarre, and sixt Question, demaun­ded, Whether the King by his Primacie, may call Coū ­cells, and presede in them?

And I, in my sixt Question, demaund, Whether the Pope by his Primacie, may call Councells, and prese de in them?

I instanced in two generall Councells; the one of Constance, wherein three Popes, Iohn 24. Gregory 12. and Benedict 13. were deposed. The other of Basil, in which, Pope Eugen. 4. was depriued of his Popedom; and another chosen in his roome. But this the Iesuit silently passeth ouer, though it may happely rend the Popes hart-strings in-sunder.

English Concord.

Becane in his Iarre, and 7 Question, demanded, Whether the King can make Ecclesiasticall lawes? And I, in my Concord, & 7 Question, demand. [Page 31] Whether the Pope can make lawes Ecclesiasticall, & dis­annull lawes Temporall?

Heerein I produced 4 Ecclesiasticall lawes against the Pope and his Primacy. The first,Dist. 99. ca. Primae. That the Bishop of the first Sea or Seat, be not called Prince of Priests, or high Priest, or any such like; but onely, The Bishoppe of the first Sea: neither let the Bishop of Rome himselfe, be called Vniuers all Bishop.

The second;Cyprian in Conc [...]lio Carthagi. Concil. Cō ­stantin. 6. cap. 36. Concil. A­fric. ca [...]2. That no Bishop should make himselfe Bi­shop of Bishops, or Papa, that is, Pater Patrum.

The third; That the Bishop of Constantinople, should haue equall authority, with the Bishop of Rome.

The fourth; That they should not be receiued to the Cō ­munion of any within Africk, who held Appeales lawful to any Iudgements beyond the Sea. Especially to Rome: for this Canon was made purposely, against Appeales to the Bishop of Rome.

Concerning the Popes power ouer lawes Secular, I produced a currant generall Axiome of theirs, viz. The fulnesse of the Popes power surpasseth all positiue lavves: And it sufficeth, that, in the Pope, his will stand for reason. And therein I did instance by this sentence of Panor­mitane, De Constitut. ca. Ecclesia Sanctae Mariae, nu. 9. (which also agreeth wholly with the Rubrike of that chapter). Thus, The law of the Prince, preiudiciall to the Church:or the law of any Inferiors behoueful to the Church: doth not extend vnto the Church, vnlesse it be expresly ap­proued by the Pope.

Then I added thus: The reasons heereof collected out of the Canon law, by Iewell, in his Defence of the Apologie, are these;Part. 4. c. 21. Di. 7. Though the whole vvorld should sentence against the Pope, yet the Pop [...]s sentence should pre­uaile; [Page 32]because he seemes to haue all lawes,9. q. 3. Ne­que ab Au­gusto.or rights, in the closet of his breast.

And againe: Therefore that which the Pope allowes, or disallowes, Dist. 19. cap. S [...] Roman, in Glossa. wee ought to allow, or disallow. Whosoeuer then doth not obey the statutes of the Romane Church, is to bee accounted an heretick.

Further,Dist. 40. Si Papa in Gloss. That it is a kind of Sacriledge, to dispute of that vvhich the Pope doth.

Morcouer, That the Pope hath a coelestiall arbitriment: vvhence it followeth, Extr [...] de tr [...]ps [...]. Epi. ca. Quinto. in Glossa. that in those things which bee willeth, His will to him for Reason is: Neither is there any vvho should say to him, Sir or Lord, vvhy doe you so?

Lastly, That as the Pope by his owne will onely, can cre­ate a law: Felin de Relc [...]pt. so by his owne will onely, hee can disper [...] vvith the lavv.

The Iesuit, in his Examen, answereth nothing vnto the lawes Ecclesiasticall, either of the vniuersall Bishop, or of the Equality bet weene the Bishop of Canstantino­ple, and the Bishoppe of Rome: and yet those said two lawes, expell the Pope with his Primacy, out of the Church, and shut vp the Church doores against him (as they of Eden were against Adam) to preuent his future re-entrie. But because the Iesuite doth make particular answers vnto most of the remainder; I will set them downe seuerally, and my Reply vnto them; as followeth.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

WHereas he saith, he cannot find that 92. chap. or the words heere specified; wee haue the Iesuit confessing himselfe guil­tic of his most palpable ignorance in the Canon law & Councells. Their owne Binnius, whose Edition (as they will haue it) is the last, largest, and best Edition of the Councells; in his first Tome, pag. 643. citeth the 92. ca. Concil. African. sub Coelestino et Bonifac. in these very words: Ite placuit, vt Presbyteri, Diaconi &c. in cau­sis quas habuerint, si de iudicijs Episcoporum suorum que­sti fuerint, vicini Episcopi cos audiant, et inter eos, quicquid est, finiant adhibiti ab eis ex consensu Episcoporum suorū. Quod siab eis prouocandum putaucrint, non prouocent nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad Primates prouinciarum sua­rum. Ad transmarina autem, quiputauerit appellandum, à nullo infra Africam in Communionem suscipiatur. If Priests, Deacons, &c. complaine of the iudgement of their Bishops, let the next Bishops heare their causes, &c. If they shall thinke meete to appeale from them, let them not appeale but onely to the Councells of Africk, or to the Primats of their owne Prouinces. But let not him bee receiued of any within Africk to the Communion, who thinks hee should ap­peale to iudgement beyond the Sea.

These words the Iesuit might haue found in the E­pitome of Councells, written by their Carranza. Yea in their owne Canon law, 2. q. 6. cap. Placuit vt Pres­byteri, & 11. q. 3. ca. Presbyteri. Therefore the Iesuit, heere, makes himselfe, together with his ignorance, very ludibrious.

Touching the Decretall Epistles, and others mu­stred among them, they haue beene long since vpon iust demerit, branded as bastards. As for the Coun­cell of Sardica, Cardinall Cusanus, De Concord. lib. 2. ca. 25. saith; That S. Augustine held not the Councell of Sar­dica for a Catholick Councell, but rather for a Councell of Arrian hereticks. And further, That the Fathers in the Councell of Africa (in which Councell Saint Augustine was present) in their letters to Pope Coelestin, wrote, that they neuer found this Constitution decreed in the Councells of any Bishops. Wherefore, it may well be doubted, whether this be a Constitution of the Councell of Sardica, or not.

This answere may suffice the emptie citing of an E­pistle, and Canons of a Councell. Wherout when the Iesuit expresseth other matter, he shal receiue a further answere.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

INdeed, if I were so rude, and such a stranger in the Fathers and Councells, as hee sheweth himselfe heere to be, I might rightly be termed rude and ig­norant. The very misplacing, and the twice setting downe of the same Canon, and of the same Councell for words so diuerse, might easily haue informed the Iesuit, that it was the Compositors, or Transcribers, and not the Authors ouersight. There is none that knoweth Becane and my self, but presume that I know as well as hee, the times and places of all the Councells put forth in print; and that I could not be ignorant of this, viz. that S. Cyprian was dead, a glorious Martyr, more then 50 yeeres before any of the foure generall Councells (much more before this sixt of Constantino­ple) was celebrated or called.

But, silly Iesuit, can not hee find these words of Cy­prian vttered by him, in any Councell where hee was present? Can hee cite any Councell but that of Car­thage, where Cyprian was present? Or is hee ignorant, that Cyprian was present at the Councell of Carthage, and there vttered these words, Nemo nostrum Episco­pum. &c. If he be so ignorant, let him heare Cyprian in these his owne words. Superest vt de hacipsa re, singu­li, quid sentiamus, proseramus, neminem iudicantes, aut à iure Communion is, aliquem, si diuersum senserit, amo­uentes. Neque enim quisquam nostrûm Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico timore ad obsequendi necessitatem, colleg as suos adigit: quando habet omnis Epi­scopus, [Page 36]pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suae arbitriū; pro­prium, tanquam iudicari ab alio non possit, qui nec ipse po­test alierum iudicare.

Let euery of vs vtter what vvee thinke of this matter, iudging no man, nor excommunicating any, who shall think otherwise then we doe. For there is none of vs, that makes himselfe a Bishop of Bishops; or by tyrannicall feare for­ceth his colleagues to obey: sith euery Bishop may speak free­ly what he thinks, iudged of none, as he can iudge none.

Doth not the Iesuit knowe euen by the name Papa, that the Pope ambitiously makes himselfe Bishoppe of Bishops, in their popish Canons? and tyrannicallie by oath, enforceth all Bishops to the necessity of obeying him, to say as he saith, in their canonicall obedience? If he know not, let Aeneas Syluius, afterward Pope Pi­us 2. schoole him in these words: Bishops contradicting the Pope, though they speake the truth, yet they sin against their oath made to the Pope.

If this Iesuite were not ignorant that Cyprian spake those words in the Councell of Carthage; what a friuo­lous Doctor is he, misspending the precious time a­bout trifling escapes of the Printer, or Transcriber &c. viz. of the word, Constantinople, for the word Car­thage? as though such escapes were not frequent in the Popes Canon law.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

THe Iesuit here vndertaking to be my Schoole­maister, proues himselfe to be a very blockish, and a ludibrious Teacher. To proue, not as he imagineth, The fulnesse of the Popes power to surpasse all Positiue lawes: but that The temporall lawes, with, or against the Church, extend not to the Church vvithout the Popes expresse allowance; I cited the place rightly, thus: De Constitut. cap. Eccles. Sanctae Mariae. nu. 9. But the Ie­suit, after the depth of his shallow capacitie, cites it thus: De Constitut. Ecclesia Sanctae Mariae, leauing out these words, numero nono. Whe [...] as those very words, if he had but any smattering skill, in the Commenta­ries vpon the Canon law, might easily haue informed him, that these words and syllables, viz. Lex praeiudicia­lis Ecclesijs, &c. were the words of Panormitan, vvri­ting vpon that chapter, as indeed they are, thus;Paner de Const [...]r ca. E. cl. Sá [...]e marae. nu. 9. Lex Principis, praeiudicialis Ecclesiis, non extenditur ad Ecclesi­as, nisi expresse approbetur per Papam. Si verò est Con­stitutio laicorum inferiorum fauorabilis Ecclesiis, non ex­tenditur aliquo modo ad clericos, nisi sit approbata per Pa­pam. The lawes of Princes, prerudiciall to the Church, ex­tend not to the Clergie, except the Pope expresly allow them.

Though these words, Lex praeiudicalis &c. bee not in the Canon, but in the Rubrick of the same (and euen [Page 38]that is enough to make this Iesuit blush) yet the mat­ter is fully set downe in that Canon, De constitut. ca. Ec­cles. S. Mariae. And the case was between Iohn de Ar­chea (who appealed) and the Church of S^t. Mary, tou­ching certaine possessions then in contiouersie, before the iudge of appeale: who, by reason of a certaine sta­tate of Rome, spoyled the Monastery of the said pos­sersions, and transserred them to the Church of Saint Marie; giuing corporall possession thereof.

This cause being brought to the Pope, he sets down this decree: We, considering that layites hauing no power ouer the Church, or Church-men, if they make a law which may restect the good of the Church is of no validity, vn­lesse it be established by the Popes authoritie; doe make void that vvhich is done in preiudice of the Monasterie and dif­finitiuely doe sentence, the possession to be restored vnto it.

These things beeing thus made plaine to the Iesuit, it is meet now he should answere how those lawes, in­deed anciently made, but lately reuiued, and reen for­ced by the Venetians, so exceeding preiudiciall to the Church and Church-men (as the Pope in his late excom­municating Bull expresly and his two Cardinalls, Bel­larminus and Baronius particularly, haue set downe) stand still in force, euen to the expulsion, and extirpa­tion thence of all Icsuits, without any hope of their returne. Whether, because this said Canon hath lost his force; or for that the roating Bull hath lost his hornes, and is now become no more feared, then a braying Asse?

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

IT is not I, who (to prooue, that if all the world would sentence against the Pope, yet the Popes sentence should stand) cite 9. q. 3. Neque ab Augu­sto; but the incomparably learned Bishop Iewell, as I expresly wrote in my Concorde, page 8. Therefore the Iesuit fondly saith, that hee will teach mee to cite better heerin, thus: cap. Nemo iudicabit. 9. q. 3. because the chap. beginneth with these words, Nemo iudicabit, and not with these; Neque ab Augusto. Wherein the Iesuit bewrayeth his incredible rudenels & ignorance, who neuer read citations made in the Canon law, by words after the beginning, the midst, or later end of the Canon, but onely in the beginning thereof. There­fore heere I must take him to schooling, and read three lectures out of the Canon law (viz. out of the Decrees, the Decretalls, and the Extrauagants) vnto him, thus:

In the Decrees, Dist. 12. ca. No decet. verb. Discretione. and Dist. 11. ca. Non nos. verb. quis entm: the Glosle ci­teth 17. q. 4. §. Qui autem. But those words are not the beginning of any chapter in 17. q. 4.

In the Decretalls, De Electione, & Electi potestate, cap. Venerabilem. verb. Transtulit, The Glosse cireth 24. q. 1.§. Sedillud, and immediatly after, 11. q. 1.§. Sedsi quis: but neither of those chapters begin with those words, Sedillud, or Sedsi quis.

In the Extrauagants of Ioan. 22. De verborum signi­ficatione, cap. Quia quorundam. the Glosse citeth thus: 56. Dist. §. his omnibus. And thus, 14. q. 1. §. Quia er­go. Whereas the first word of the Canon, is, Episco­pus.

By these lectures, as I suppose, I haue schooled this Becane heerein suficiently: but now falleth the Ie­suit into a desperat case; for he hauing found out the Canon, he cannot find out these words, Sitotus mun­dus, &c. I see I must take him to schooling once again, and teach him where he shall find those very words & syllables: viz. in the Glosse, verb. or §. Neque ab omni cle­ro. The words of the Glosse are these: Argumentum quod concilium non potest Papam iudicare, vt extra. de E­lect. significasti. vnde sitotus mundus sententiaret in ali­quo negotio contra Papam, videtur quod sententiae Papae standumesset. vt 24. q. 1. Hac est fides. This argueth that the Councell cannot iudge the Pope. Therefore, if the whole vvorld should giue sentence in any matter against the Pope, the Popes sentence must stand.

Now may the Iesuit run & cry [...], I haue found it; and withall, thanke the learned Bishop Iewell, for his citing of the Canon, viz. not by the first words of the Canon, but by the words following: whereby hee pointed, as with his finger, the Iesuit to the Glosse, where those words are written.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

HEere againe, this vnluckie Iesuit shewes na­ked his great ignorance, when hee saith that those later words (or the substance of them) are not in the Canon law or Glosse, but are of my Gloss: hee would haue said Bishop Iewells Glosse.

Had not the Iesuit beene a very vnlearned man in­deed, the learned Bishop, directing him to the Glosse, verb. Reprobantur, might haue taught him presently to haue found those later words, or the very matter, viz. That it is heresie, wilfully to disobey, or oppose the statutes of the Romane Church. For in that very place, the Glosse citeth 24. q. 1. cap. Haec est fides, where S. Hierom is produced, asserting, That if any shall blame that, quod Papae iudicio comprobatur; vvhich the Pope alloweth; se non atholicum, sed haereticum comprobabit, hee shall proue himselfe no Catholick, but an haeretick. The reason wher­of the Iesuit may read Dist. 22. cap. Omnes, in these words; Fidem violat, qui aduersus Romanam Ecclesiam agit quae est mater fidei: For he violates the faith, vvho doth against the Romane Church, the mother of saith.

It may be, the simple Iesuit knoweth not, that by their Canon law, the Pope may make new Articles of faith, through his statutes. Let him therfore read, Ex­tra. Ioan. 22. De verborum significatione. cap. Cum inter nonnullos, in Gloss and these words there: Papa princeps Ecclesiae, Christique Vicarius, potest articulum fidei facere: The Pope, Prince of the vvorld, and Christes Vicar, can make new Articles of faith: and there shall the Iesuit find this case put; The Pope did newly in that Canon, statuere, ser it downe, That Christ and his Apostles had some-what proper, or in speciall. After which it is there thus resolued: That to assert obstinatly, that Christ, & his Apostles had nothing (in speciall) in proprietie, haereticū fore censendum, was to be accounted hereticall, cum De­cretalis exi [...]t, after the Decretall had gone forth, and not before. I will put a few more cases to the Iesuit, to make him vnderstand it better.

Admit the Pope (as Nabuchodonoser did by his I­mage set vp) at the lifting vp of his Idol, the wafer cake, (which hath no moe eyes to see, nor eares to hear, nor hart to vnderstand, then Nabuchodonosers Image had, but wil sooner putrefie then his) should commaund all Nations, kindreds, and people, to fall downe, and wor­ship it; and three were found, as those three children, who would not fall downe, & worship it, should they not all three be reputed hereticks?

Admit that the Pope should statuere, establish, that Doctrine of Diuels, 1. Timo. 4. verse 2. that is, should forbid eating of flesh in the Lent, as vnholie; and one should, as one did, eate wilfully a pigge in Lent, should not that one be, as indeed he was, burnt for an heretick?

Admit, where Christ commaunded euen the lay people to read, and search the Scriptures, the Pope,Iob. 5.39. con­trary to Christ, that is, in one word, Antichrist, should forbid all laytie to read and search the Scripture; and one layick should be found, either reading the Scrip­ture, or carrying, about him, the Bible translated into his mother tongue: should not such a one, be estloones carried into the house of slaughter, I meane the house of Inquisition, whence commonly such neuer returne aliue?

Admit that the Pope (contrary to the lawes of God and man, the lawes of nature, of Nations) should sta­tuere, set it downe in his Briefes, that what subiect soe­uer, should take the Oath of Allegiance (but euen so far, as to swear to maintaine, and defend to his power, the life of his Soueraigne against all forraine power) should sweare against the Catholick faith; and any one vvilfullie opposing that stature made by the Pope, should take the Oath, as law full: should not hee goe for an heretick, vnlesse the Pope dispensed with him to take it?

By these palpable instructions, the Iesuit may learn, that those later words afore-said were not my Glosse (as hee saith) of no value; but the capitall Popish doctrine, most pernicious to Kings and States, An­tichristian, disloyall, diabolicall. By force vvhere­of, if the Pope (as I said before) should statuere, set it downe, that Becanus the Iesuit, should goe into England, to raise there sedition and rebellion, to contriue, and act a new GVNNE-POWDER­TREASON, wherin to fold vp in one suddaine de­struction, the King, Queene, Prince, Nobility, Cōmunalty, [Page 44]Bishops, Iudges, &c. as a thing meritorious, and the Ie­luite should wilfully refuse to doe it, as a thing vnlaw­full; hee would be reputed and punished as an here­tick; although he should haue lost his life on earth, and hangd his soule in hell, by dooing it. So farre exten­deth their blind obedience Iesuiticall, to the Statutes and authoritie Papall.

D^r. 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 [Page 46]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, 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: [Page 50] 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.

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 [Page 52]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 [Page 53]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 [Page 54]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, 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?

D^r. 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. [Page 56]Cum his verò simul proijci à sancta Dei Catholica Eccle­sia, simul (que) 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 M^r. D^r Whitaker, Controuers. 4. cap. 6. and to M^r. D^r. 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 [Page 58]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.

D^r HARRIS Reply.

IHaue read that Canon ouer diligently, more often then Becan hath fingers on both his hands; where­in I find, that if vnrepentant fornicators, Priests or Deacons, forbidden entrance into the Church, wil yet presume to vse their Ministery in the Church, the peo­ple are inhibited to heare them.

And, whosoeuer will not obey that precept, incurres the sinne of Idolatry, according to that of Samuell; It is the sinne of vvitcherast not to obey, and the vvickednes of Idolatry not to listen, or assent.

So farre reacheth that rule particular. Then follow­eth in that Canon, the generall rule, in these vvords: Peccatumigitur Paganitat is incurrit, &c. Therefore, who­soeuer saith hee is a Christian, and contemneth to obey the Sea Apostolicall, incurreth the sinne of Paganisme.

So that by this Canon, what Christian soeuer diso­beyeth the Sea of Rome, cōmaunding any thing (good or euill, as Bellarmine hath it) incurres the sinne of Pa­ganity; he must be reputed an heathē. If the Iesuit knew not, that the Canon riseth ab Hypothesi ad thesin, from the particular to the generall, he shewed himselfe to be a very vnlearned man: if he knew it, in writing thus, he sheweth himselfe to be a brasen-fac't abuser of his Rea­der.

That the Reader may see the truth of this generality (a matter so neerly concerning the crownes and liues of Princes) I wil produce, for proofe thereof, two other places of the Canon law, wherin that foresaid generall rule is thus set down. The former, Clementis de haereti­cis. ca. Adnostrum. in Glossa. Peccatū; paganitatis incurrit, quicum Christianū;se asserat, sedi Apostolicae obedire con­temnit. What Christian soeuer disobeyeth the Sea Aposto­lick, incurres the sinne of Paganisme.

Where that Glosse, to proue that generall, citeth Dist. 10. ca. Nulli fas. Nulli fas est, velle, velposse, trans­gredi Apostolicae sedis praecepta. It is not lawfull for any to be, either willing, or able, to transgresse the precepts of the Aposlolick Sea.

The second place is, Extrauag. Ioan. 22. de verborum significa. cap. Cuminter nonnullos, in Gloss. Haereticus est ille, qui animo superbienti, dispositionem sedis Aposto­licae, Articulos fidei non infringentis, seruare, et ei obe­dire contemnit: cum peccatum ariolandi sit non obedire, & scelus Idololatriae non acquiescere, et vitium Pagani­tatis contemnere obedire. 81. Dist. Si qui sunt. 8. q. 1. Sciendum.

Hee is an Heretick, who with a proud mind, contemneth to keepe, and obey, the disposition or order of the Apostolike Sea, not infringing the Articles of faith: sith it is the sin of witchcraft not to obey; and the wickednes of Idolatry, not to harken; and the voice of Paganisme, to contemne to obey.

Thus, by the expresse words of the Canon, the ge­nerality of this is apparant, viz. To disobey the Sea of Rome, commaunding any thing which is not hereticall, (for in matter of manners, saith Bellarmine, the Pope can not erre.) is withchraft, Idolatry, Heresie. Therefore, if the Pope should commaund a Iesuit, or the vilest slaue in a kingdome, to kill the King, who retaineth his crowne after the Pope hath excommunicated him, & depriued him of his crowne: it is vvitchcraft, idolatry, and heresie, in that iesuit or slaue, who vvilfully refuseth to kill that King.

The Mysterie of Antichristian iniquitie, as it is now reuealed, proceedeth yet further, euē to the lawfull kil­ling of Kings, by the vilest vassall, without any com­maund of the Pope, or of any Superior, not onely after such a King be solemnly depriued of his dominions by the Pope, but without that, after sentence declaratorie only pronoūced; to weet, of heresie, or any other crime of that King, containing the penalty of depriuation. [Page 61]For that is now an orthodoxall position of the Ca­colike Romish faith, Printed Cum priuilegio, and ex­pressely maintained by Suarius in his booke, with this Title, The defence of the Catholike faith, against the er­rours of the English sect, vvith the answere to the Apologie of the oath of Fidelity, and the Preface monitory to the king, &c. The words of Suarius containing that Antichri­stian iniquitie, Impietie, Impudency; are these: It is most true, Lib. 6. cap. 4. that the Pope may inflict the penalty of Deposi­tion, and pronounce the sentence of Depriuation of the King­dome of any King supreme in his temporals: after vvhich iust sentence so pronounced, vvhereby, ipso facto, hee is deposed of his kingdome; If a priuate man shall kill the king, he doth it not by priuate authority, but in the vertue of the sentence, and consequently, as an instrument of au­thoritie publike. When a king is deposed, then he is no king, nor lawfull Prince. Yea, if such a king, after, Lawfull depo­sition of him, persisting obstinate, doth vvithholde his king­dome by force, in this he begins to be a tyrant, because hee is no lawfull king, neither by any iust title doth possesse his kingdome. This more plainely appeareth in a king that is an Heretike: for by his heresie, forsooth, ipso facto, hee is depriued in some sort, of his Dominion, and the proprietie of his kingdome: because it either remaineth confiscate, or euen by the very law is deuolued to his Successour, if he be a Catholike. And yet neuerthelesse, he may not presently be depriued of his kingdome, but doth possesse, and administer the same iustly, vntill by sentence, at least declaratory, hee be iustly condemned of his crime. But after that sentence giuen he is altogether depriued of his kingdome, so that hee can not with iust title possesse the same. Therefore from that time, hee may be handled altogether as a tyrant, and [Page 62]consequently may be slaine by any priuate man vvhatsoeuer. Now in the last point proposed, this is to be saide. That af­ter the sentence condemnatory of the king (for the priuation of his kingdom) giuen by the Pope, or, vvhich is all one, af­ter the sentence declaratory of a crime, hauing such a penal­ty by the law imposed on that crime; certainely hee vvhich gaue sentence, or to vvhom he committed it, may depriue the king of his kingdome, euen by killing him; either if hee can not otherwise depriue him, or if the iust sentence extend to the depriuing of him.

Marke well, ô yee Christian Princes, especially ô yee Princes Protestant orthodoxall: doe you behold (for it more neerely concerneth every one of you) into what, even the highest, pitch of traiterous impudency and impietie, this Coccatrice broode, and Generation of vipers, to witte, the Iesuites, are mounted? when as in their treasonfull dogmaticall positions, published in print to all the world, and most stiffely by them auer­red as doctrines of Catholike faith, they teach it to be lawfull for any, the basest villaine of a king to kill the king, being excommunicated, deposed, or otherwise declared to be so and so criminous. Moreouer, they teach, that the saide base vassall or villaine, is, in such case, a more publike person lawfully to kill the king, then the king or his Iudges are, to sentence that villaine Traitor-Regicide.

The time was, when Emperours were the soue­raigne Lords of the Bishop of Rome. Gregory the great, called Mauritius the Emperour, his Lord, and himselfe the Emperours Seruant: but afterwards the case was altered cleane contrariwise; and the Pope became the soueraigne Lord of the Emperour, and the Emperour [Page 63]the Popes vassall. In the yeare 1133, when Pope In­nocent the second, had set the Crowne vpon the Empe­rour Lotharius head, hee caused the solemne manner thereof to be painted on a wall in his Lateran-Palace; and vnder the picture, these verses following, to be written:

True it is, that by the Popes Canon law, Dist. 63 c. Tibi Domino. et 22. q. 5. de forma in Glossa, the Empe­rours, as the Popes vassals, must sweare homage to the Pope, as holding their Crownes, and Empires of him: but it was neuer heard of, before these Iesuiticall tray­tours had so heretically dogmatized, that the Kings and Emperours hold their liues also of the Pope, as the basest villaines that euer were, to witte, at the Popes pleasure. Now iudge, Christian Reader, what noble schoolemaisters these Iesuites are, teaching all Christian subiects the Art of killing their Kings.

Saint Iohn in his Reuelation, Chap. 17. vers. 16. prophecied, That the King should hate the vvhore, the scarlet vvhore (died first in the bloud of Martyrs; but now, in the bloud of Kings) and make her desolate, and naked, and should eate her flesh, and burne her vvith fire.

If euer there were iust cause presented to kings to doe it, surely now it is giuen them to the full.Prou. 8.15. The [Page 64]King of heauen, by vvhom they rule, and decree iustice, stirre vp betimes their royall hearts, with vnited for­ces to constraine the Pope to renounce this his Anti­christian bloudy claime, or else to pull his triple Crowne from his head, and to lay his Romish Pope­dome in the dust; choosing another Patriarke (if a Patriarke must needes bee had) and bounding that new one, within the Ecclesiasticall tedder onely. That learned Gerson, in his booke, De Aufeberilitate Papae, of taking the Pope of Rome, cleane away, gaue a good Item for this long since.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

THis Iesuit makes Bellarmine write farre worse, than as I produced him. For in my Citation, he spake thus: If the Pope should command vice, [Page 65]or forbid vertue; the Church should belieue vice to be good, and vertue to be euill: but Becane brings him in writing more impudently, and blasphemously, thus: If the Pope should erre in commanding vices, or forbidding ver­tues, the Church vvere bound to beleeue vices to be good, and vertues to be euill, vnlesse the Church would sinne a­gainst her conscience. Which is plaine blasphemie, and for which Bellarmine incurreth S. Pauls curse directlie, For hee can not deny, but that the blessed Angels of heauen, and Apostles, were as free from errour, in their Angelicall and Apostolicall doctrines of faith, and ma­ners, as the Pope is: yet saith S. Paul, Gal. 1. vers. 8: If vve, or an Angell from heauen, should preach vnto you otherwise, than that yee haue receiued, let him be accursed. But Bellarmine thus: If the Pope should preach other­wise, viz. vertue to be euill, and vice good (according to that of Esay, Chap. 5. vers. 20. Woe be to them, that speak good of euill, and euill of good) the Church ought to hold the Pope so blessed, as that she should sinne, if shee did not belieue him so erring, and erroneously preaching; What is this else, but to giue the holy Spirit of God, the Lie in his face?

[...] is here most absurd, in writing thus: Dato [...] do, sequitur aliud. If vvee grant one absur­ [...], [...] followeth another. For grant that one absurdity, that a blessed Angel of heauen should preach errour: should this [...]urditie follow, That the Church vvere bound to beleeue him? No saith Paul; the Church vvere bound to holde him accursed.

Further, it is apparantly vntrue (wherewith Becane doth heere charge mee) viz. that I said, Bellarmine did absolutely affirme the Pope to command vice and for­bid [Page 66]vertue: or that the Church should belieue vice to be good, and vertue euill: for I cited it in a hypotheti­call or conditional proposition, thus: If the Pope should command vice, &c. and not by a categoricall, or singlie affirmatiue proposition, thus: The Pope doth command vice, and forbid vertue, &c. It may be, Becanes learning extendeth not so farre, as to knowe when a thing is vttered categorically, and when hypothetically; and so of ignorant simplicitie, he falsely burdened me with it. If it were so, I will the rather forgiue him; but then I would haue him to goe to schoole againe, to learne the principles of Logike: if he knew it, and yet would write thus, he abuseth his Reader not a little.

But I will leaue this vnlearned Iesuite a while; and indeede I begin to growe very weary of him: with Bellarmine here would I gladly change a few wordes; and learne of him, whether the Church bee bound in any case, to beleeue errour in faith, or in the necessary precepts of manners? If he affirme it, he shewes him­selfe to be an Heretike [...], condemned in his owne conscience: if hee deny it, then suppose the Pope should erre in faith or manners, yet the Church should not belieue him therin. By the rules of the Canō law, If the Pope erre in faith, that is, if he be an Heretike, he should be deposed: but by Bellarmines paralell, If the Pope erre in faith, he must be beleeued. If this be not do­ctrine hereticall, what can be hereticall? Therefore to the euerlasting shame of Iesuites, let this hereticall position of Cardinall Bellarmine, (which Becane seekes heere to defend, but the very heathen would blush to assert of any) bee ingrauen with a penne of yron in lead or stone for euer; viz. If the Pope should erre in com­manding [Page 67]vices, and forbidding vertues, the Church is bound in conscience, to belieue vices to be good, and vertues to be euill.

Goe to now ô Pope, and say, Soule thou hast enough: for now, doe but command the bloudy and traiterous crime of Regicide, that is, killing of kings, 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 sacrarū, 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.

D^r. 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 [Page 70]printed, he hath in particular, maintained his said cita­tions: vnto the which booke I re [...]erre the Iesuit.

D^r. 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.

Neuerth [...]lesse; hereafter, because this trifling Iesuit [Page 71]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, Celsus Mancinus, Thomas Bozius, Francis­cus Bozius, Isidorus Moscouius, Laelius Zecchus, Cardi­nall Baronius, & lastly, Alexander Carerius; who in his booke publiquely printed, was not afraid to call Bel­larmine, [Page 72]and all who tooke part with him, against the other forenamed; Impious Politicks, and Hereticks of our time. I say, in these points of the Popes Primacy, and at this present time, the Iesuits extreamely dissent from the Sorbonists; and the Venetian and French, from the Romane Papists.

On the other side, all Protestant-English Writers, with one vniforme consent agree in the Kings Supre­macy; as they, who willingly haue taken the Oath of the Kings Supremacy, which is set downe in these ex­presse words following, viz. I, A. B. doe vtterly testifie, and declare in my conscience, that the Kings Highnesse, is the onely Supreme Gouernour of this Realme, and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries, as well in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticll things or causes, as Temporall. And that no forraine Prince, person, Prelat, State, or Potentate, hath, or ought to haue, any Iurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Preheminence, or authority Ecclesiasticall, or Spirituall, within this Realme. And therefore I doe vtterly renounce and forsake all forrain Iurisdictions, Powers, Su­periorities & Authorities: And doe promise that frō hence­forth, I shall beare faith and true alleagiance to the Kings Highnesse, his heires, and lawfull Successors: And to my power shal assist, and defend all Iurisdictions, Priuiledges, Preheminencies, & authorities, granted, or belonging to the Kings Highnesse, his heires and Successors, & vnited or an­nexed to the Imperiall crowne of this Realme. So helpe mee GOD, &c.

But, by the lawes of England, in these very words & syllables; Supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall, or Power Spirituall, is for euer vnited and annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of this kingdome. These things then beeing so [Page 73]certainly and manifestly true; let Becan himselfe iudge, if he will iudge sincerely & ingenuously, according to this oath of Supremacy (taken willingly by all Prote­stant English Writers, without refusal of any one)

• 1 Whether the King of England hath not Supremacy, or Primacy in this Church?
• 2 Whether that Primacy or Supremacy, be not Ecclesi­asticall and Spirituall? viz. vvhich is in all things & cau­ses, Ecclesiasticall & Spirituall.
• 3 Whether the King by his Primacy, or Supremacy, may be called Primat of the Church? to weet, as one is called a King, of his kingdome: a Bishop, of his bishoprick: or a Bailife, of his Bailiwick?
• 4 Whether by the same Supremacy or Primacy, hee may not be called Head of this Church? that is to say, the onely supreme Gouernour in all things and causes Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall, & ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall.
• 5 Whether that Primacy or Supremacy do not consist in Power or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall? to weet, which consisteth in all things Ecclesiasticall, and ouer all per­sons Ecclesiasticall; and which is tearmed by the ex­presse words of the lawes of England, Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction, or power Spirituall; seeing that the Oath of Supremacy, respecteth the Kings authority Ecclesi­asticall: and the Oath of Fidelitie, his authoritie Ci­uil. As our King IAMES in his Booke, most accu­ratly distinguisheth them.
• 6 Whether the King, by his Primacy or Supremacy, may not call Councells, and presede in them? viz. as the onely supreme Gouernor of this Kingdome, in all things & causes: & ouer all persons, Ecclesiasticall & Spiritual. For do not all Coūcells consist of persons Ecclesiasticall? & are not [Page 74]things Spirituall & Ecclesiasticall handled in Councels?
• 7 Whether the King may not make Ecclesiastical lawes? to weet, as the onely supreame Gouernour in all things, & ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall; according to that of Saint Augustine:
  Contra Crescon. lib. 3. c. 51.
  Heerein Kings, (as it is from heauen prescri­bed vnto them) serue God, as Kings; if in their kingdome, they commaund those good things, and forbid those euills, which pertaine not onely to humane societie, but also to Di­uine Religion.
• 8 Whether the King may not cōferre Eccle­siasticall Benefices? As the only Supreame Gouernour in all cau­ses. & ouer all persons Ecclesiasti­call.
• 9 Whether the King may not make and de­pose Bishops? As the only Supreame Gouernour in all cau­ses. & ouer all persons Ecclesiasti­call.
• 10 Whether the King may not compell his subiects to the oath of Supremacy? As the only Supreame Gouernour in all cau­ses. & ouer all persons Ecclesiasti­call.
• 11 Whether the King, hath not his Supre­macie by the right of his Crowne? As the only Supreame Gouernour in all cau­ses. & ouer all persons Ecclesiasti­call.

As for Excōmunication, if the Iesuit meane by it Re­taining of sins, that respecteth the Iurisdiction internall: and all, both Protestant, and Popish Writers acknow­ledge, that our King challengeth no such power. But if he vnderstand, the inhibiting frō the Communion & other holy exercises performed by the Minister, and faithfull people in the Church, then in England, where euery, not only Archbishop, but Archdeacon, and his Officiall doe excommunicat, we shal haue (according to Becane his dispure heere) so many Primats of the Church of England, as there be in it Archdeacons, or their Officialls. But heere the controuersie is of one onely Supreame Primat, or Supreame Gouernour. Ther­fore this Question of Becane, touching the Kings pow­er to excommunicat, is very idle and [...]riuolous.

As touching the Iudge of Controuersies, all Protestant Writers hold no mortall man to be Iudge of thē. Not­withstanding, Hainrik Salobrig, and (long before him) Iewell, in his Defence of the English Apologie, Par. 6. c. 13. D [...]uil. 2. out of the Ecclesiasticall Writers, especially out of Socrates, and Cardinall Cusanus, write, That Christian Princes, with good commendation, haue heard, and determi­ned some Controuersies of faith. According also to these words of Charles the Great, produced by the re­uerend Bishop of Ely, viz. Wee doe decree, and by Gods assistance haue decreed, Tort Tort. Pag. 165. what is to be firmly holden in that cause, or Controuersie. It was a cause of Faith, against Eli­phandus, vvho asserted Christ to be the adopted Sonne of GOD.

Lastly, who would heere regard the naked names of Sanders, Genebrard, Pol. Virgil, and Thuanus, which Be­cane doth heere muster? Are these also Aduersaries to Becane? or doe these, as Aduersaries, extreamely dis­sent touching these Questions.

As for Caluin, Tortura Torti a good while since hath answered thus: As Caluin did not allow the Pope to be King, or the King to be Pope: Pag. 379. so vve approue not that in the King vvhich we detest in the Pope. But Caluin vvith vs, and wee with him, thinke, that those things belong to the King, in the Church Christian, vvhich belonged to Io­sias, in the Church Iudaicall. And we desire no more.

Now, hauing passed these Rocks, the remainder of our way is easie; and all Becans Iarres, heereafter ob­iected against vs, may, as it were with the blast of some few words, bee eftsoones scattered, and brought to nought. For by this which is already demonstrated, it is most manifest, that all our English Protestant Wri­ters, [Page 76]doe fully and vniformely agree in the whole sub­stance or matter of the Kings Primacy or Supremacie; and that Becane, throughout his Iarre, striueth onely a­bout words or syllables. Against which kind of con­tention, S^t. Paul writeth thus vnto Timothy: 2. Tim. 2. ver. 14. Protest before the Lord, that they striue not about vvords, vvhich is to no profit, but to the peruerting of the hearers.

Vnto all this, in my Concord, from page 12. vnto page 19, Becane in his Examin. answereth not one word.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

I Did not say, our Writers did striue about the namer but I asked the Iesuit, why he would brawl about the name, when the thing it selfe was fully agreed vpon. Here then in the beginning of this Iesuits examination, wee haue him taken in a grosse vntruth. For in my English Concord, chap. 1. I prooued an vni­forme consent of all, not onely in the matter, that is, the kings Supreme Gouernment, ouer all persons, and in all Causes Ecclesiasticall, or ciuill within his dominions; but also in the very English name thereof, to weet, Su­premacy: [Page 81]vnto which selfe same thing, and selfe same name of the same thing, all our Protestant English Wri­ters haue sworne; and in our publike prayers in pul­pit, we solemnlie professe our allowance thereof, and our concord therein, as being our Kings most iust title.

As for the Latine name Primatus, into the which the English word Supremacy is translated, we all agree therein also. For Becane, Question 12. page 43, brings in M^r. Thomson, calling the kings Supremacy, in Latine Primatum, and the king in respect thereof, Prima­tem.

How hard then is this Iesuites forehead, affirming that I granted discord in the name to be among vs? In­deede M^r. Thomson in regard of the Papists [who vn­derstanding no Primacy but Sacerdotall, that is, Episco­pall (for by their Canon law, all Patriarks are Primates, and all Primates Patriarks, & so all Primates Sacerdotall) clamour that we, ascribing Primatum Primacy to our King, yeeld him Iurisdiction Sacerdotall, that is, Episco­pall:] to reforme their misconceit therein, wisheth there were made some Latine word, as Suprematus, or the like, to expresse fully our English word Supre­macie; thereby to cut off all Popish and childish cauills, and to let them vnderstand, that we by Primacie (af­ter the Latin word, as it is now translated, or Supreme Gouernment of the Church, called in our English tongue Supremacy) meane not Ecclesiastical Supreme gouern­ment Sacerdotall or Episcopall; but onely Regall.

In England our two Archbishoppes are called Pri­mates, as being superiour gouernours Sacerdotall ouer all the Bishoppes, and other inferiour clergie men, [Page 82]within their Archbishopriks, in causes Ecclesiasticall: but because our king is supreme gouernour, euen o­uer those archbishops, and all other persons Ecclesiasti­call and Temporall, and in all causes Temporall and Ecclesiasticall within his dominions, wee call in Eng­lish, that his supreme gouernment, not Primacy, but Su­premacie; as if it were, Supre-Primacy, or aboue Prima­cie. Therefore I had iust cause, to aske the Iesuite, why his friuolous fatherhood wold contend about names, when there was, and is, so full agreement in the verie thing it selfe? In regard whereof, S. Paul depainteth this Becane (as hee sheweth himselfe here to be) in his orient colour thus:1. Tim. 6.4 He is puft vp, and knoweth nothing; but doteth about questions, and strife of words: vvhereof commeth enuy, strife, rayling, and euill surmising; euerie word falling so pat vpon the Iesuites head, as it S. Paul had pointed him out with the finger. Indeede Becane in asking me, how I vvill concord them in the matter, vvhen I see, and grant varietie of the names, prooueth those words of S. Paul, to fit him well, viz. That he is puft vp, and knowes nothing. For here he knoweth not (which countrey swaynes do know) that there may be, and is, identity of matter, or person, when there is variety of names of that matter, or person. But because I doe commiserate his fatherhoods ignorance herein, I will vouchsafe to teach him this one lesson; taken out of their owne Canon law, which (in Dist. 80. ca. Loca. in the Gloss) schooleth him thus: Idem est Primas et Pa­triarcha, sicut et dicit lex, differentia tantum nominis est, inter pignus et Hypothecam. A Primate and a Patriarke, is one and the same, as the law faith, the difference is onely in the name of Pignus and Hypotheca, in Latin: in English, [Page 83]of pledge, and pledge: and so of these two words in La­tine; Primatus, and Suprematus; in English, (as wee in England vnderstand it) Supremacy and Supremacy.

And the saide Canon law, Dist. 99. ca. de Primati­bus, in the very text it selfe, schooleth him more fully thus: De Primatibus quaeritur, quem gradum in Ecclesia obtineant; an in aliquo a Patriarchis differant? Primates et Patriarchae diuer sorum sunt nominum, sed eiusdem of­ficy. Primates and Patriarks haue diuers names, but one office: so the kings Supremacy may, in Latine, haue di­uers names; but it is one and the selfe same Regall of­fice.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

I Answere plainely and truely, first, that M^r. Thom­son said that the word Primatus did signifie pow­er of the same order with Bishops, onely in the Pa­pists sense and vnderstanding; but nothing lesse then so, in the Pro [...]estants sense, who meane by Primatus, Pri­macie, power Regall only and not Episcopall: In whose sense, M^r. Thomson himselfe calleth that Regal power, [Page 84] Primatum; as was shewed by Becane himself, produ­cing M^r. Thomsons owne words, Q. 12. Pa. 43. Ther­fore they who speake so, erre, neither in word, nor in the thing it selfe.

Secondly. I answere plainely without dissimulati­on, that the Iesuites mouth here runnes ouer with a palpable vntruth; since it is most certainely true, that not any one Protestant English Writer, calling the kinges Supremacy, in Latine, Primatum, signifieth, or would haue signified thereby, that the king hath power Sacerdotall with Bishops and Pastors. Indeede, the Papists did, and doe seeke thereby openly to scan­dalize vs, as though we ascribed to our King & Queen, power Sacerdotall or Episcopall in the Church: which moued Queen Elizabeth, of blessed and famous memo­rie, in the later end of her Iniunctions, to commaund this explanation following, to be published in Print, with this Title: ‘AN ADMONITION TO SIM­ple men deceiued by the malitious.’

‘Her Maiestie forbiddeth all her subiects to giue eare or credit to such peruerse, and malitious persons, which most sinisterly and malitiously labour to notifie to her louing subiects how by the words of the oath of Supremacie, it may be collected, that the Kings or Queens of this Realm, possessioners of the Crown, may challenge authority and power of Ministery of Diuine offices in the Church: wherein her said subiects be much abused, by such euill disposed persons. For certainely her Maiestie neither doth, ne euer will challenge any other authoritie, then that which was of ancient time due to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme. That is to say, vnder God to haue the Soue­raignety [Page 85]& rule ouer all maner persons, borne within these her Maiesties Dominions & Countries, of what estate ei­ther Ecclesiasticall or Temporall soeuer they be; so as no forraine power shal, or ought to haue, any superiority ouer the. And if any person, that hath conceiued any other sense of the form of the said Oath, shal accept the same Oath with this interpretation, sense, or meaning; her Maiestie is well pleased to accept euery such, in that behalfe, as her good & obedient subiects, and shall acquite them of all manner pe­nalties contained in the said Act, against such as shal per­emptorily or obstinatly refuse to take the same Oath.’

What could be written more plainly and fully a­gainst this Iesuit, not onely to stop his mouth heerin, but also to take vp, at once, his whole Iarre following; euen by the very rootes?

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

HEre haue we the Iesuit lying in his byrdlime: Wherin, the more he struggleth, the worse he is enwrapped; and whence he seeks to go out, by going out of his wits, saying it was his coniec­ture [Page 86]from no consequent of reason. As though euery coniecture reasonable, doth not leane vpon some rea­son probable. If therefore his coniecture was groun­ded vpon no reason, it followeth, that he with his con­iecture, was vnreasonable. But with what face (vnlesse hee be extreamely ignorant in the very petite rules of Logick) can hee deny it to bee a consequent, standing vpon two Propositions, reduced by himselfe into forme Enthymematicall. The later (the Conclusion) inferred vpon the former, containing the Medium in it, viz. a new name imposed, with the particle-note of infe­rence or consequence, viz. Igitur (therefore) & hauing his forerunner-watch-word colligimus (wee gather) gi­uing warning of a consequent to follow.

Now then, draw out this reason into his full syllo­gisticall forme; it will runne, and can runne no other­wise, than thus:

What thing soeuer hath a new name imposed vpon it, that thing is new. Hence the Iesuit assumed thus:

But the Kings Supreme power in the Church, hath a new name, Suprematus, imposed vpon it. Ergo, the Kings Su­premacy is new.

And I thence assumed thus:

But Christ, in respect of his Deity, had in the Nicen Councell a new name, [...], imposed vpon him.

Ergo, Christ, in respect of his Deity, or Christs Deity, was then new.

The Iesuit, beeing invery great streights, and not a­ble to beare the stroake of this argument, (for, the for­mer, or Maior proposition, is his own. The later pro­position, called the Minor, or Assumption, hee durst not deny. The forme is rightly syllogisticall. To deny [Page 87]the Counclusion, is against all rules dialecticall. To grant it, is hereticall.) creepeth into a bench-hole, and then laugheth, & saith: It is ridiculous to compare one Thom­son, a priuat man, vvith so many Fathers in the Nicen Councell, representing the Church; that it should be as law­full for Thomson, as for them, to impose a new name.

Could any man imagin, that Martin Becan, a father Iesuit, and a publique Reader of Diuinitie, should be so vnlearned a slugge, as hee palpably heere shewes him­selfe to be? Truly, if a Cambridge Sophister had aun­swered so, he should haue beene either corrected in the Schooles, or hissed out of the Schooles. For, let the like arguments be framed thus:

And thus:

If any silly fellow vsing Becanes words should with Be­can answer thus; It is ridiculous to compare the Kings scul­lian, vvith the King: should he not, as a ridiculous asse, be ludibriously exploded?

These, as the other, syllogismes, respect not Quis; who is a man, or who gaue the new name: but Quid; whether hee be a man; whether it be a new name im­posed. Nay, rather thence the argument runneth vp­on the Iesuit, with greater force, thus: If the impositi­on of a new name vpon a thing, by a priuat man, shall inferre the thing to be new; much more shall the im­position of a new name vpon a thing by publique au­thority, [Page 88]conclude that thing to be new.

Now it is time that I answere his Question heere proposed, viz. Why I vse that consequent against the Iesuits (thus: The name of the Iesuiticall Sect is new. Therefore that Sect is new.) which my selfe misliked? I answer, If he had well obserued those my words be­fore going, viz. [...]llud fortasse rectius: hee should easilie haue perceiued, that I misliked that consequence, as it is indeed most childish and ridiculous: yet by the way of Sarcasmus, ironically I vsed it, to thump Iesuits there-withall; because their Sect, & the name of their Sect, is new indeed.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

THe vniforme concord, in the thing it selfe, & name of the thing, hath bin heertofore in this booke demonstrated sufficiently. The Iesuits eyes therfore seeming to see heer an huge discord, are, as Samsons foxes; tyed together by the tayles, within his head: but separatly set in his face, looking asquint; [Page 89]which appeareth the rather to be true, because hee seemes heere to behold things, and like, which are eucry way vnlike.

As first, those Fathers did not deuise a new word, for the word [...] was long before: onely they a­scribed it as a new attribute to Christ, in respect of his Godhead: but M^r. Thomsons word, Suprematus, is spanne new.

Secondly, the Fathers did not giue both those name, [...] and [...], vnto Christ: but Master Thomson calleth the Kings Supreme Gouernment of this Church, both Suprematum, and Primatum.

Thirdly, the Fathers held them for hereticks, who did vse the word [...], as Becane heere saith: but M^r. Thomson holdeth our King, the Bishop of Ely, and o­thers, to be orthodoxall professors, who vse the word Primatus. So that heer at enothing but dissimilitudes, vnlesse it be in this; that as the Fathers deuised a new name, [...] to abolish that as [...], which the A­rian hereticks ascribed vnto Christ: so M^r. Thomson deuised a new word, Suprematus, to abolish the other word, Primatus, as the Popish hereticks doe now a­scribe it, to the Pope.

But what more doe I espy in this Iesuit heere? Tru­ly, if he be not a very vnskilfull linguist in the Greeke and Syriack tongues, I behold in him Heresie and Blas­phemy. Heresie in that he holdeth them hereticks, that say, Christ is [...], consubstantialis, of the same sub­stance with the Father. For [...], is vnitas substantiae, the vnity of substance. viz. [...]: and [...], is consubstantialitas, or substan­tiae vnitas, consubstantialitie, or vnitie of substance. [Page 90] [...]. The very identity of substance, vvithout any difference, variance, or distinction.

His Blasohemy, in challenging, to themselues, I meane the sect of Ieluits, the name of Iesuits, that is to say, Sauiours from sinnes: which is the most proper name of the Lord Christ; according to that saying of the Angel:Mat. i. v. 21. Thou shall call his name IESVS (in Syriack, Ieshua) for he shall saue his people from their sinnes.

And according to that of S^t. Peter: Neither is there Saluation in any other. A [...]. 4. v. 12. For among men, there is giuen none other Name vnder heauen, vvhereby wee must be saued.

Therefore, what horrible and detestable blasphe­mous caytifs are these Iesuits, to appropriat this name, the name of Sauiours, vnto themselues! Our Lord Ie­sus, is called Christ, passiuely, because he was annoin­ted with the oyle of gladnesse aboue his fellowes. So then, in that oyntment, he had fellowes, or partakers.

The Oyle was first poured vpon the Sacrificers head: but afterward, it ranne downe to the skirts of his clothing. Therefore saith S^t.1. Ioh. 2. ver. 20. Iohn, Yee haue an oyntment from that holy One.

Then, as our Lord Iesus, our Head, because hee was anointed, was called Christ, that is to say, Anoynted: so his members the Saints, because they also are anoin­ted with the same oyle, though not in the same degree; are called Christians, that is to say, Anoynted.

But our Lord Christ, was called Iesus, or Ieshua, ac­tiuely, because he should saue his people from their sinnes. And onely he called Iesus, or Ieshua, because There is no Saluation in any other. For that among men, there is giuen none other Name vnder heauen, whereby we must be saued. [Page 91]Therfore, there is but only one Iesus or Ieshua in name, or in deed, by whom Gods people are saued frō their sinnes; so all the members of Christ, are called people Saued, and not one of thē, Sauiours from their sinnes. But the word Iesuits, [...] according to the Syriack lan­guage, signifieth in English, Sauiours: as though they were Sauiours of their people from their sins, as Christ is the Sauiour of his people from their sinnes.

By plaine narration of which certaine truth, groun­ded out of the expresse words of the Scripture, euery Idiot may perceiue, how blasphemous this Sect of Ie­suits is, in assuming vnto all men of their Sect, and to none but of that Sect, the name of Iesuits, that is, Sa­uiours of the world. Vnlesse it be by way of contrarie­tie, as Mountaines, because they moue not, are called, Montes, a non mouendo: so they are called Iesuits, Saui­ours of the vvorld; beeing in very truth, the most noto­rious, and infamous Destroyers of the world, of Kings and kingdoms, fighting manfully vnder the banner of their Lord God, Antichrist the Pope: who, by S^t, Iohn, Reue 9. ver. 11. is rightly called [...].

But now, it is high time to see, how this Iesuit, in the profundity of his ignorances, and absurdities, a­gainst all common sense, reason and diuinity, vvould haue these following Parallells to meet together.

• 1 The name of Iesuits, but of 79. yeeres standing. The name of Christians, beeing of standing almost 1600. yeeres. Are of the same Antiquitie.

D^r. 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 Examē, 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 M^r. 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 M^r. Burhil in his Appendix to the confutation of Eudaemon, Page 283. cuts this Iarre all in sunder, writing thus: [Page 101] ‘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?

D^r. 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 whō the King in his Supremacy, is Supreme Gouernour: whom, as he may nominat and appoint; so, vpon their deserts, he may depose, as Salomon did Abiathar. In the meane time,1. Reg. 2. ver. 27. the King alloweth not that any Bishop, especially the Bishop of Rome, should rule ouer all the Christian vvorld.

This Iesuit, bringing in our King heer denying that hee will meddle with the matters of other men, not his sub­iects; as on the one side, hee deseruedly commendeth our gracious King therein: so on the other side, he iust­ly condemneth that busie-body the Pope, intermed­dling in matters of the King & his subiects, endeuc [...] ­ring impiously and impudently, to auert his subiects frō swearing allegiance vnto their Soueraigne; against the law of Nature, & Nations, against the law of God and man: therein shewing himselfe indeed to be that wicked man, that sonne of perdition, that very Antichrist, [Page 103]described by S^t. Paule, 2. Thes. 2; especially, conside­ring, that neither our King, nor the meanest vassall or villaine of our King, is the Popes subiect. For, by the right and ancient diuision of Prouinces, this Realme of England, was not vnder the Bishop of Rome.

Pope Innocent, 400. yeeresafter Christ, confesseth, that he had not sufficient authority to call one poore Britan out of this Realme. The case was this: The Bi­shops of Africa, prayed Innocentius, cither to send for Pelagius the Britan, or to deale with him by letters, to shew the meaning of his lewd speeches, tending to the derogation of Gods grace: To whom the Bishoppe of Rome answered thus: Quando, &c. When will hee com­mit himselfe to our iudgement, write I what letters I vvill, See B. Bil. Pag. 320. vvhereas he knoweth hee shall be condemned? And if hee were to be sent for, they may better doe it, that are neerer to him, and not so farre distant as I am.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

HEere the Iesuit playeth the wrangling Sophi­fter: & his Elench is (as the Schoole tearmeth it) A dictosecundum quid, addictū simpliciter.

For, these words, Primaeus Ecclesiasticus, doe not simply (but, secundum interpretationem vel sensum, ac­cording as some Writers meane thereby) signisie Pri­macy Episcopall, and not Regall. In which sense, all Pro­testant Writers deny the King to haue Primacy Eccle­siasticall.

Others, by those words, Primatus Ecclesiasticus, mean Primacy Regall, or not Episcopall. In which sense, all English Protestant Writers, ascribe vnto the King, Primacy Ecclesiasticall: and, as Master Burhill vvriteth, may vvell call it Primatum Spiritualem, Spirituall Pri­macy.

So heere the Iarre is taken cleane away; and the Ie­suit is sully answered in all objected by him in due place. The rest, which against his owne, and all good method, hee iumbleth heere together, hotch-potch­wise, as, The King to be no Head, nor to call Councells, &c. shall heereafter, in their due place, receiue also their full answere.

D^r. Harris Reply.

TO his quest. I answere thus: By Gods grace, I haue learned to dispute, and to grapple with the most learned Iesuit in the bunch. And I am sory that it was my ill hap, to meet with such a slug as this Icsuit is. But sich it fulleth out so, I must take vp this burden, and proceedin answeting (as Salomon saith) a foole in his folly, lest hee be proud. I know by their books, many Iesuits to be very learned: and I knowe many English Preachers, in learning, to be nothing in­seriour to their chiefest Iesuits. Therefore this Iesuit Becane, without all truth, and good manners, sets the Asses eares vpon so many learned English Preachers: but they will nothing lesse then fit them, hee must re­sume the eares to himselfe, and carie them about with him, as his owne.

Touching his assertion, I did not say that he distin­guished the Head, and Primat of the Church, as two things diuerse, but that he confounded them as one. Hcere, as one that is at daggers drawing against him­selfe, hee confesseth, hee did not, nor doth, distinguish them: and yet heere, with two disiunctiue particles, hee separateth them.

Indeed, with the Papists, what is the Papall Primat of the Church, but the Supreame Head of the Church? Therefore iustly I found fault with the Iesuit, for ma­king two questions of one. viz. I. Whether the King bee Primat of the Church? 2. Whether the King be Supreme Head of the Church? and not thus rather, according to [Page 109]his words and meaning: Whether the king be Head or Primate of the Church; or Head, that is, Primate, &c. But in this his Examen, the Iesuite doth increase (and not lessen) the Iarre with himselfe.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

TRue it is, in our English tongue, as we doe not call the kings Supreme gouernment of this Church, Primacy, but Supremacy: so doe we not cell the king, Primate Ecclesiasticall, or Primate at all. But in respect that the English word Supremacy, is translated into the Latine word Primatus; as we in La­tine ascribe vnto the king, Primatum Ecclesiasticum, or Primatum, in omnibus causis, et supra omnes personas Ec­clesiasticas, Primacy Ecclesiasticall, or Primacy, in and ouer, all Causes, and persons Ecclestasticall: so wee in La­tine call the king Primatem Ecclesiasticum, Primate Ec­clesiasticall, to weet, of his foresaid (Regall, not Episcopall) Primacy or Supremacy Ecclesiasticall, that is, in and ouer all Ecclesiasticalls: which M^r. Burhill is so far off to deny, that hee hath expressely allowed them, who assert it. So that here is nothing but empty stri­uing about words, which the Apostle condemneth. I [Page 110]will therefore leaue this Iesuite, snatching at syllables, and catching of flics; I say, I will leaue him so striuing, and with are him thus reasoning.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

WHo taught this vnlearned Iesuite to dis­pute from all particulars? Concerning the general, do all disputers, at all times, reason according to the meaning of the Aduersarie, which often times they vnderstand not?

Touching the Minor, or later proposition, or As­sumption of Becane; who would not thinke his mea­ning to be, that the king by his confession disclaimeth all Primacy sacerdotall, that is, Episcopall, Archiepisco­pall, or Patriarchall? for all Bishops, Archbishops, and Patriarkes are Priests, and therefore their Primacy E­piscopall, &c. is Sacerdotall: but this Iesuite meaneth nothing lesse. For by Primacy Sacerdotall, he meaneth [Page 111]here onely the power of inferiour Priests or Presby­ters, in Court internall onelie; who haue no iurisdicti­on in Court externall, as though all our dispute were not of Primates,-and Primacy? As though any inferi­our Priests, who were not Bishops, haue at any time, bin called Primates? feeling that by the Canon law, Pri­mates & Patriarks, are all one: as though Primacy with the Papists, doth not respect the externall Court only. These are as plaine, as the nose on Becanes face. There­fore his face is hard, who abuseth his Reader so grosly.

But I'le returne this his argument vpon his owne head thus: If D^r. Tooker, and M^r. Burbill deny the King to be Primate, or to haue Primacy in that dense than Becane saith The King vsurpeth Primacy; and Becane saith The King vsurpeth Primacy Sacerdotall, that is to say, Episco­pall: Then it followeth that they deny the King to be Pri­mate, or to haue Primacy Episcopall.

But the first is true, according to Becane; viz. That the deny, as Becane meaneth; and Becane meaneth that the King vsurpeth Primacy Episcopall.

Therefore the later is true also, viz That D^r. Tooker and M^r. Burhill, denying the King to be Primate, or to haue the Primacy; deny him to be Primate, or to haue Primacy Episcopall, as all Protestants doe.

So that here is among vs all, a full and settled Con­cord; and the Iesuites Iarre, as empty chaffe, is blowen cleane away.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

DOctor Tooker (as in my Concord, and in this 4. Question, out of his expresse words vvas shewed) did, together with the R; Bishop of Ely, acknowledge, the King to be Supreme Head of this Church.Pag. 284. M. Burhill, in his Appendix, writeth thus: If any of vs call the King Head of the Church in his kingdom, that manner of speech, hath good reason, and sense ortho­doxall. I did not reprehend any man as audacious, be­cause, according to our meaning, hee calls the King, Caput, Pastorem, et Primatem, Head, Pastour, and Primat.

The Iesuit told vs before,Exam. pag. 321. that hee regarded not what they haue sworne, and professed publiquely, but what they haue written: let him therefore read this which they haue written, to make him ashamed of his shamelcsse vntruths.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

THe vnlearned Iesuit, presumptuously heere entreth the combat with the most learned Bi­shop; a Pigmey with a Giant: but it seemeth he vnder standeth neither the R: Bishop, nor himselfe. The R: Bishop is so farre off from denying our King to be Head of this Church; that hee hath not onely as­serted it, but also proued it our of the Scriptures, and Fathers, as hath appeared: but hevtterly denieth, that either the King, or Pope, or any other, but the Lord IESVS onely, is Head of the Church, in the Popish sense; viz. such a Head, by whom all the body boing coupled and knit together, by euery ioynt for the furniture thereof, Eph. 4. v. 16. according to the effectuall power which is in the measure of euery part, receiueth increase of the body, to the edifying of it selfe in loue. For suchan Head, Pope leo made Peter, & [Page 120]so him selfe,Epist. 89. and euery Pope; writing of Peter, as taken vpinto the fellowship of the Indiuiduall vnitie: writing, I say, not onely of God inspiring, but De inspirante Pe­tro, of Peter inspiring. So that no good thing passeth from God, the fountaine of all good things, but by participation vvith Peter. Asthough he were Emmanuell.

Such a Head, as is also the Head of faith; and there­fore the author of faith: because the head is the author and originall of all sense and motion; which are deri­ued thence into the rest of the members. Such a Head, vvhose body is the vvhole Church. Such a Head, as is the rocke and foundation of the Church. Such a Head of his Church, as hee is the Bridegroome of his Church. If the Church haue but two such Heads, it cannot chuse but bee a monstrous bodie; as the reuerend Bi­shop ineuitably hath concluded against the Church of Rome.

Where the Iesuit saith, that Christ, and the Pope, are both of one kind; and Christ, and the King, are of diuerse kinds: I answere him, that the King doth re­semble Christ as Head, much more then the Pope doth. For both the Scriptures, and ancient Fathers, call Kings, Heads of the Church, and Viears of GOD, within their Dominions: but no Scripture, or anci­ent Father for the space of fiue hundred yeeres at least, after Christ, called the Pope of Rome, as by his pro­per Title, either the Vicar of GOD, or Head of the vni­ners all Church.

Heere is matter for Becane to worke vpon; or ra­ther a bone for Becane to gnaw vpon. Yet our Kings, Gods Vicars, and Heads of the Church, doe not take vp­on them to bee Heads-Bridegroomes: Heads-Rocks: [Page 121]Heads-Foundations: Heads-Authors of faith: Heads-Originalls of all life, sense, and motion of the Church.

They rather detest, from their soules, the Luciferi­an, and Antichristian pride of the Romish Bishoppe, challenging to be such an Head of the Church.

But what will the Iesuit say, to three Popes at onces Had the Church of Rome then but two Heads? It were hard to iustle out Christ, as no Head: and it is no ea­sie matter, to shape one Head of three Popes (and those Antipopes) shoueled together. Or vvere there so many Pope-Heads then, quot sunt in Mitra Pontifi­cia coronae, as there be crownes in the Popes Mitre?

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

I Did not imagine the ignorance of this Iesuit to haue beene such, that, when I had set down the ex­presse words of the Canon law, so triuiall, as being [Page 122]notoriously knowen by the meanest students of that law; he could not haue readily found the place where those words are written. But sith I see the case of his ignorance to be so pittiful, I wil supply his want of skil. Let him therfore turne to the Clementines of Pope Cle­ment the 5. Title 3. De Haereticis. cap. Ad vestrum, and there, vpon the Text-word, Ecclesiae, in the Glosse, (which is cited by the learnedst Canonists for good Canon law) he shal find written these very words and sullables: Omnes igitur sunt subiecti motioni illius (Pa­pae): et sunt in illo, quasi membra de membro. de Elect. Sig­nificasti. All are subiect to the motion of the Pope, & are in him, as members of the member the Head. Becane dare not deny this to be catholick and Canonicall popish-doc­trine: not withstanding, it may be, he further desireth to hear a Text-Canon of another Author of Canons, touching this motion Papall, & the strange subiection thereunto. For this, let him turn to Dist. 40. cap. Si Pa­pa. There shall he heare Boniface the Martyr vttering these Text Canonicall words; If the Pope, negligent of the saluation of his own sonle, & of others, should draw with him, by heapes, innumerable people, to be tortured with him by many plagues, or hellish torments eternally, they all must be so subiect to that his drawing motion, that hee may not be rebuked of any of them for that motion.

Or admit the Popes motion were, to forbid vertue, & to command vice: then (as saith Bellarmine) the vvhole Church, must be so subiect to that motion, as to belieue, that vice is good, and vertue euill, vnlesse they will sin against conscience. Is not this lowly good infernall subiection? Farre be it from any of vs to acknowledge any subiec­tion to any such motions of our Kings or Queenes.

But why doth the Iesuit presume, to tell the mea­ning of that Author, whom, as hee heere confesleth, he knoweth not? Let him learne more modestie heer­after; and in the meane time knowe, that for members to be subiect to the motion of their Head (for example, the Church of Rome to their Pope-Head) is, not onely to obey the commaund of their head (as if the legges should moue, when the head would haue them moue) but to receine the vertue of motion from the head, with­out which, they cannot moue at all.

Hence it is, that in great distemperatures of the head, as Apoplexies, or the like, the members are void of all motion. And so it fareth with the Church of Rome, and their Pope-Head: from whom, as from their Head (so saith their Canon) euen their Head of faith, GOD powreth out his gifts (the gifts of moti­on) into all the members. Yet in such sort, as that with­out partaking of the Pope-Head, GOD (saith Leo) powreth no gift or grace into any member.

God for bidde wee should acknowledge the King to be such an Head of motion, or wee bee subiect to any such motion. His Maiestie detesteth any such claime: and wee derest all such subiection. So little is the King preiudicated by this quotation.

Touching the scornfully obiected exemption of our Predicants from the Kings command: were your po­pish shauelings borne in England, the Seminary Priests, and Iesuits, as loyall and obedient to the King, as our English Preachers are; the crown wold stand vpon the Kings head with more safety, & his subiects should eate the labours of their hands, and drink the water of their own wells with more security. Were your Priests & Iesuits [Page 124]or confounded, none vvould hurt or destroy in all the mountaine of Gods holinesse. None would hatch the Cock­atrise egges, or weaue the Spyders web, of Gun-powder treasons, and milhons of other trayterous complots, and bloudy conspiracies.

You, you are they who in very deed trouble Israell, and bring the whole Christian world into combusti­on. It is a statute enacted in the heauēs, that euery soule, [...],Rom. 13. ver. 1. (as saith Chrysos̄tome writing vpon those words) [...]; be hee an Apostle, or Euangelist, or Prophet, or a­ny other, Peter, Pope, or whosoeuer: should bee subiect to the higher Powers for conscience sake. But by the Popes statute or Canon, the vilest shaueling Priests aforesaid, are so exempted frō subiection to the highest Powers, Kings, and Emperours, that they are not bound to o­bey them or their lawes, for Conscience, but onelie for Order sake.

Therefore they are not bound to giue, neither will they giue, to Caesar, that which is Caesars, viz. Tribute; for, Tribute belongs to him: nor Custom; yet Custom is due to him. They will not, as Saint Paul did, stand at Caesars iudgement seat, to be tryed there: much lesse will they, as Christ did, present themselues to that tri­bunall vvhich hath power giuen to it from aboue, to bee condemned there. Some kind of reason they may haue for it; as this: They hold with Antichrist, why then should they follow Christ?

Touching the popish Layicks, If (as the Iesuit heere saith) all the Kings subiects vvithin his Realmes, are bound to obey the King; why doe they disobey him, euen in the face (beeing open and professed wilfull Recusants) to [Page 125]come to Church, there to heare Gods word truely preached, and his Sacraments duely administred? to pray to God, & to praise God in the congregations of his Saints? Why doe they (against the law of God, of Nature, of Nations, and of their King) refuse to te­stifie by oath their Allegiance to their Soueraigne? Why? vnlesse it be for that they want motion; as ha­uing no vertue of motion thereunto, deriued vnto them, from their Pope-Head: or else, because they take them selues to be the subiects of the Pope, and not of the King. And this is indeede Preiudiciall to the King, in the highest degree.

D^r. HARR IS Reply.

I Gather hence, that the Pope is very Antichrist, shewing himselfe as God. The Scripture saith, that, by preaching the gospell,1. Cor. 3.7. Paul may plant, and A­pollo may water, but this God onely giues the increase; that is the vertue and effect of preaching. But here Peter, to weet, the Pope, is said to giue the vertue and effect of preaching.

The Scripture,1. Cor. 3.11 yea the Canon law, saith, that there is no foundation, or rocke of the Church, but onely Christ Iesus. But here the Pope challengeth, not onely the name, but the very Dignity of Christ, viz. to be, as Christ is, The foundation and rock of the Church.

God saith,Esay 48.11. Hee will not giue his Glory, or Dignity, to any other: but here it is said, that Peter, to weet, the Pope, is assumpted into the Dignity of the indiuidual vnity. The in­diuiduall vnity, is our Lord God; but here the Pope is assumpted into the fellowship of the name: and hence it is, that the Papists or Papi-coliks, call that Romish Anrichrist, their Lord God the Pope.

Thus haue I gathered, out of the blasphemous as­sertiōs of this Iesuit here, and out of their Canon law, enough for this one time, and to much for Becane to answere all his life time, against their Pope-Head.

But how doth the Iesuit gather, that the Sacrament of preaching was principally constituted in Peter, when, after the vessell let downe, it was said vnto him, Rise Peter, kill and eate? seeing that Christ before his passion, did constitute the Sacrament of preaching, e­qually [Page 127]and with the selfe same words, in all his Apo­stles, saying, Gopreach the gospell to all the world. By ver­tue whereof, the rest, as well as Peter, did preach the Gospell: but this vision, and this speech to Peter, was after Christs ascension: not to constitute the Sacra­ment of preaching the Gospell principally in him; but to reforme the errour that was principally in him, viz. that he ought not to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Therefore by that speech and vision, he was embold­ned to preach the Gospell to Cornelius a Gentile; but not to kill Cornelius, as Cardinall Baronius expounded those words against the Venetians.

If the Iesuite had cited the whole words of the Ca­non, as he promised to doe, he might haue learned by those words of the Canon, Dexteras Societatis: the right hands of Fellowship; that the Sacrament of preaching the Gospell, was as principally constituted in Paul towards the Gentiles, as it was in Peter towards the Iewes.

As touching me, I had read that Canon often: but I purposely cited, out of it, those words onely which shew, what a blasphemous Head the Church of Rome hath, who challengeth to be assumpted into the fellow­ship of the indiuiduall vnitie, in such sort, that all gifts and graces of God, are powred vpon the Church from him, and through him, as the Head of that his body, the Church.

And those words which I cited, were not maimed, but full enough to euince the Pope to be such a blas­phemous Head indcede. Notwithstanding, I must giue the Iesuite leaue to hold on his course, viz. to wound his Pope, when he seeks to heale him; to disgrace mee without cause, and to bely mee, without blushing.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

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 frō 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 human [...], 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 frō the King; who giueth vnto our Bishops chosen and consecrated, their Baronries, and Iurisdiction coactiue by corporall or temporall mulcts (which is D^r. 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.

D^r. 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 [Page 130]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 [Page 131]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.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

THe foole will alwaies be playing with his ba­ble; some fooles with varietie: but this clay­witted Iesuit, playes with his downe right re­petitions of the same things in the same words; wher­as heeretofore, he hath receiued in my English Concord, a full, cleare, and solid answere, to all, and euerie one of these particular seeming Iarres; but in truth no [Page 137]iarres at all. Wherein is manifested our good Concord, euen in all those seeming Iarres. In short, thus: Master Thomson denieth the Kings Supreme Church gouern­ment to be called Primacy, or the King Primat; as Pa­pists vnderstand it, to weet, Episcopall: but he himselfe calleth the Kings supreme Church gouernment, Pri­macy, and the King in respect thereof Primat; as the Protestants meane, to weet, Regall.

So D^r. Tooker, denied the King to be called Head of this Church; that is, Episcopall, or Papall: but Doctor Tooker acknowledged expresly, that the King is not onely the Head, but also the toppe of the Head of this Church; to weet, Regall. And in that sense, saith Ma. Burhill, they say well, who call the King, Caput,Appendix pag. 284. Pastorē, et Primatem, the Head, Pastour, and Primat of this Church.

Doctor Harris saith Ma. Burhill denieth the King to haue Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in the outward Court, viz. Sacerdotall; that is, in D^r. Harris meaning, not Presbyteriall, but Episcopall (according to that of Lactantius, who called Sacerdotium, summum Episcopa­tum. Sacerdotall, that is, Episcopall, Archiepiscopall, or Patriarchall.) And D^r. Tooker saith, that all Iurisdiction of Priests, that is, of Presbyters, or lowest Priests, or all Iu­risdiction Presbyteriall, is in the inner Court. Is heere any Iarre?

The Bishop of Ely saith, The King hath power of Cen­sure, to weet, Regall, and Ecclesiasticall (as plainly ap­peared, when Salomon deposed Abiathar the high Priest. And againe, he saith, The King hath not power of Censure; that is, Episcopall, as Excommunication. Or in short thus: The King hath some Ecclesiasticall Iuris­diction, [Page 138]viz. Regall. And the King hath not all Ecclesi­asticall Iurisdiction, viz. Episcopall.

D^r. Tooker, & Hainric say, the King hath all supreme Ecclesiastical Iurisdictiō.i. Regall. And our English law saith, The King hath, not (as this Iesuit writeth) all manner of Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall (for that would include both Episcopall, and Presbyteriall, or in Becane his sense, Sacerdotall) but all manner of supreme Ecclesi­asticall Iurisdiction, that is, Regall. Ma. Thomson saith, The King hath no Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, or Pri­macy (for Primacy and Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, are all one with Ma. Thomson) Episcopall: but Ma. Thom­son saith: The King hath Primacy, or Supreme Eccle­siasticall Iurisdiction, Regall. So the King hath all, and all maner Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, Regall: and, The King hath not all, The King hath none, none at all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, Sacerdotall, or Episco­pall. The King doth not gouern Ecclesiasticall things, ecclesiastice, that is, Episcopally, or Sacerdotally: The King doth gouerne Ecclesiasticall things, Regally. Is not heere a plaine Concord, and vniforme agreement? The Christian harmony whereof, this Iesuit cannot dissolue, though all his iarring hart-strings would burst in-sunder.

But whereas this Iesuit saith, that M. Burhill affir­meth the King to haue no Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, none at all, in Court either inward or outward; hee sheweth himselfe to bee past shame, in his grosse vn­truths: for M. Burhills express words in hisPag. 285. Appendix are these: Quomodo nullam, nullam penitus huiusmodi Iurisdictionem Regiesse aio his verbis; vbi propositionem qua hoc asseratur, falsam esse pronuntio? How do I say, that [Page 139]the King hath none Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, none at all, in Court inward, or outward, vvhen I pronounce that proposition to bee false, vvherein this is asserted. So the Iesuit brings in Ma. Burhill affirming that, which hee expresly denith.

The particular manner, and materiall points, of this Supreme Gouerment Regall and Ecclesiasticall, are set downe by our gracious King Iames: by Queene Eli­zabeth: by three of our most learned Bishops, viz. of Salisbury, Winchester, and Ely (as is transcribed in this Reply, & English Concord: but especially, in Hainric Salo-Brigian his Becano-Baculus) with vniforme consent.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

IF the heauens fall, wee shall haue stoare of Larks­heads. Wee will as soone grant that the heauens may fall, as that the Pope might lawfully exercise supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction within this king­dome.

If Queene Mary would wilfully & superstitiously re­nounce that Supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, which was due vnto her, as Queene of England, by the law [Page 140]of God, and the law of this kingdom; yet it followes not, that the said supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, was not by diuine and humane right, vnited to the Crowne. The publique worship & scruice of GOD, was vnder the law, vnited to the persons Leuiticall, & to the place where the Temple was: yet Ieroboam, who made all Israel to sinne (as Quecne Mary, more bloo­die then he, made all England to sinne) changed both persons, and place, by whom, and wherein, Gods di­uine publique worshippe was then to be performed. Heere then is nought else, but Becanicall folly, or fop­pery Iesuiticall.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

THE reuerend Bishop of Ely, asserted, the Ab­besses with Papists to haue or dinary Iurisdiction spirituall, and therein to be equall with Abbats: and that 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 D^r. 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, [Page 142]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 [Page 145]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 a Priest; but by, power delegated from the Pope, hee might well doe it.
• 2. Of Laik Females. Caus. 2. q. 5. ca. Mennam. in gloss. verb. Arbitrio. De­legatur hic laico, spirituale negotium. The case was this; Menna a Bishop, was accused before the Pope of cer­taine crimes, whom (after that by his oath hee had purged himselfe) the Pope dismissed, and absolued: notwithstanding, afterwards, the Pope committed to Brunichilda, Queen of France, full Iurisdiction Eccle­siasticall, to conuent before her the said Bishop, for the said crimes, to purge himselfe with two other com­purgator-bishops ioyned with him, by their oathes; so farre forth as she thought good; prouided, that shee did not exceede the extent of Ecclesiasticall Iuris­diction; viz. to vrge him to his said purgation, or the exact manner thereof, by applying vnto him, hotte burning yron, or the like: for such corporall tortures, [Page 146]and only such, the Pope in this Canon inhibited. All which is expresly set downe at large in the very text of the said Canon.

Secondly, in more particular manner, that both Laik male Abbats, and also Laik femall Abbesses, are capeable of, and may, and doe, execute ordinary Iu­risdiction Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall, viz. to excom­municate, absolue, institute, suspend, visit, &c. All w^ch belong, ad Spirituale forum contentiosum. To the Spiritual Iurisdictiō of outward or contentious court: as appeareth by Extrauag. commun. De Praebendis. ca. Execrabilis. verb. visitare. in glossa.

And first for Abbats.

‘Decretal. de Praescriptionibus. Tit. 26. c. Auditis. Tā ­to tempore probantur per testes ab Abbatibus de Heuens­cham, pleno iure possesse: vt videantur in eis, Episcopale ius legitime praescripsisse. Quod si constiterit, absoluatis Abbatem ab impetitione Episcopi, super Ecclesijs memo­ratis, adiudicantes ill as Abbati, pleno iure subiectas, et Episcopo super ill is, silentium imponatis. Circa cognitionē quo (que) causarū matrimonialium, et Capellani suspensionē in praedicta villa, et inter dictum capellarū, vos super his, ius Episcopale adiudicetis eidem Abbati. The Abbats of Heuenscham seem lawfully to prescribe Episcopall Iuris­diction in certaine Churches: if that be so, let the Abbat and not the Bishop, gouerne those Churches Pleno iure, that is, by right of Iurisdictiō, Spiritual, Ecclesiastical, E­piscopall, euenin causes matrimoniall, suspensions, & in­terdictions. The glosse of which Canon, §. Ius Epis­copale; writeth thus: Hic manifeste patet quodiura E­piscopalia praescribuntur, cognitio causarū matrimonialiū, tantū de iure communi spectat ad Iurisdictionē Episcopi, [Page 147]quam praescribit Abbas.’ Hence it is manifest that Ab­bats may prescribe Episcopall Iurisdiction, &c.

Clementin. de reb. Eccle. non alienand. or. Monasteriorū. verb. Proprij. in. gloss: Abbates exempti habent Episcopa­lem Iurisdictionem. Abbats exempt haue Episcopall Iuris­diction. et cap. De statu Monachorū. ca. Attendentes. verb. Alia. in gloss. Illa ergo non corriget ordinarius loci, sed Ab­bas, vel Prior, cui subsunt. In exempt Monasteries, let not the Ordinary of the place, but the Abbat, or Prior, correct faults done there.

To be briefe: Abbats, by the Canon law,

May Absolue an Excommunicate Monke: (and there­fore excōmunicate him) Dist. 90. c. Si quis. verb. Prioris. in gloss. Abbas potest absoluere mona­chum suum, inijcientem manus in monachum suum, vel alterius.

May Dispense concerning Orders. 20. q. 4. Monachū. verb. Remittatur. in gloss. Abbas dispensare po­test circa ordines.

May Giue or confer the lesse orders. Dist. 69. Quoni­am. verb. lect or is in gloss. Abbas minores or di­nes hodie conferre possit.

May Visite his subiects mediat and immediate. extra. commun. de cencibus c. vas. verb. Abbates in glossa.

May Bless & cōsecrate Ecclesiastical things & persons. Sexti. de Priuilegijs. Tit. 7. ca. Abbates. Additi­on. I. in glossa. Et faciunt haec pro Abbatibus qui benedicunt calices, patinas, vestes sacerdo­tales, cruces et similia. Nam si benedicant per­sonas, fortius et res.

According to the Canonists, not onely Abbats, but also Priors claustrall, in their absence, haue ordi­nary Iurisdiction, Spiritual and Ecclesiasticall, as these moderne, Victorinus, Mansus, Auersanus, and Mona­chus Cassinensis, the Abbat of Saint Sepherine at Naples, cap. 2. de. modo procedendi in Causis. Regula. N. 4. haue largely written and proued. When the Abbat is away, the Prior hath authoritie in Court both secret, and conten­tious, to heare confessions, to visit &c. Specula. in Tit. de of­fic. ordin. si. const. per text. in cap. Duo extra. eod. tit. Ab­bas. in tract. de forma procedendi. in cap. Irrefragabili eod. tit. et in cap. Cum contingat. De foro competen: And is ordinary Iudge there; as Petrus Follerius in the last part of his practik criminall, hath clearely proued and for­tified.

Now touching Abbesses. I. Out of the Canon law.

Decretal. de maior. et obed. Tit. 33. ca. Dilecta. verb. Iurisdictioni. in gloss. Abbatissa potest suspendere ab of­ficio et beneficio, Monach as su as, et clericos suae Iurisdicti­oni subiectos, secundum quod hic satis innuitur, si inobedi­entes fuerint. Habet enim administrationem temporalium et spiritualium. Item ratione suae administrationis, post suam confirmationem potest conferre Ecclesias, et beneficia, et constituere clericos in Ecclesijs sui Monasterij, sicut Ab­bates. Abbesses may suspend their Nunnes, & also clearks vvhich are vnder them, from office and benefice, if they be disobedient; for she hath administration of things spirituall and temporall therein: and by vertue of her administration, she may collate Churches and benefices, and institute clerks in the Churches of their Monastarie, as Abbats may doe. Out of the text of this Canon. Dilecta. Panormitan [Page 149] noteth, that an Abbesse is capable of spirituall Iurisdiction, and may exercise that Iurisdiction ouer her Nunnes.

Decretal. De statu Monachorū. Tit. 35. cap. 8. Ea quae. Haec autem omnia etiam in Monasterijs quae non ha­bent Abbates proprios, sed Priores: nec non in Monasie­rijs monialium [...] oad articulos Abbatissis, et monialibus cō ­gruentes praecipimus obseruari. We will haue all these things obserued in the Monasteries of Monks and Nunnes.

In which Constitution, because it speakes expresly of administration, as well spirituall as temporall; as well of Abbots, as of Abbesses: by that very extension the Abbesse is equalled with the Abbot, in the admi­nistration of his Monastery, as well spirituall, as tem­porall. Whereupon Panormitan noreth, Quod Dispo­situm in Monachis, et Abbatibus, extenditur ad Abbatis­sas et Moniales. That vvhich belongeth to Abbats in their Monasteries, appertaines to Abbesses in theirs.

The same Panormitan, in Decretal. Tit. 10. De his quae fiunt à praelat. sine consens. capital. ca. Contine­batur. n. 4. writeth expresly, That an Abbesse hath as free administration of her Monastery, as an Abbat hath. But an Abbat hath ordinary spirituall Iurisdiction in his Mo­nastery, as all Canonists agree.

Flaminius Parisius, De Resig. Benef. 1.3. q. 12. n. 3.5. 8. et 14. proueth at large, That an Abbesse may haue a Praelature, and dignity, with administration, and a right to visit, euen without the Monastery; which right she may al­so commit to others. And the Bishop Bitontine, very late­ly holdeth and proueth the same in his works dedica­ted to Pope Clement 8. See the very Text. Sext. de E­lect. ca. Indemnitatibus, prouing the same.

Barthol. in l. 1. cod. de dign. lib. 12. n. 4. saith that [Page 150]Abbesses haue dignity, with administration, not onely ouer their Nunnes, but also without, for that they haue Castles, &c. as Abbats haue dignity, with administration. Sext. de Priuilegijs. ca. Apostolicae. And therefore, by a ruled case among the Doctors, grounded vpon ca. Atten­dentes in Clemētin.de stat. Monachor. they ought to vi­sit, or to commit the visitation to others. Extra: con.ca. Vas electionis.

Out of these, & the like, Steph. d' Aluin, ca. 2. sect. 12. of the power of Abbesses, concludeth; that Abbesses & Prioresses claustrall, by a certaine right, constitutions, and rule of S. Benedict, from whence all the rest, in a manner, are drawne, as also by custome, haue authority and power ordinary, spirituall, and Ecclesiasticall, ouer those that are vnder them. And cap. 3. sect. 8. That Abbesses, & Prio­resses, ex cardin. concil. 17. cal. 4. bj. cap. Dilecta, and the Gloss.adioyned, haue all administration, as well spiri­tuall, as temperall, of those monasteriall Nuns; saue only of those things whereof a woman is vneapable, to weet, of Order.

Now, touching the power which Abbesses haue to excommunicate.

Because Tho. Aqui. in 4. sent. dist. 18. q. 2. art. 2. in corpore, writeth thus; Excōmunicatio non est actus cla­nis directe, sed magis exterior is iudicij: Excommunication is not an act of the key directly, but rather of external court. Nauarre, lib. quinto, consil. 1. de sentent. Excom. con­cludeth; that a vvoman by priuiledge, may also excom­municate.

Tabiena and Arnilla, verbo Abbatissae. nu. 3. be­sides Panormitan, Astensis, and others, That an Abbess may cōmand the Priests, her subiects, to excōmunicate their rebellious & obstinat Nunnes, or to absolue them.

Whereupon, Steph. d'Aluin, cap. 3. sect. 12. conclu­deth thos: Proinde omnis habens Iurisdictionem Ecclesia­sticam, et si non habeat clauem ordinis, potest excommunica­re ex D. Thoma. Therefore all hauing Ecclesiasticall Iu­risdiction, may excommunicate, according to Tho. Aquin.

Now, that they haue Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, wit­nes Panormitun, in ca. De stat. Monachor. Iason, con­sil. l 40. lib. 2. Flaminius, deresig. lib. 3. q. 12. n. 12. say­ing: Dispositum iur is in Abbate, habere locum in Abba­tissis. What right Abbats haue, Abbesses haue the same.

And againe, Panormitan, Arnilla, & Flaminius write, That Abbesses exempt, haue right or iurisdiction to visit the places, and persons subiect to them; and that they haue Clerks subiect vnto them, Pleno iure, that is, vnder their gouernment, as well Ecclesiasticall, as Temporall.

Now say Card. Parisius, and Flaminius: Out of the right to visit, or from visiting by her selfe, or her deputie, followeth her Iurisdiction, to depriue, depose, correct, pu­nish, and chastise. And to haue them subiect to her, Ple­no iure, by full right, doth plainely import Iurisdiction, De­priuation, Visitation, and Correction.

To conclude this point: If priuat men and vvomen be capable of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction; If Abbesses haue and execute the same, in collating Benefices, instituting, su­spending, depriuing, visiting, iudging crimes, and imposing and receiuing purgations of Bishops; lastly, excommunica­ting, and absoluing; according to Popish Canons, Canonists, Custome, and practise among them: with what face doth this Iesuit, or any other Papist, scandalize our Kings, or Queenes, for taking, or vs for ascribing vnto them, Su­preme Ecclesi. Iurisdiction: yet not that, wherby our Kings or Queens may institute Clerks, excōmunicate, [Page 152]or absolue them: oras King Iames, and late Queen E­lizabeth haue in their writings published to the whole world. Therefore, most impudently false is the Iesuit heere, asserting that Queen Elizabeth had power to ex­communicate.

Touching Suarez, let this Iesuit know, that Steph. D' Aluin, hath refuted in this point, a farre greater, & better learned man then Suarez is, to weet, Franciscus a Victoria, in his Relect. 2. de potest. Ecclesiae; and shewed the practise of the Church to be, as heere hath beene declared.

Christian Reader, I haue beene much heere in this point, because it is of that moment, and so remarkable: for recompence, in replying to the remainder of Be­canes Examivation, I promise to bee short; the rather, because in truth, it is but froth, not deseruing any o­ther answere at all, but that which is already set down in my English Concord.

D^r. HARRIS. Reply.

I Say, as I haue aboundantly proued in this Replie, and in my English Concord, that all our English-Protestant-Writers doe with full and vniforme consent, agree in the reall, solide, and substantiall Su­preme [Page 159]Gouernment of the King in all Causes, and ouer all persons, Ecclesiasticall, or Ciuill within his Dominions, next vnder Christ.

Further, that all the said Writers sully agree in the verie name of that Supreme Gouernment, to weet, the English name, Supremacy. Moreouer, that all the saide Writers, in the sense of this reall thing, and of the name of this reall thing, call the same Supreme Gonernment, in Latine, Primatum, Primacy: and Iu­risdictonem Spiritualem vel Ecelesiasticam; Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction.

Againe, that all the saide Writers, call, and ac­knowledge the King to bee reallie, Supreme Gouer­nour, in all Causes, and ouer all Persons, Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill vvithin his Dominions, next vnder Christ. And in this sense, all the said VVriters call the King, Supreme Primate and Head of this Church, as hath been shewed expreslie out of their owne writings.

Whereby appea [...]eth, that in very truth, here is no English Iarre among our Protestant Writers, Reall, or Nominall. And so, these figge leaues, wherewith Becane endeauoureth to couer the shameful nakednes of the Popish sort, denying to acknowledge the Kings Supremacy aforesaid, are remoued and taken cleane away.

But alas for for this seely Iesuit, who is confined now, in his English Iarre, to Iarre Nominall only, and not Reall: and hath no other twigge to hang by, but this scattered consequent, viz.

The Protestant English Writers expresse the selfe same substantiall thing, to weet, the Kings Supremacy, with va­rietie of names, and phrases.

Therefore the thing it selfe is not reall, but nominall.

Our Academian school-boyes, would, & deserued­lie might, hisse this Iesuite with his consequent out of the Vniuersitie Schools, as exceeding foolish and chil­dish. Thus rather would the argument proceede; The Iarres of some Writers, about a thing or matter, are Nominal only, and not Reall.

Therefore their consent is reall, and the thing it selfe Reall.

Touching Rochester-Bishop, inculcated by this Iesuite; our King in his Apology, pag. 121. according to the publike Records, writeth thus: ‘Roffensis in carcerem coniect us est, priusquam in iu­dicium capitis de Primatu Pontificis vocaretur: idque, partim quòd tardior esset ad successionem Regiae prolis confirmandam, cui iam antea Regni Ordines subscripse­rant: partim quod implicatus eo negotio tenebatur, quod de sancta Virgine Cantiana ill is temporibus forte incide­rat, adeo vt propter [...]elatas Pseudoprophetiae illius frau­des, reus iudicatus sit Maiestatis, ob non detectam coniu­rationem. The Bishop of Rochester vvas imprisoned, and condemned, not onely for acknowledging the Popes Supremacy: but also, for gaine saying the lawfull succes­sion of the Kings progeny; and for concealing high treason against the King.’

And why might not the Bishop of Rochester then, or why may not the Popish ones here now, in like case, be imprisoned or put to death, for treason against their Soueraign? Who can denie that it is treason, for any subiects, to deny their Soueraigne to be their lawfull Prince? But, since euery lawfull Christian Prince, is Supreme gouernour of his owne subiects in [Page 161]things Spirituall and Temporall, or, which is all one, is Custos vtriusque Tabulae, Keeper of both Tables: to de­ny that of their Soueraigne, is to deny him to be their lawfull Prince. Assuredly, to acknowledge the Popes Supremacy here, as now it is defined, and conuerted from Spirituall to Secular; is to acknowledge the King to hold his kingdome of the Pope in Chiefe, and that also at his will and pleasure, as it is plaine by their Canon law, and Canonists: yea, to hold their liues al­so, as Tenants of Life, at the Popes will, by Iesuiticall doctrine, as before in this Reply, and in Becano-Bacu­lus was expresly shewed, and prooued demonstra­tiuelie.

And what is this else, but apparantly to denie the King, and to assert the Pope to be their Soueraigne Lord and King indeed? And is not this high treason in the highest degree? why then may not such lawful­ly be imprisoned, condemned, and executed, as Arch­traitors? At least, why may not our King require an oath (and this saide oath) of his subiects against the Pope vsurping his right:2. King. ca. 11. v. 4 as well as Iehoiada the high Priest did of the men of Iuda, for Ioas their King, against Athalia that vsurped his state? Queene Elizabeth, in her Explanation of the Supremacy, caused these words to be printed, and published to all her subiects, viz.

‘That if any her subiects, would accept the oath of Supremacy, with this interpretation, sense, & mea­ning; viz. That the K. or Q. Maiesty of England vnder God, is to haue soueraignetie and rule, ouer all manner of persons, borne within her Maiesties Realmes, Dominions and Countries, of what estate, Ecclesiasticall or Temporall, soeuer they be, so as no [Page 162]forraine Power shall, or ought to haue, any superio­rity ouer them: her Maiesty is well pleased, to accept euery such in that behalfe, as her good and obedient subiects; and shall acquite them of all manner penal­ties, contained in the said Act against such, as shall pe­remptorily, or obstinately refuse to take the same oath.’

The like interpretation of the oath of Supremacy, holdeth now vnder our K. Iames, & was of force vnder King Edward 6. and King Henry 8: whereby it appea­reth, that to imprison, or execute any here, for not ta­king the oath of Supremacy; is all one, as to imprison & execute Traytors for not acknowledging their Kings Soueraigntie; and for acknowledging the Popes Soue­raignetie ouer their King, in his prerogatiues Royall, Crownes, Kingdoms, and life it selfe.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

OVR gratious King Iames in his booke of A­pology &c. vindicated and proued his right­full Supreme Power, or Gouernment in all Causes, and ouer all Persons Ecclesiasticall within his Dominions. Vpon that, this Iesuite Becane inferred, That then our King had power to call Councells: To make Ecclesiasticall lawes: To create and depose Bishops: To conferre benefices: To iudge Ecclesiasticall controuer­sies; otherwise, that he neither was, nor could be Pri­mate or Head of the Church, because all those were offi­ces properly belonging to the primacy. Hainric, in his Be­cano-Baculus, denied that his consequent, as D^r. Harris in his English Concord here doth: because their chiefe Primate, and Head Pope-Peter, did neuer (as Primate) challenge to himselfe, or execute any of those offices; and for that neither in Scripture, nor any Ancient Fa­ther, is found any of those offices properlie to belong to Peter, as Primate, or Head of the Church. The Ie­suits forces being too weake to grapple with Hainric therein; Hainric tooke vp Becane his owne description. And thence irrefragably concluded, our King to bee Primate and Head, that is, Supreme Gouernour of this Church. Which is all one, as if he had taken from Be­cane his owne cudgell, and beaten him soundly black and blew therewith, as became Becano-Baculus to do.

Yet Christian Reader, consider what iust cause Hainric had, and I haue here, to vrge the Iesuite, to shew, especially in this particular, what generall Coun­cell [Page 164]cell Peter did call, as Primate; or what Scripture or An­cient Father did attribute to Peter, as Primate, any power to call generall Councells. All the Iesuites in the world, with all the learning and reading they haue, can not shew it. Whence necessarily, by Popish rule, it will follow, that Peter was not Supreme Primate of the whole Church; and consequently, that the Pope is not Supreme Primate of the said Church.

On the other side, our Writers haue, out of the Scriptures, and Ecclesiastical Histories demonstrated, that the most religious; both, Kings vnder the Law, and Emperours vnder the Gospell, haue called general Councels, for which they are, generally, greatly, and worthily commended. The Iesuite knowing this to be most true, and not able to answere it, runnes into his starting hole, and saith, that it is not to the matter; when inceed it sticks in the very bowels of the matter, and hangs so fixedly in the Popes liuer, as no Iesuiticall Dictamne can draw it forth.

In this one point of Regall Supremacy, the Iesuite can not produce any two of our Writers, who doe not fully agree. As for Hainric and D^r. Tooker, they both write vniformally, that it belongeth to orthodoxall Kings and Emperors, when any such are, to call Coun­cells. Here therefore the Iesuite, being at a non-plus, and brought to his shifts, faineth a Iarre betweene D^r. Tooker and himselfe. Well, then belike when Bel­larmine in his writings differeth from himselfe, that is, at least an hundred times, those discords must be sti­led, Popish Iarres: but how doth Becane proue that D^r. Tooker is in this point against himselfe? Forsooth be­cause he faith, that the Apostles (viz. when there was [Page 165]no Christian Emperour) by diuine right, called a Councell. Then the argument runneth thus: All the Apostles ioyntly in time of Persecution, lawfullie called one Councell onely, of some few persons within one Citie. Therfore, in time of Peace, not Christian Emperours, but onely, and all, Bishops in the Christi­an vvorld, ioyntly must call all generall Councells, throughout the vvhole Christian vvorld.

What cable, strong enough, and long enough, can the Iesuit get, from all the Iesuiticall crue, so to tye these together, that the consequence may hold for good? For heere is a manifold Non sequitur; 1. From one particular act of Apostles, to a generall rule of all Bishops. 2. From times of Persecution, to times of Peace. 3. From times when there were no Christian Emperours to call Councells, vnto times when there were some to call, and indeed did call, all & euery one of the most renowned generall and orthodoxal Coun­cells, to weet, the first six of them.

Becane dare not say, that the 4. first generall Coun­cells (which Pope Gregory the great esteemed as the 4. Euangelists) were vnlawfully, or against diuine right, indicted or called; yet were they all called by Empe­rours, and not by Popes. viz. The first Nicen Councell, by Constantine the great: The first Councell of Con­stantinople, by Theodosius the first: The first Coūcell of Ephesus, by the Emperor Theodosius the second: The first Councell of Chalcedon, by the Emperour Martian. Vnto which Councells, the Emperours by their Let­ters, called as well the Popes of Rome, as other Patri­archs.

If Pope Leo the first, had knowne any such diuine right, of calling generall Councells to be in him, and not in the Emperour, hee would neeuer have stooped so basely, as suppliant vpon his knees, to entreat the Emperour, and the Empresse, by himselfe, and by o­thers, to call a generall Coūcell: for what else had this beene, but treacherously to request the Emperour to bereaue him of his Diuine right (as Becane heere calls it) and by usurped power, to be practised by the call of generall Councells, to extinguish that Diuine right, & Popish Primacy. That is, to extinguish their Catholick faith. For now the Papall Supremacie, is the very ca­pitall and maine point, of their Catholick faith.

To shut vp this chapter, & question: Becane sitting vpon his Cathedrall Tripos, should heere determine these two Questions following.

First, whether Bishops onely, or Archbishops one­lie, or onely Patriarches (for these may not bee con­founded as one and the same) be the Apostles succes­sors? Or whether Patriarchs be successors of some of the Apostles; and Archbishops of other-some: and Bishops successors of the lowest, or third rank? And whether one kind onely of these successors, or all three kinds, may call generall Councells?

Secondly, whether all the Bishops in the Christian world, as the Apostles successors, must ioyntly, as all the Apostles did, call generall Councells? or (because that would now proue too-too troublesome) how ma­ny of them may serue that turne?

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

VVHat modest Hearer will not be abashed, and what Christian heart will not trem­ble, to heare these blasphemies vttered by the Iesuite? The Apostles were Gods chosen pen­men to write the Scripture, as they were immediately mooued by the Spirit of God,2. Pet. 2.19 21 without possibility of error. They were Gods immediate instruments, either joyntly in Councell, or singularly alone, to set downe Lawes and Canons, Essentiall parts of that Scripture, wherof we read thus: [...].2. Tim. 3.16 1. cor. 15.15 The whole Scripture is gluen by inspiration of God. The Apostles were such chosen witnesses to testifie Gods truth, Gal. 3.8 that if an Angel from heauen should testifie otherwise than they did, he must be accursed.

Are all Bishoppes, or any one, two, three &c. [Page 174]Gods immediate pen-man to write portions of holie Canonical Scripture? Are all the Lawes and Canons made by Bishops in all Councells, essentiall parts of Canonicall Scripture, giuen by inspiration of God? Are all Bishops God immediate chosen witnesses to testifie the truth, so without all possibility of falshood, that the Churches faith should depend thereon so sure, that if an Angell of heauen testifie other wise, then they haue preached or written, he should be accursed? Then must writings, testimonies, and lawes hereticall, go for Scripture Canonical; and so Diuine Scripture must be hereticall.

Is not this blasphemy? And this necessarily follow­eth from the Iesuite his premisses here, to weet, That all Bishops, and the lawes and Canons in Councells, and other writings made by Bishops, are and were in­spired by the spirit of truth without errour, as the A­postles, and their Canons and writings were.

Ten seucrall prouinciall Synods gaue consent with the Arian Heretikes. And whereas in the first and most famous generall Councell of Nice which main­tained or thodoxally Christ his God-head, there were but three hundred and eighteene Bishops; In the he­reticall Councell of Ariminum, which stood for Arius against the God-head of Christ, there were eight hundred Bishops. Which made Augustine, contra Maximinum lib. 3. cap. 14. write thus: Noc ego Nice­nam Synodum tibi, nec tu mihi Ariminensem, &c. Nei­ther may I, by way of preiudice, obiect the Councell of Nice to thee; nor you to me, the Councell of Ariminum: out of the authorities of Scripture, let matter with matter, cause with cause, and reason encounter vvith reason. The spirit of [Page 175]truth had so forsaken, and the lying spirit of heresic had so possessed in a manner all the Bishoppes in the Christian world; that, as Hierom against the Lucife­rans saith, Ingemuit totus orbis, et Arianum se esse mira­tus est. The whole Christian vvorld groaned, and maruai­led that it vvas become Arian, or holding with that Arch­heretike Arian. If any Councells; surely the former, and generall with their Canons, were of Diuine inspi­ration. But saith Augustine against the Donatists, lib. 2. ca. 3. Ipsa plenaria Concilia saepe priora a posterioribus e­mendantur. The former, and generall Councells, are often times corrected by later and prouinciall. If the Acts and lawes of Popes be of Diuine inspiration: why doe la­ter Popes dissannul the former Popes Decrees? For so writeth Platina de Stephano, et Romano; Acta priorum Pontificum, sequentes Pontifices aut infringunt, aut omni­no tollunt. The later Popes vtterlierepeale their predeces­sours Decrees.

For further answere to the Iesuite here, first I say that the aforesaid immediate Diuine inspiration, was personall and proper to the Apostles, and not transi­tiue or deriuatiue, from the Apostles to Bishops; as in my English Concord by foure seuerall testimonies, out of Augustine the most learned Bishop that euer wrote, I proued directly and expressely: whereunto this emp­ty prattling Iesuite answereth not one word. To stop his mouth euer hereafter touching this point, I will adde this fift out of his hundred & eleuenth Epistle ad Fortunatianum:: Nequequorumnuis disputationes quan­tumu is Catholicorum et landatorum hominum, velut Scrip­tur as Canonicas habere debemus, &c. We ought not to re­ceiue the disputations of any, be they neuer so Catholike, or [Page 176]praise-worthy, as we doe the Canonicall scriptures, so that it should not be lawfull for vs, sauing the reuerence to them due, to reproue, or reiect somwhat in their writings, if vve sinde it dissonant from truth.

Secondly I say, that those words of our Saniour, Ioh. 14. v. 16. The Spirit of truth shall remaine with you for euer; are meant as well of Pastors and Teachers, as of Bishops: for Christ when he ascended gaue not onely Apostles, Prophets, Euangelists and Bishops; but also Pa­stors and Doctours for the worke of the ministerie, Ephes. 4. v. 11. c1 14 and the edifisation of his body: that his Church should not be carried about, with enery winde of doctrine and deceits of men.

So that Presbyter preaching Pastours and Doctors, as well as preaching Bishops, stand in need of the Spirit to guide them into the heauenly truth. That in Math. 28.20. I am with you to the end of the world: is meant of the Church, and euery member of the Church. For so else-where saith our Sauiour: Where two or three are ga­thered in my name, there am I in the midst among them. And so saith the Lord by Esaie, Chap. 59 v. 21 My spirit that is vpon thee, and my words which I haue put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of the seed of thy seed, from henceforth euen for euer. 2. Epist. 2. v. 27. And so saith Iohn: That anointing teacheth you of all things, and it is true, and is not lying, and as it taught you, ye shall abide in him. Which made Panormitan (De E­lect. et Elect. potest: ca. Significasti) write boldly thus: Plus credendum vni priuato fideli, quam toti Concilio et Papae, si meliorem habeat authoritatem vel rationem. There is more credit to be giuen to one Priuate lay man, then to the whole Councell and to the Pope, if he bring better authority, and more reason.

Concerning that law of King Henry 8. about validi­tie of mariages not forbidden in the Leuiticall law, the Iesuit may be abashed to misspend the time with such fooleries; considering that Becane partly hath it but by relation of Sanders, a lying Writer, & malitious aduer­sary to this State: but especially because he confesseth the said law to be abrogated.

Belike, Iesuitical dispute is transcendent, Entium, et non entium, Of things which are, and are not. But hath not the Pope greater cause to be ashamed, by whose De­cree, as by a law of Medes and Persians which chaun­geth not, it was lawfull for King Henry the 8. to mar­rie his owne Brother Arthurs wife, Queene Maries mother, & that after Arthur was solemnly married vn­to her, and had knowne her carnally? contrary to theLeuit. 18 v. 16. et 20 v. 21 Law and the GospellMatth. 14 v. 4, and contrary to the iudge­ment of all the famous Vniuersities in Christendome, who condemned the same as an incestuous marriage. Did King Henry the 8. euer decree, that marriages in­cestuous should holde as lawful? Further, before this Iesuite be hence dismissed, hee should answere direct­lie, breuiter et rotunde, whether he and his Pope be not ashamed of that Canon 2. q. 7. Nos si incompet. where the Pope, with his breeches let downe to his heeles, stands readie to receiue that correction, which, accor­ding to his demerites, the Emperour should be plea­sed to impose vpon him.

Lastly; I am in great feare, least the Pope [vnder­standing that Becane matcheth enery Bishop with his holines, as being alike inspired with the spirit of Truth, so that they can erre no more then the Pope can, and consequently, should make Canonicall lawes & be Su­preme [Page 178]Iudges of all controuersies, as the Pope is] will vtterly renounce Becane, and abandon him, as being one, of a bastard and degenerate brood.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

MY reason to prooue the Apostles lawes and Canons to be of greater force and authority to binde the conscience, was not simply be­cause they are found written in the Scripture, as the Ordinance of Assuerus is: 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. [Page 179]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, prae­terquā; 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 [Page 180]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 [Page 181]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.

D^r. 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 inferiour Bishops, feete; should stand ready to be hangmen, or the like executioners of all their impious and vnrighteous decrees & commands: viz to hang, and burne, whom, when, and where they will.

Chuse vvhich vve vvill? We will chuse millions of Combats with garments tumbled in bloud, rather than to yeeld to the least iotte of this shame and dis­grace of our royall Monarches, the Soueraigne Lords of all Prelates within their Kingdomes; Patriarkes, or Popes themselues.

Although no lines of concord can be drawen be­tween vs and the Papists: yet here among our s [...]lues is full consent. D^r. Tooker saith, in times of Churches per­secution, the Apostles did, and wel might, make lawes Ecclesiasticall. M^r. Thomson granteth as much, and ad­deth, that because the authority of Emperours (then heathen) did not breath vpon them, or with them, they wanted the enforcements by corporall punishments, as imprisonments, losse of goods, members, life &c.

D^r. Tooker saith, in times of Church peace, the au­thority of calling Councels, and of ratifying the Ca­nons and Decrees made in Councels, belongeth to Christian Kings and Emperours. M^r. Thomson with full agreement, saith, in those times of peace, the Bi­shops and Councels could not make any Ecclesiasti­call law, which had force of law, without the authority of the King or Emperour.

To backe this assertion of M^r. Thomson, I mooued the Iesuite to yeeld a sound reason, why [especially if that be true which Pope Boniface 8. in that last Canon,Extrau [...]g. Commun. de M [...]or. et Obedien. Vnam Sanctam, viz. Vterque gladius spiritualis et materi­alis est in potestate Ecclesiae: sed ille, Sacerdotis; is, manu Regum et militum, sed ad Nutum sacerdotis, exercendus. Both spirituall and materiall sword, are in the Churches power: but th'one is to be vsed by the hand of the Priest; th'other, by the hand of the King or Soldier, but at the Priests [Page 184]beck or command.] so many, to wee [...], 150. Bishops as­sembled in the first Councell of Constantinople, should be such suppliants, as it were vpon their knees, vnto the Emperour, beseeching, & so earnestly intreating him, to confirme the Councells decree, if that decree had had force of Ecclesiasticall decree, without confirmati­on of the Emperour.

But this empty Iesuit not being able to giue another solide reason, and not daring to yeeld that: runs away from the matter; and leaueth nought else behind him, but the crackling sound of a windie tubbe; answering vnto me nothing but this: If your reason brought to de­fend Thomson were good, vvhy did you aske me another? If not, why did you not giue me a better? which his answer made in forme of the two horned Dilemma, is thus returned vpon him, with both hornes directly bent a­gainst him. If my reason were good to accord them; why doth the Iesuit here hold on his prattle of discord? if it were not good, why did not the Iesuit produce a better, and a more solide reason of those Fathers in­treaty for Imperiall confirmation, to ratifie their decree? considering that the Question, as it was moued and darted by me, strooke the Iesuites Cause through the very heart. As som cannot fish but in troubled waters; so it seemeth this Iesuit can holde no argument, but in mists of confusion. For here he confounds the Coun­cell and lawes of the Apostles, with Councels and Ca­nons of after-Bishops. Sic canibus catulos, sic paruis com­ponere magna: It is belike the fashion Iesuitical, to com­pare molehils with mountaines. The Apostles in ex­traordinary manner Diuinely inspired, might, and did make Ecclesiastical lawes to binde the conscience of all [Page 185]Christians, though not to punish their bodies: But the after-Bishops, in times of Christian Emperors, neither did, nor could meet, specially in generall Councells, to make lawes Ecclesiasticall, for the space of 600. yeers, at least, after Christ, without Imperiall commaund. And when they were mette in Councell, not only the Emperour, but also his officers, the lay Senate and Iudges, sate as Presidents there, giuing-rule and order for making of those Canons, not suffering any to passe for law, without their consent, and confirmation of the Emperour, as Hainric the Salo-Brigian in his Be­cano-Baculus, hath with great varietie of solide proofs, fully demonstrated; and further hath there produced very many Ecclesiasticall lawes, touching in a manner all Ecclesiasticall matters, and Ecclesiasticall persons, commendably made by orthodoxall Kings and Em­perours, without Councells of Bishops.

Lastly, whereas the Iesuite here slyeth, vpon mee, (indeede not vpon me, but vpon the Compositer) for mistaking the Arithmeticall figure of 5. for 1. and as though I had written fiue at large, the Iesuit sets down (quintū); he sheweth himself to be, in the one a truth­lesse wrangler, and in the other, a seely fly-catcher. My Compositer, or Transcriber, must be whipt in print, mistaking one letter for another: but he must go scot-free, mistaking one name for another; one man for an­other, to weet, Tooker for Richard. Exam. page 120. For which I would not taxe him in due place, (and here, constrained I do it) because I would not misspend the Readers precious time, with such empty and childish trifles.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

HEere, the Iesuit is as a chased timorous Hart, which hauing his deadly wound giuen him, flyeth out a while, straggling from his fel­lowes: but feeling decay of his vitall spirits, and lifes bloud, runs into the brakes to hide his head, and there to perish. Becane in his verball (but in no sort reall) confutation of his Maiesties Apologie and Preface Mo­nitory, sets down the Conferring of Benefices, as one of the proper offices of the Supreme Primate Ecclesiasti­call; as hee vnderstood it, Sacerdotall or Episcopall. Hainric in his Becano-Baculus, tolde the Iesuite, that, although by none, either Scripture, or Ancient Father, [Page 192]it can be shewed that Collation of Benefices belonged, as proper, to the said Primate Ecclesiasticall; yet hee would encounter him therein, and beat him with his owne weapon: as he did soundly, prouing that good Emperours, haue giuen Popedoms, and that accor­ding to the Canon Law: That Catholike Kings by their prerogatiue Regall, haue giuen, as to this day they giue, Archbishopricks, Bishopricks, and other Benefices.

Because Becane the Iesuit, neuer as yet answered, nor euer will be able to answere, Hainric therein: I vrged the Iesuit by Scripture, or Ancient Father to shew, the Collation of Benefices, to belong to their Ecclesiasti­call, to weet, Episcopall Primate; promising vpon that condition, that we would yeeld the victory vnto him. But this seely Iesuit (not being able for his life pro­duce the least, either word of Scripture, or sentence of Ancient Father for it) runnes away into the brakes of his clouded ignorance, crying out thus: Let mee haue the victory, for I haue proued an English Iarre.

How ridiculous is this Iesuit here? Hainrie, as hath appeared, denied the Collation of Benefices to belong to the Supreme Primate Episcopall; yet supposed that it did appertaine to a Supreme Primate, to weet, Re­gall; that thereby he might cudgell the Iesuite with his owne weapon, and according to Becane his dispute, proue the King to be Primate, to weet, Regall, because the Collatiò of Benefices belongs vnto him. Therfore not Hainric, but onely Becane was to shew it out of Scripture or Ancient Fathers: which, because he nei­ther hath, nor can doe, his mouth is to be stopped vp herein, euer hereafter.

Touching the Benefices he speaketh of, the Iesuite cannot name any small Benefices without Cure, con­ferred vpon Clearkes that are neither Priests, nor Bi­shops, w^ch may not by the lawes of this Kingdom, be giuen as well by the King, as by the Bishops, or Arch­bishops. But what a trifling Sophister is this, going a­bout to proue, that Doctor Tooker by Collation, did not mean Institution & sacration? when as these his ex­presse words shew that he meant therby nothing else; Duel. Page 36. Reges Angliae Beneficia Curata, vel non Curata, non conferunt omnino in quempiam Maiora Mino­raue, multo minus Episcopatus per vniuersum ambitum regni sui, illorum certe Collatio vel Institutio est quorum est destitutio, id est Episcoporum comproumcialium, qui potestatem habent personas ipsas facrandi. In short, and in English, thus: The Collation of Benefices, or Bishopricks, belongs not to the Kings, but to Bishops, whose office is to In­stitute and Consecrate.

Certainely, in the Iesuites sense, the inferiour Bi­shops doe not conferre, that is, doe not giue Archbi­shopricks: But in Doctor Tookers sense, they doe con­ferre Archbishopricks, that is they doe consecrate Archbishops, being nominated, not by Bishops, but by the King, being chosen not by Bishops, but by the Deane and Chapter. Whereby it is most manifest, that Doctor Tooker by Collation meant Consecra­tion.

Collation, as say the Canonists, in the large signifi­cation thereof, containeth Presentation, Nomination, Donation, and Institution, or Consecration. Hainric, by Collation vnderstandeth Presentation, Nomination, and Donation; all which he proueth to belong to the [Page 194]King, as D^r. Tooker also acknowlegeth. D^r. Tooker by Collation vnderstandeth Institution and Consecrati­on; which he, and also Hainric, assert to belong to Bi­shops, and not to Kings. So that Hainric and D^r. Tooker agree fully in this point, being vnderstood according to their expresse words.

My selfe and Hainric also conspire wholly heerin: for Hainric in his Becano-Baculus; and I, in my English Concord, assert expressely, that the Collation or Pre­sentation of Benefices by way of lapse after 18. Mo­nethes, belongeth to the King, as Supreme Primate Regall: Therefore, with very great, either ignorance, or impudency dooth the Iesuite obiect any Iarre be­tween me and Hainric in this point.

Both Hainric, and my selfe, auerre that Collation of Benefices cannot be shewed in Scripture, or Ancient Father, to belong to the Episcopal Supreme Primate: But Hainric hath proued it sufficiently, that Collation of Benefices and Bishopricks, did of old belong to the Supreme Primates Regall.

Therfore this imputation of a Iarre, between Hain­ric and Harris: or Hainric and Tooker: or Tooker & Har­ris; deserueth a whip, or a cudgell for Becane, rather then a garland of victory.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

THe two hornes of this Dilemma, as of the for­mer, are thus bent directly into the Iesuites face. If by Collation of Benefices, Hainric and Tooker meane things diuers: then Hainric may alcribe Collation to the King; and Tooker may deny Collati­on to belong to the King, without Iarre: If they mean the same thing, then, according to Becane his dispute here, there is no Iarre between Hainric and Tooker. For if their meaning of things diuers, doth arguea Iarre: their meaning of the selfe same thing, must argue Concord.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

VVHat a clay-witted Sophister is this Mar­tin Father Iesuit, forsooth Diuinity rea­der in Mentz? reasoning thus. Tooker [Page 196](vnderstanding, by Collation of Benefices, Presenta­tion, Nomination, Donation, as Hainric doth) ac­knowledgeth the Kings right to conferre 60. Benefi­ces, or moe in a yeare, and 10. or 12. Bishopricks in a yeare, as they may fall void: Therefore Tooker ta­king Collation for Institution and Sacration, granteth right and power to the King, to Institute, and Conse­crate, so many Priests and Bishops yearely. So boyishly daunceth this Iesuite vnder the net of Equiuocation, easily perceiued, by all, who running, do but cast their eyes vpon him.

The Kings different, and supereminent right and power aboue all his subiects, in bestowing of Benefi­ces, hath in the English Concord beene vnfolded di­stinctlie, and more sufficiently then Becane deserueth, thus:

• 1. The King only by his Breue Episcopo, Writ to the Bishop; after presentation in his Maiesties Court, reco­uered, compelleth the Bishops to institute the Pre­sentee.
• 2. The King onely presenteth his Clearks by lapse of time, to weet, after 18. Monethes Vacancy.
• 3. The King onely (or they only vnto whom that is granted by the King) presents his Clearkes to his free Chappells, exempted by him from Episcopall Vi­sitation; by his Regall Donation onely, without any Institution or Induction of Bishop or Arch-deacon, giuing his Clearks reall and lawfull possession of such Donatiues.

All these three particulars are vulgarly knowen, and ingenuously confessed by D^r. Tooker: which (if hee would vouchsafe this Iesuit an answere) would expres­lie [Page 197]appeare in his after-writings, as the like hath beene done in M^r. Burhill his after-writings.

But all these three instances of Regall Supremacy a­boue all his Subiects, Cleargie, or Lay, this vnlearned Iesuite silently passeth ouer: Only as the dogge tur­neth to his vomit, so hee in his Examen returneth to his loathsome froath and scumme of idle repetition of the selfe same things, matter, sentences, words and syl­lables, which in his Iarre he had ser forth in print; and which said froath, by the very blast of my English Con­cord, was vtterly dissolued and scattered, long before this his Examen peeped out.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

HEere haue we the picture of a very vnlearned Iesuit, whose lineaments are drawn with his owne pensill; and which is depainted with his owne liuely colours.

First, ignorantly hee confoundeth as one, a single narration with a double ratiocination; and the institu­tion and destitution of inferior Priests, with the creati­on and deposition of Bishops.

Secondly, he answereth two Syllogismes, and those produced from his owne forge onely, with denying [Page 206]the conclusions of both.

Thirdly, he reasoneth from one indiuiduall, Doc­tor Tooker, to all our Vniuersitie Academicks. Lastlie, hee brings in Maister Powell disallowing that, which hee chiefely approueth.

The single natration set downe in the English Con­cord, was thus: Doctor Tooker, reading, and well ap­prouing his Maiesties solidarguments, especially that from exemplary act of Salomon, commended in Scrip­tures, viz. in deposing Abiathar, and placing Zadock, chiefe Priests; was so farre from denying the power of Kings to depose Bishops, that he, grounding him­selfe vpon the said act of Solomon, concluded with the King and Hainric; That Emperours may lawfully de­pose Popes, and so made vp the harmony of all good concord heerein. The Iesuit transformeth this single narration into a double Syllogisme: the former thus;

All which the King hath soundly prooued, Tooker doth not deny, but embrace, as orthodoxall. But that Kings may depose Bishoppes, the King hath soundly proued. Therefore Doctor Tooker doth not deny that Kings may depose Bishoppes. To this hee answereth thus: Doctor Tooker denyeth that Kings may depose Bishops, therefore the King hath not solidly prooued it. Then briefely and plainly his aunswer heere vnto is thus: The conclusion of this syllogisme is false. Therefore the minor is false. Which answer procee­deth from extreame ignorance in the very principle of Logick.

But how proues hee (for hee dare not be Respon­dent heere) the conclusion to be false? Because Doctor Tooker denieth the institution and destitution of inferiour [Page 207]Priests to belong to Kings, as beeing proper to Bishops. As though inferiour Priests and Bishops were all one. As though institution and destitution of Priests, were all one with election & deposition of Bishops, or Popes. One Bishop may institute and destitute an hundred Priests: but one hundred Bishoppes cannot choose or depose one Bishoppe, especially an Archbishoppe, or Pope.

Heere are some lineaments & liuely colours of this Iesuits grosse ignorance: moe are to be seene in the se­cond Syllogisme, following thus; All things sound­ly prooued by the King, all English Academicks ap­prooue. That the Pope is Antichrist, was soundly pro­ued by the King: therefore all English Academicks al­low, as orthodoxall, the Pope to be Antichrist.

To this hee answereth thus: The conclusion is false, and the forme good: therefore the maior or minor is false. It skilleth not whether, so that one of them be false.

What is this else, but to his vtter shame, to display his intolerable ignorance to the world, and to expose it as ludibrious to the meanest Academick Sophisters: who should be well lashr, or iustly exploded if they would aunswere right formed syllogismes, by deny­ing the conclusions.

But how doth this Iesuit proue this later conclusion to be false? Because Gabriell Powell belieueth this doc­trine, viz. that the Pope is Antichrist, which the King hath soundly prooued, to be orthodoxall. Wherein, behold the strange blockishnes of this Iesuit, who should haue instauced in one Academick, denying that which the King had soundly proued, viz. the Pope to be Antichrist: but hee brings in Maister Powell allow­ing [Page 208]with all his [...] what the King therein had sound­ly proued.

Moreouer, if the King did not prooue soundlie the Pope to be Antichrist; then the Iesuit takes away the suppositum, and so she weth himselfe to be a frivolous Disputer. If the King did solidly proue the Pope to be Antichrist, why should not Maister Powell belieue it as orthodoxall?

The Iesuit saith The King doth not hold it as certaine: Reply first that is nor ad idem; it is no aunswere to the Syllogisme, many part thereof. Secondly, though his Maiestie doth not hold those arguments so certain, which [...] from that mysticall booke of the Re­uelation, [...] his Maiestie solidly evinceth the same, from other places of holy Writ, the meaning whereof is more certaine, cleare, and euident.

Thirdly, Saint Paul teacheth the Iesuit, that the spi­rits of the Prophets are subiect to the Prophers; That the Lord reuealeth some things to one, which he doth not to another.

To conclude this straine, the Iesuits maior proposi­tion of this later syllogisme, doth manifest the great store of ignorance in him, arguing a general of all Eng­lish Academicks, from the individuall D^r. Tooker.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

HEere also the ignorance of this Iesuit sillily mistaketh the meaning of the English Concord in this point. Becan, out of Doctor Tooker, as­serting the King to be a foster-child, and disciple of the Bishops, doth conclude, that therefore Doctor Tooker denied the Kings power to rule or depose Bishops.

The English Concord, to proue the weakenes of that consequence, shewed out of Doctor Tooker, that thogh Kings were not Bishops, but subiect vnto them, in re­gand of their Episcopall duties, as in hearing the word preached by them, in receiuing of the Sacraments ad­ministred by them; yet in respect of supreame Eccle­siasticall government, they were rulers ouer Bishope, and might depose them. As King Edward the sine did, who though he disclaimed Episcopall function, yet he claimed and vsed the primacy. But let the argument runne from the primacie of Kings, to conclude their power to depose Bishops. I say it holdeth good; consi­dering that all Papists make the power of deposing Bi­shops, a part of the primacie. And that not one Eng­lish Protestant Writer, ascribing the primacie to the King, denieth him the power to depose Bishops.

Heere is then no begging of that in question, but a solid putting that out of question which is contrauer­sed; and soundly concluding the power of Kings to depose Bishops.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

THis brew-bate Iesuit, would faine haue made a Iarre betweene Hainric, asserting the Kings power to depose Bishops; and Doctor Tooker. The English Concord sheweth, that Doctor Tooker did not onely assert, but also proue the same by the exem­plarie act of Salomon, deposing the high Priests.

Against this cleare concord, the Icsuit opposeth no­thing but this, That most graue Authors deny the argu­ment. Which is nothing to the purpose. For heere the question is not, whether other Popish Writers dissent from Hainric, or Tooker: but whether Hainric & Doc­ter Tooker dissent heerein. Neither in this case, matte­reth it, whether this Argument from Salomons act, be good, or not. It sufficeth that Doctor Tooker tooke it to be good.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

THis Iesuit is very vnlucky in his Dilemmaes. For, as the former haue been: so this, is thus retorted vpon him. These arguments helpe my cause well; for, if they be vnsound, by Becans dis­pute, they prooue not Doctor Tooker to dissent from himselfe; and so no Iarre: if sound, what cause hath the Iesuit to dislike either them, or the printing of them?

Thus is his whole Examen in this ninth Chapter vtterly dissolued, and brought to naught.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

HEere is but an idlerepetition of the selfe same Argument; which the English Concord had answered before, by denying his maior Pro­position. Which deniall was grounded vpon the testi­mony of Saint Augustine, whereunto this Iesuit an­swereth not one word. The substance whereof vvas this: That attacts of Ecclesiasticall gouernment (and onely all those acts) which the King alone may doe as King, belong vnto him: but Excommunication be­longs to euery Archdeacon; therefore that belongs not to the King.

The Iesuit beeing put vnto his shifts, hath fansied this new starting hole: viz. That power vndependant of any other, to excommunicate, is proper onely, and to euery supreme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall. Therfore if the King be supreme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall, hee hath that vndependant power to excommunicate.

Whereunto Ireply, first, that no Scripture, no, nor ancient Father, for the space of 600. years after Christ, doth assert this vndependant power of excommunica­ting, to belong to the supreme gouernment Ecclesia­sticall.

Secondly, that the ancient Fathers deny this vnde­pendant excommunicating power to belong to Pe­ter; (much lesse to the Pope.) but with one vniforme [Page 221]consent, dogmatize according to the Scriptures, that all the Apostles receiued from Christ immediatly (not from Peter) power to excommunicate, equall vvith Peter.

Thirdly, that the very principall Schoolemen, as Peter Lombard, the Maister of the Sentences, Thomas Aquine, the Doctor Angelicall, Alexander Ales, the Doctorirrefragable, and Iohn Scot, the subrle Doctor, deny the same. First, they all foure define the keyes, by the power to open and shut, to binde and loose. See Lombard, Sent. l. 4. dist. 18. et 19. Alexander Sūma Theolog. part. 4. q. 20. memb. 2. et 5. Aquin as in Sent. l. 4. dist. 13 q. 1. art. 1. Scot. in Sent. l. 4. dist. 19. art. 5. Secondly, Alexander in Summa p. 4. q. 20. memb. 5. et 6. Tho: in 4. Sent. dist. 24. q. 3. art. 2. & Scot. in Sent. l. 4. dist. 19. art. 1. affirme, that the keyes promised to Peter, in the 16. chap. of Mathew, were giuen to the A­postles in the 20. chap. of Iohn.

Fourthly, Bellarmine himselfe denieth this vndepen­dant power of excommunicating to be proper to Pe­ter: and proueth by foure sound arguments, the said power to be common to all the Apostles, thus: de Ro. Pontif. l. 4. cap. 23. That the Apostles receiued immedi­atly frō Christ their Iurisdiction; First, by these words of our Lord, Iohn 20. ‘As my Father sent mee, so send I you. Which place, the Fathers, Chrysostome, & The­ophylact, so expound, that they say plainly, The Apo­stles, by those words, were made the Vicars of Christ: yea, and receiued the very office and authority of Christ.’

Cyrill, vpon this place addeth, that ‘The Apostles by these words, were properly created Apostles, and Tea­chers of the whole vvorld. And that wee should vnder­stand, [Page 222]stand, that all power Ecclesiasticall, is contayned in autho­ritie Apostolicall, therefore Christ addeth; As my Fa­ther sent mee: seeing that the Father sent his Sonne, en­dued with chiefest, or highest power.’

‘Cyprian, in his booke of the vnity of the Church, saith; The Lord speaketh to Peter, I vvill giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, and after his resurrec­tion, said to him, Feed my Sheepe. And although after his resurrection, he gaue to all the Apostles equall pow­er, and said: As my Father sent mee, so I send you; yet, to manifest vnitie, hee constituted one chayre. Where you see, the same to be giuen to the Apostles, by those words, I send you; which was promised to Pe­ter by that, I will giue thee the keyes: and after, exhibi­ted by that, Feed my sheepe. Now it is manifest, that by those words, I will giue thee the keyes, and by that, Feed my sheepe, is vnderstood the most full euen exte­riour Iurisdiction.’

‘Secondly, the election of Matthias vnto the Apo­stleship sheweth the same. For, we read Acts. I. that Matthias was not chosen by the Apostles, nor any authoritie giuen vnto him; but that his election be­ing craued and obtained from aboue, he was present­ly numbred among the Apostles. Surely, if all the Apostles had Iurisdiction from Peter, that ought to haue been shewed most of all in Matthias.’

‘Thirdly, it is proued out of Saint Paul, who pur­posely teacheth that hee had his authority and Iuris­diction from Christ; and thereupon, proueth him­selfe to be a true Apostle. For, Gal. I. he saith, Paul an Apostle, not of men neither by man, but by Iesus Christ, and G O D the Father. And, there to shew that he re­ceiued [Page 223]not authoritie from Peter, or other the Apo­stles, hee saith; But when it pleased him, which had sepa­rated mee from my mothers wombe, and called mee by his grace to reueale his Scnne in me, that I should preach him among the Gentiles, immediatly I communicated not with flesh and bloud, neither came I againe to Ierusalem to the which were Apostles before mee: but I went into Arabia, and turned againe into Damascus. Then after 3. yeares, I came againe to Ierusalem to see Peter, &c. and chap. 2. For they that seemed to be somewhat, added nothing to me aboue that I had.’

‘Fourthly, it is proued by cuident reason: for the Apostles were made onely by Christ, as it appeareth Luke 6. He called his Disciples, & chose twelue of them, vvhom he also called Apostles. And Iohn 6. Haue not I chosen you twelue. Now that the Apostles had Iutis­diction, it is manifest, partly by the acts of Saint Paul, who 1. Cor. 5. did excommunicate, and 1. Cor. 6.7. 11.14. &c. made Canons. Partly also, because the Apostolicall dignity, is the first, and supreme digni­tie in the Church: as it appeareth, 1. Cor. 12. Ephe. 4. See B. Thomas, in 1. Cor. 12.’ Hitherto Bellarmine.

Vnto these, I will adde the testimony of two other Fathers, to weet, Origen, and Beda. Origen, Tract 1. in Matth. saith: Hoc dictum, Tibi dabo claues regni coelorum, caeteris quoque cōmune est: Et quae sequuntur, velut ad Pe­trum dicta. sunt omnium communia. This saying, I vvill giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, is common to the rest of the Apostles: and the vvords that follow, as spo­ken to Peter, are common vnto all.

Beda Homil. in Euangel. Quem me dicunt, saith; Po­testas ligandi et soluendi quamuis soli Petro a Domino data [Page 224]videatur, tamen absque vlla dubietate noscendū est, quode [...] caeteris Apostolis, data est: The power of binding & loosing, though it seeme to be giuen by the Lord onely to Peter, yet without all doubt, it was giuen also to the rest of the Apo­stles.

By which, it is soundly prooued, that all the Apo­stles had the full power of the keyes, and most full Iuris­diction Ecclesiasticall (and in one word) vndependant of any other, to binde, to loose, to open, to shut, to excommunicate & absolue, giuen by Christ, equally & immediatly vnto them, and their successors, as well as to Peter and his successors. But all Bishops are succes­sors to the Apostles: therefore all Bishops haue most full vndependant Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall to excō ­municate. And therefore, by this Iesuits argument heere, all Bishops are supreme Gouernors of the whole Church. What then shall become of his Lord God the Pope, and the Popes Primacie? Whose fulnesse of power, must by this orthodoxall position, be distribu­ted equally amongst all Bishops; not as from Peter or Pope, but as successors of the Apostles.

For so Cyrill in Iohn, lib. 3. ca. 20. Apostolis et eorum in Ecclesijs successoribus, plenam concessit potestatē. Christ (not Peter, much lesse the Pope) gaue to the Apostles, and their successors, fulnesse of power.

Where-to accordeth Saint Cyprian, de simpl. Praelat. saying: Christus candem dedit Apostolis omnibus pote­statem: Christ gaue vnto all his Apostles the selfe same power.

Bellarmine, to proue the Ecclesiasticall authoritie of Matthias to be vndependant, and not dependant of Pe­tex, brings in Matthias chosen an Apostle, not by the [Page 225]Apostles, but by God. And so of S. Paul, chosen an Apostle, not by men, nor of men, but of God. How then can the Pope challenge vndependant Ecclesiasti­call Iurisdiction, when he is chosen and made Pope, & also vnpoped by men, much inferiour to the Apostles? If the Pope alone haue vndependant Church gouern­ment, to giue and take Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, to, and from whom he please; how was the Patriarch of Alexandria made equall vnto him in the first Nicen Councell, Can. 6? And why was the Archbishop of Constantinople, equalled with him in authority, and in all things, except in Seniority; in the first Councell of Constantinople, cap. 3. and in the Councell of Chalce­don, Can. 28?

Certainly, this vndependant supreme gouernment, was not acknowledged to be in Anicetus Bishoppe of Rome, by Polycarpus, who gain-saied Anicetus in the ce­lebration of Easter. See Euseb. l. 5. ca. 26. Nor in Vic­tor, who vsurping authoritie ouer the Bishops of Asia, was countermaunded, withstood, and sharply rebuked by Irenaeus, Polycrates, and others, Bishops in France, Asia, &c. See Euseb. l. 5. cap. 25.

Touching the Iesuits argument, drawen from the Kings supreme gouermment ciuill, to conclude there­by his power to exercise all acts pertaining to ciuill Iu­risdiction. I reply and say, that true it is, the fountaine of all ciuill Iustice vnder God in this Kingdome, is in his Maiestic: That hee alone hath power to constitute ciuill Iudges, and accordingly doth so. But our most learned Lawyers, and reuerent Iudges, will teach the Iesuit, that when the Iudges be so constituted; by the lawes and customes of this kingdome, it pertaineth to [Page 226]those Iudges, and not to his Maiestie, to iudge & sen­tence, in matters personall, reall, or of blood, as Felo­nies, and Treasons, equally between the subiects, and also betweene the King & his lubiects: which cuts in sunder the very hart-strings of this his main argumēt. For, if it pertaine not to the King, to exercise all acts of inferiour ciuill gouernment, though hee be the su­preme ciuill Gouernour in his Kingdome; a fortiori it followeth, that it pertaineth not to his Maiestie, to ex­ercise all inferiour acts of Ecclesia sticall gouernment, though hee be supreme Ecclesiasticall Gouernor.

The Lord of a Manour, to which belongeth a Court Baron, may constitute a Steward to haue Iurisdiction ouer his Tenants in that Court, in setting fynes, in a­mercing, &c. yet the Lord of the Manour cannot exe­cute that Iurisdiction: for if hee set fynes, or amerce, it is voide; though that Court be, and is also called, that Lords Court.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

WHata malicious & scoffing Sycophant is this? who being perswaded in his cō ­science, that I, euen in this straine, a­scribe too much to our Primate the King, saith, I de­tract too much from the King heerein. First, this rude and ignorant Iesuit must be taught, that according to the lawes and customs of this kingdome, though the King be heere immediatly next vnder Christ the su­preme, Gouernor Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill: yet it per­taineth not to his Maiestie alone, without consent of the Orders of the kingdom in Parlament, to make any law euen ciuill, thereby absolutely to binde all the sub­iects of his Kingdom; which all Statutes made by the vniform consent of the said Orders in the Parliament, with the approbation of the Kings Maiestie, doe ma­nifest.

Touching the supposed Iarre betweene Hainric & mee: Hainric, writing generally of the power of all Christian Kings and Emperours, to make Ecclesiasti­call lawes, asserted that the said Kings and Emperours, laudably by their owne power, made such lawes: which I also auerre. And I, heere writing of the pow­er of his Maiestie therein, as it is vsed and limited by the lawes and customes of this Land, assert that his Maiestie, by consent of the Orders or States of the Kingdome in Parliament, may make Ecclesiasticall lawes, by force whereof, such and such should be ex­communicated: which Hainric will averre to be very true. So this seeming Iarte, in the view of the goggle [Page 228]eyed Iesuit, is in very deed a sound concord.

Further I reply, that Queene Elizabeth, of blessed memory, by her own authority, set forth Iniunctions, as Ecclesiasticall lawes. And our gracious King Iames, by his owne authority, confirmed the last Ecclesiasti­call law-Canons, made in the Conuocation house.

‘Lastly, I say, That by the lawes of this kingdom, his Maiestie, by his owne authoritie and letters Pa­tents, may authorize any persons, beeing naturall borne subiects to his Highnes, whom he shall thinke meet, to exercise, vse, occupy, and execute vnder him, all manner of Iurisdictions, priuiledges, & pre­heminences, in any wise touching or concerning any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdictions within his Reasmes, to visit, reforme, redresse, order, correct, and amend all such errors, heresies, schismes, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities whatsoeuer, which by any manner sprituall, or Ecclesiasticall power, authority, or Iurisdiction, can, or may law­fully be reformed, ordered, redressed, corrected, re­strained, or amended, to the pleasure of Almightie GOD, for increase of vertue, &c.’ Will the vile Ie­suite call this, vilifying of our Ecclesiasticall Gouernour? Questionlesse, it grindeth his hart, that our Church (the true visible Church of Christ Iesus) ascribeth so much vnto his Maiestie.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

TO an vnlearned Iesuit, plaine vulgar things seeme Paradoxes. Date the Iesuit deny, that Clergie men haue power to make lawes for putting to death of Hereticks, and against such & such erroncous obstinate persons as hereticks? and dare he affirme, that Clergy men may giue the sentence of death, or shed the bloud of any heretick; sith by their triuiall, and vulgarly known popish Canon, they may not sit vpon the bench when the sentence of death is pronoūced by the ciuil Iudges? That most certain rule of his Lawyers, is most plainly false. viz. That whoso­euer hath power to make a penall law, hath power to punish: vnlesse the meaning be of power to punish, by commaunding such Officers to punish, vnto whom the inflicting of such punishment appertaineth. In which sense, our King also may be said to excommu­nicate, or absolue: that is, to cōmand Bishops to excō ­municate, or absolue men, according to the lawes pro­uided in that behalfe. Yea, further, the Kings writ of prohibition, absolueth that subiect of his, which is wrongfully excommunicated by Ecclesiasticall cen­sure. And this is not to straighten, but to enlarge (much more then the Iesuit would haue it) his Maie­sties supreme power heerein.

Who knowes not, that Christian Kings and Empe­perours haue made Ecclesiasticall lawes, by vertue [Page 230]whereof, such and such Priests, should be suspended, depriued, degraded; and others chosen, and instituted into their Benefices? and yet it pertained not to those Emperours to suspend, depriue, degrade, choose or institute the same, in their own persons. And that this rule holdeth not in ciuil matters, was shewed before.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

THe Iesuit is heere ensnarled by the testimony of Bernard, as one fallen into a quagmire; who the more hee struggleth to get out, plungeth himselfe deeper into it. Bernard asserteth the right and power of both swords, equally to be in the Pope, (for that, of [Page 231]Directly, and Indirectly, is not Bernards distinction, but the Iesuits vaine and new found fiction) and there­fore be may giue power to others, ad nutum ipsius, to exe­cute the Materiall sword: yet by himselfe cannot vse, or draw out the same. What is this else, but that one may giue power to another, to doe that which hee cannot doe himselfe?

The Iesuit is intolerably ignorant, if he know not, that by their Canon law, the Pope is made Lord of the whole vvorld in temporalibus: by vvhom Kings raigne, and of vvhom they hold their Scepters. In popish books printed and allowed, They who hold the materiall sword to be in the Pope, not directlie, but indirect­lie, are censured for Politilian Hereticks, these times-ser­uers.

But what if I should vse the same distinction heere, and say, that supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall, were it the King indirectly, to weet, in or dine ad custodiam v­triusque tabulae; to pronide and procure, that all Eccle­siasticks performe their duties, according to the pre­script of Gods law: Were not this Iesuits Argument, according to his owne dispute heere, dasht in peeces? For, as the Pope may haue the materiall sword indi­rectly, and yet haue no power by himselfe to vse the same: so may a King haue supreame Iurisdiction Ec­clesiasticall indirectlie; and yet not haue power by himselfe to execute the functions of Iurisdiction Ec­elesiasticall; and so not to excommunicate. True it is, No man can giue that vnto another, which himselfe hath not to giue: yet the King may giue authoritie to another, to doe that, which pertaines not to himselfe to doe, as formerly was shewed.

This is a decided case amongst the Canonists, Decis. 2. Tit. de Praebend. Quia licet Abbatissae aut Moniali­bus cur a committi non possit, quoad exercitium actuale, ta­menius potest ipsis competere, vtexercitium faciant per vi­rum illius potestatis capacem. Vide notatum per Innocent de Praeb.c.Lateran.et per gloss.in ca. Cum et plantare. Though vvomen be vncapable of the cure of soules, as touching the actuall exercising thereof themselues: yet Abbasses, and Monials, may haue right and power, to exercise the same by a man capable of that power.

But it is not amiss to obserue some conclusions from the Iesuits Positions heere.

First, that the Popes supreme power Ecclesiasticall, is dependant vpon another, that is, vpon Peter. For he asserteth out of Bernard, That (not Christ, but) Peter gaue vnto the Pope, the cure of the vvhole Church.

Secondly, that the Pope, as Peters successor, neither hath, nor can giue, any temporall possessions. For so he makes Bernard concluding thus: Peter had no tem­porall possessions himselfe: therefore he could give no tem­porall possessions to his successor the Pope.

Thirdly, That a man may giue that to another, which hee hath not himselfe. For the Pope, as Peters successor, giues temporall Kingdoms & Empires: and yet the Pope, as Peters successor, hath no temporall posselsions, much lesse Kingdoms, and least of all, Empires.

Out of these conclusions, growe these two Quae­res following;

• 1. Whether the Pope in giuing Kingdoms, distri­buting the vastest parts of the earth, the Indians East & West, viz. among the Kings of Spaine and Portugall; [Page 233]and in translating Empires from one Nation to ano­ther, (because heerein hee succeedeth not Peter) suc­ceed not the God of this world? who said vnto our Sa­uiour Christ, Math. 4. All these Kingdoms, vvith the glory thereof, I vvill giue vnto thee.
• 2 How the Popes Kingdom in Italy, is Peters Pa­trimony, if no temporall possessions belong to Peter?

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

IT seemeth the wits of this Iesuit are much wa­sted; for he knowes not the way wherein, or the place whereto, hee intendeth to goe.

Amongst vs Writers, who all deny the King hath power to excommunicate, hee said there was a great Iarre; because vvee also held the King to be supreame Ecclesiasticall Gouernour in his dominions. By which Medium, viz. The Kings supremacie, supposed to be true; the Iesuit endeuoured to inferre necessarily, that there­fore the King might excommunicate.

But in this his third Syllogisme, the Iesuit goeth a­bout to ouerthrowe the supposed truth of the said Medium: namely, to proue, that the King is not su­preme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall. And what is this to the matter in hand? viz. to proue a Iarre? VVhich answere is more sufficient, then his fondnesse deser­ueth. Yet, because, hee imagineth this Syllogisme to be invincible, I will answere directly vnto it, & shiuer it all to naught.

I deny both the Maior and Minor Proposition there­of. I say, The Maior is false, & shew it thus; The Pope is subiect to other Bishops, who, in exteriour Court, that is, in Councells, haue not onely excommunica­ted, (whereof see Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. Nicephor. lib. 17. cap. 26. Concil. Constantinopol. 6. Act. 13.) but al­so anathematized him. Yet saith this Iesuit, The Pope in Court exteriour, is supreame Gouernour o­uer all Bishoppes, to vvhom hee giueth, and from vvhom hee taketh away at his pleasure, power to excom­municate.

Againe, The Pope is subiect to a Priest, his Confes­sor, vvho hath power to exercise the keyes against the Pope, viz. to open vnto him heauen gates, and to shut them against him. To binde his sinnes, and to loose them. To throwe him out of that communion of [Page 235]Saints, whereof wee read in the Creede. To deliuer him to Sathan: and therfore to excommunicate him.

The Iesuits starting hole heere is, That the Priest may binde the Popes sinnes in the internall Court, but not in the externall.

As though the Court of Conscience, were not the highest Court vnder Heauen. As though that Communion which stands onelie of Saints indeede, and all those Gods Elect, vvere not aboue that Com­munion, which consisteth of holy ones, and vnholie: of the Elected and Reprobated. For, as by popish Ca­nons, The Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction is aboue the Temporall: so the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction inter­nall, is aboue the externall.

If therefore the Priest Confessour bee aboue the Pope, vvhose sinnes hee bindeth; vvhom hee deli­uereth to Sathan; vvhom hee excommunicateth from that inward Communion of Saints Elect, by ver­tue of his invvard Iurisdiction; vvhy may hee not much more excommunicate him from the Com­munion of the righteous and vnrighteous, the Elect and Reprobate, by externall Iurisdiction, vvhich is farre inferiour to the other?

But because the Iesuit heere taxeth mee, for not distinguishing betweene Iurisdiction internall, and externall; between the binding of sinnes in Court ex­teriour and interiour, I answere him, as Tertullian did to another Heretick: Ostendat Hermogenes scriptum, aut vae illi. Let Becan shevv vvhere this distinction is vvritten, or vvoebe vnto him.

If he cannot, then let him heare, what the Church of England in her Apologie, the second part, chap. 7. [Page 236] Diuis. 5. hath orthodoxally, and iudiciously determi­ned heerein: viz. Seeing one manner of vvord is giuen to all, and one onely key belongeth vnto all, we say there is but one onely power of all Ministers, as concerning opening and shutting.

So that if the Priest by this one key shutte out the Pope, that is, binde his sinnes, then he excommunica­teth the Pope: or if with that selfe-same key, hee open to the Pope, that is, remit his sinne; then heab solueth the Pope. For wherefore is one excommunicated, but because his sinnes are bound? wherefore is one absol­ued, but because his sinnes are remitted? If it bee not in respect thereof, the King may be said to haue power to excōmunicate; that is to say, to keep men from the Communion, viz. when he committeth some to close prison: where, neither any can speake to them, nor they to any.

Now therefore, if the Priest may be the cause of the cause, that is, if hee can binde the Popes sinnes; vvhy may he not be the cause of the effect: that is, why may he not excommunicate the Pope; or, (which with S. Paul is all one) deliuer him to Sathan? According to that of Saint Hierome to Heliodore, of the Eremiticall life: ‘God for bid that I should speak any euill of those, who succeeding the Apostolike degree, make the body of Christ vvith their sacred mouth: vvho hauing the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, in sort iudge before the day of Iudge­ment. It is not lawfull for mee to sit before a Priest: hee may, if I sinne, deliuer mee to Sathan for the destruction of the flesh, that the Spirit may be saued.’

And so Saint Rasil of the solitarie life, cha. 23. Peter, inquit, Amas me, &c. Christ said vnto Peter, Louest thou [Page 237]mee? Feed my sheep. And in like sort vnto all Pastors and Doctors hee gaue the same power. A token vvhereof is this, that all binde and loose equally, as vvell as Peter.

If euery Pastor and Doctor binde and loose equal­ly, as well as Peter; vvhy not in Court exteriour as well as Peter, sith the sheep are committed vnto them, as well as vnto Peter?

The Minor Proposition I also deny heere, as I did in the English Concord. That is, I deny that any Bishoppe hath power to throwe the King out of the Church, or to excommunicate him, according to canonicall ex­communication, so properly called and defined.

And further I denied, that the supposed excommu­nication of Theodosius, by Ambrose, was canonicall ex­communication: yeelding there some reasons thereof. Whereunto (though very materiall) this silly Iesuit answereth not one word; and yet with Iesuiticall, that is, with brasen face, is bold to set before thee (Christi­an Reader) his loathsome Coleworts, twise, yea, thrise sodden.

D^r. 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 Coūcell of Hierusalem. Act. 15. v. 19. [Page 246]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 bee [...]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 i [...]) 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 [Page 248] 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.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

HAinric, in his Becane Baculus, defending this found doctrine, and orthodoxall, which Be­can heere brings in, set downe by his Maiesty in his Praeface Monitorie; cudgelled soundly this Ie­suit, for his impious scoffing at that holy & good doc­trine, as is there to bee seene in many pages: yet this shamelesse Iesuit, dare heere affirme, that Hainric dis­senteth from his Maiestie heerein.

If this be Becans English Iarre, thè is his English Iarre, in truth, the most vniforme Concord. For I dare avow, that not onely Hainric, but all other Protestant Eng­lish Writers doe embrace, as true, ancient, catholicke, and Apostolick doctrine, that which the Iesuit tran­scribeth heere from his Maiesties Praeface Monito­rie.

Moreouer, wee may heere behold the footsteps of that old Serpent, wherein this serpentine brond, viz. this Iesuit treadeth. His Maiestie, following his Mai­ster Christ, aduised Princes, To take from the Scripture (diligently read ouer by them, and so, well vnderstood by them) the rule of their faith: vvhereby they might place the foundation of their faith, in their owne certaine knowledge, to weet, solidly grounded vpon the Scrip­tures; and not in the vncertaine opinion of others.

This pure doctrine, the Iesuit with the aspersion of his leauen, adulterateth thus: This is all one, as if the King had said, There is no certain Iudge in the matter of faith, but euery one is to rest in his owne proper iudgement: wheras his Maiestie cleane contrary asser­teth, [Page 250]that GOD hath prouided to euery one of his Saints on earth, a certaine Iudge in matter of their faith, to weet, the holy Ghost, and holy Scripture; the certaine knowledge whereof, as touching matter of faith, the holy Ghost, working together with the sa­cred meanes of hearing, reading, meditaring, confer­ring, praying, &c. giueth & sealeth vp in their soules: So that they shall not place the foundation of their faith, in the vncertaintie either of their owne proper iudgements, or of the opinions of others; but in the certaine testimo­nie of the foresaid Iudge.

Of which Iudge, Saint Iohn, 1. Ioh. 2. v. 27. vvri­teth thus: ‘And the annoynting vvhich yee haue receiued of him, dwelleth in you: and yee need not that any man teach you, but as the same annointing teacheth you of all things; and it is true, and not lying: and as it taught you, yee shall abide in it.’

So that euery Christian is to rest, not in his owne pro­per iudgement, for that is vncertaine; but in the cer­taine iudgement of the forsaid annointing: working in the Saints that certaine knowledge, vvherein to place the foundation of their faith; vvhereof his Maiestie spea­keth.

Constantine the great, and first Christian Emperor, found in himselfe, by gracious effect, the certainty of this said doctrine, heere averred by our King; for thus hee writeth in his Epistle to Sapor, King of Persia, registred by Theodoret, Lib. 1. cap. 24. Marking the diuine faith, I obtaine the light of truth: and following the light of trueth, I acknowledge the diuine faith.

The certaine truth of this doctrine, is so apparant, that is bath expresse testimony and acknowledgement [Page 251]thereof, from the very Popish VVriters themselves, as is to bee seene by diuerse of them, in Beoano-Ba­culus.

Therfore, I will here instance in one onely, and that no meane one, viz. Stapleton, who in his second admo­nition to Maister D^r. Whitakers, set before his Triplica­tion, writeth thus: In libro meo 3. Principior ŭ fidei, Spi­ritus sancti internam persuasionem, ad quodlibet fidei ob­iectum credendum, ita necessariam, ita efficacem esse do­cui, vt nec absque illa, quicquam a quoquam creds possit, et­si milliei Ecclesia attestetur: et per illam solam quodlibet credendum credi queat, tacente prorsus, et non audita Eccle­sia. In my 8. booke of the Principles of faith, I have taught, that the invvard persuasion of the holy Ghost is so necessa­rie, and so effectuall for the belieuing of euery obiect of faith, that vvithout it, neither can any thing bee belieued by any man, though the Church testified vvith it a thou­sand times; and by it alone any thing that is to be belieued, may be belieued, though the Church kept silence, and never vvere heard.

Is not the force of this truth great, and must needs preuaile, sith the Aduersaries themselues, write so fully and directly for it?

To shut vp this point, and to shut the Pope cleane out, from this supreme Iudgeship, Panormitan the Abbat, in De Elect. et Elect potest. ca. Signisicasti; very iudici­ously writeth thus: Plus credendum est vni priuato fi­deli, quam toti Concitio et Papa, si meliorem habeat au­thoritatem, velrationem. Wee ought to giue more credit to one priuate lay man, then to the vvhole Councell, and the Pope, if hee bring better authoritie, and more rea­son.

And to the same effect, writeth Picus Mirandula, in the question, Whether the Pope be aboue the Coun­cell; thus: Simplici potius rustico, et Infanti, et Anicula magis, quam Poncifici maxima, et mille Episcopis creden­dum est, si [...]sti contra Euangelium, illi pro Euangelio faci­unt. More credit is to be giuen to a simple plaine Rusticke, to an Infant, or to an old vvoman, then to the Pope, or a thousand Bishops, if the Pope and the Bishops speake against the Gospell, and the others speake with the Gospell.

What a silly supreme iudge, and absolute in all con­trouersies of faith, is the Pope, vnto whom, (as often­times it may, and hath fallen out) lesse credit is to bee giuen, then to a priuat man, then to a woman, then to an Intant?

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

INdeed the Iesuit is heere become very foolish, and childish; and come to this, Repetamus omnia breui­ter, yet sets him downe in his chaire of pestilence; that is, scornfulnes; with Iesuiticall, viz. the greatest impudencie, scoffing very impiously and ridiculously, our Kings sacred Maiestic, as those cursed miscreants did our Sauiour Christ. They cried, All haile King of the lewes: and this Iesuit, in effect cries, All haile King of England, supreme Iudge there, in controuersies of faith.

Touching the Reall presence, there is no discord a­mongst vs: but therein are discords endlesse amongst the Papists; as in the other points heere mentioned, though this Iesuit with brasen face deny the same. If any man, hauing an honest and good hart, doubt in a­ny matter of faith, our King hath heere put that man in the King of heauen his high way, to put him our of doubt, viz. by sending him, to the Law, Esay 8. and to the Go­spell. Thirther flie wee, and not to our King, in con­trouersies of faith. But miserable Papists, who leaue the law & Gospell, as dead Inke: whither should they flie in their controuersies of faith? To the Pope? be­like as the Thomists and Scotists did.

The case was this: There fell out betweene those two Sects, this odious quarrell, Whether the Virgine Mary were conceiued in sinne, or no. The one side, said yea: The other faction, cried nay. Their factions encreased, the Schooles were enflamed, & the world troubled: No Doctor, no Coucell, was able to accord [Page 254]them. The Scotists alleaged for themselues the Coun­cell of Basil. The Thomists said, that Councell was dis­orderly summoned, and therefore vnlawfull.

In the midds of these broyles, Pope Sixtus tooke vpon him, as supreme Iudge, to determine that contro­uersie in faith between them. When all the world ex­pected his resolution, desirous to bee satisfied in that question; The Pope commaunded both the Thomists, and the Scotists, to depart home, and to dispute no more of that matter: and so left them as doubtfull as he found them.

Could not a Supreme Iudge made of clowts, haue done the office of a supreme Iudge therein, as vvell as Pope Sixtus; that is to say, haue done iust nothing?

Lastly, whereas this trifling Sophister, framing his childish argument [Papist Writers iarre in many points: Therefore English Writers iarre not in the poynt of their Kings Primacy] vpon the anvile of his owne fantasie onely; and so framed, would father it vpon mee: let his fatherhood learne by this reply, that my onely scope therein was, in vrging him to the quick, by those obiected iarres, as it were, by so many incisions of his Basilica vaine, to giue a vent vnto that falt, fierie, scoffing humour of his, at our seeming iarrs, which in his plethorick body, was so redundant, and put [...] ifying in him: As also to giue him to vnderstand, how pat those words of our Sauiour Christ fall vpon his head;Math. 7. v-5. viz. Hypocrite, first cast out the beame out of thine owne eye, and then shalt thou see cleerely to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye.

Their Popish Iarres, are Beame-Iarres: our English seeming Iarres, are lesse then Mote-Iarres. In truth, [Page 255]they are no Iarres, at all, but true Concords. And thus is his froath once againe scattered to nothing.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

HIs first words of the 12. Question, shew that he makes the Suppositum of himselfe, & not out of our Writers opinion; especially Ma. Thomson, and Ma. Burhill, heere named by him. For, hauing set downe the Question thus, Whence, and by vvhat title, hath the King Primacie in the Church? hee saith; The meaning of this Question is, Whether the King haue Primacie as a King, or as a Christian King.

But as Becane hath produced Ma. Thomson, & Ma. Burhill, in his 1. and 2. Questions, They both deny the King to haue Primacie in the Church. Therefore the Iesuit heer sets downe the Suppositum as of him­selfe, and not as out of their opinions. But what meant the Iesuit to say, hee disputed heere, when he onely as­ked the Question? Do boyes vse to dispute with their Maisters, when they onely aske questions of their Mai­sters? Indeed, if the Iesuit had disputed, hee should haue disputed as in my English Concord is set downe; and so by his dispute, he had not taken away his ovvn Suppositum, (as heere hee doth) but had disputed out of the opinion of some others, who averre the Kings Primacy.

As touching the Iarre; the English Concord, euen out of the expresse words of Ma. Thomson, manifested the agreement between the reuerend Bishop, and Ma. Thomson, in this point, so plainly & directly; that Ma. Thomson himselfe wondred that Becane could stumble at it, as at any Iarie. And now lately comes forth Ma. Burhill, in his Appendix pag. 289. asserting, That an [Page 267]Ethnick King, vvhiles he is an Ethnicke King, can no more be supreme Gouernour of the Church, then an Ethnick man. vvhile he is an Ethnick man, may be a Priest, of, or in the Church. And so, touching this poynt, & this Questi­on, heere is made up, a full & vniforme Concord: and the Iesuiticall myst of this supposed great Iarre, vtter­ly dispelled.

But, is this Iesuit well in his wits, affirming, That if the King, precisely as King, haue Ecclesiasticall Primacie; then hee is secure, because as long as hee is King, he can not lose it; but if hee haue it as a Christian King, hee may lose it? vvhen as death, or, (by their Antichristan popish new doctrine) the Pope (by one breath of his mouth, at his pleasure, excommunicating, and thereby pro­scribing any Christian King) may take away his king­dome, and so his primacie: but neither Pope, death, nor diuel, can take away his Christianitie. Rom. 3. ver. 35.

Note also heere (good Christian Reader) the hor­rible impudencie of this Iesuit; who ironically affer­teth, That Kings are sure, and may be secure to enioy their kingdoms; when as Suarius, in his spanne-new Booke, hath made it knowen to all the world, that by Iesuiticall doctrine (most stiffely defended as ortho­doxall, and now in force) Kings are not sure to enioy, for the space of one moneth, weeke, or day, their kingdoms, liberties, or liues, if the Pope be disposed to bereaue any of them thereof. That is, to excommu­nicate them; and that is very easily done, euen by the breath of his mouth, wheasoeuer he is pleased to pre­tendany cause thereof. For then, by their Canon law, because hee is supreme Iudge, whose will stands for [Page 268]reason, and law is summa ratio, reason: no man must say vnto him, Domine, cur Itafacis? Sir Iudge Supreme, vvhy doe you so?

Thus in plaine truth, by these poysonfull miscre­ant Iesuits, are the liues and kingdoms of all Kings Christian, brought at this day into farre more immi­nent danger, then are the liucs and liuings of the mea­nest vassals of the said Kings: and yet (saith this Iesuit) Kings, in respect of their kingdoms, may sleepe soundlie on both sides. Which indeed is nothing else, but to lull them asleepe in the bedde of carelesse securitie; there­by, with more speed and lesse danger, to cut their throats.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

IAunswere: first, that vvhereas the Iesuit in diuerse places of his Examen, hath professed, that he vvill dispute nothing but about the English Iarres; hee hath heere forgotten himselfe, and endeuoureth the refutation of Ma. Thomson, and Ma. Burhill, touching the Ecclesiasticall Primacy of Pagan Kings, requiring an aunswete thereof, either from me, or them.

Secondly, that the Iesuits ignorance in Logicke is such, that he doth not vnderstand when he reasoneth, and when hee reasoneth not.

In his English Iarre, chap. 12. Sect. 3. his words are these; According to the opinion of Thomson, & Burhill, all Pagan Kings are Primats of the Church: Therefore, all Englishmen liuing in Constantinople, or Rome, are subiect to the Turke, or Pope, in matters Ecclesiasticall. Therefore, vvhat shall they doe, if the Turke commaund them to follovv the Alcoran? or the Pope, to pray for the dead? Shall they obey the commaund? Then they shall do a­gainst conscience. Shall they not obey? Then they deny their Primacy. Shall they obey vvhen they thinke good? Then subiects shall make themselues Iudges of their Kings.

Heere are fiue seuerall inferences, all tending to e­vince the absurdities, wich necessarily sollow vpon the supposed opinion of Maister Thomson, and Ma. Burhil. heerein: and yet the Iesuit saith, hee doth not dispute. Moreouer, in expresse words hee concludeth thus; That if the English be subiect to the Tufkish Emperor, as Primate: and the Turke commaund them to follovv the Alcotan; they must obey his commaund: or othervvise, [Page 270]they vtterly ouerthrowe his Primacy.

What is this else, but to conclude thus; If Pagan Kings be Primats of the Church, then all men liuing in their dominions, are bound to doe what they shall impiously commaund: vnlesse the Iesuit will denie, that the Turks commaund is impious, viz. to follovv the Alcoran?

And is not this goodly, hellish, Iesuiticall doctrine, practiced by the Iesuits, according to their oath, Caecae obedientiae, of blind obedience; to peruert the faith, & fidelity of subiects, to God, and their King; to destroy Kings and kingdoms: to disturbe the peace of Chri­stendom, by their combustions tumbling of garments in blond, if their supreme ludge and Primate sh [...]l com­maund them so to doe?

Thirdly, that the English Concord, gaue this fondling more sufficient answere then he deserued, to all these his questions, by retorting them vpon himselfe, thus: The Catholick (so called) Venetians, and Sorbonists, ac­knovvledge the Pope to be their Ecclesiasticall Primate. Then they are subiect to him as Primate. Then, if he as Pri­mate, commaund them to obey him in temporalls, in order to spirituall things, vvhat shall they doe? Shall they obey him? Then they shall doe against conscience. Shall they not obey him? Then they shall deny his Primacy. Shall they o­bey him vvhen they thinke good? Then the subiects shall make themselues Iudges of their supreme Iudge.

This pinched the Iesuit to the quicke, answering fully his questions, if hee had answered these: but alas, his sillinesse could shape no solid answere thereunto.

Fourthly, I answere, That supposing the Turkish Emperour to be Primat Ecclesiasticall in his domini­ons; [Page 271]The English liuing therein, are bound, euer to obey him in all things lawfull and honest: and neuer to obey him, in things vnlawfull, and dishonest.

Lastly, I aunswere, That Maister Thomson, and Ma. Burhill hold the cleane contrary vnto that vvhich the Iesuit fathereth vpon them heere. For they reach, that Pagan Kings, as Pagan, haue not properly and truely, Primacy Ecclesiasticall; as hath appeared out of their writings: therefore the Iesuit very ridiculously figh­teth heere with his owne shadow onely.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

THe English Concord, charged this Iesuit with acknowledgement of the Ecclesiastical Prima­cie of Christian Kings: because [vvhereas the reuerēd Bishop of Ely cited the words of Bellarmine, as out of Bellarmine himselfe; and as fully to Bellarmines meaning, as Bellarmine himselfe doth, De Rom Pont. lib. 5. cap. 2. et 3.] the Iesuit interpreted those said words cited by the Bishop, of Primacy Ecclesiasticall, which Christian Kings obtaine, when of Pagan, they become Christian Kings. Vnto which, this silly disputant hath nothing else to answere but this; That hee did not interpret those words, novum ius, a nevv right, as the words of Bellarmine, but as the words of the Bishop. Which answere is very idle, seeing that the Bishop produced them, as the words of Bellarmine, and not as his own.

The Iesuit, to back his aunswere, saith; That Bellar­mine addeth for explication of those vvords, a nevv right, ad vitam aeternam; to life eternall: vvhich the Bishoppe leaueth out. And further, that the Bishop saith, The new right may be lost by Excommunication; but the right to e­ternall life, cannot be lost by force of excommunication, but onely by the owne fault of him that loseth it. Lastly, That not onely Kings, but all their priuat subiects, may gaine, by their conuersion, that new right to eternall life.

Vnto which, I reply: First, that the words cited by the Bishop, explicat those words, nevv right, to bee meant, of a right to eternall life, as fully as Bellarmines words doe. The very expresse words of Bellarmine, [Page 273]De Ro. Pon. lib. 5. c. 3. colum. 1077. are these; Quando Rexfit Christianus, non perdit regnum terrenum, quod iu­re obtinebat, sed acquirit nouum ius ad regnum aeternum. When a Pagan King becomes a Christian King, hee loseth not his earthly kingdome, which by right hee obtained; but hee getteth a new right to the kingdome eternall.

The Bishops expresse words in Tort. Tort. pag. 40. 1.1. are these; Rex quinis, cum de Ethnico Christianus fit, non per dit terrenumius, sed acquiritius nouum; puta, in bonis Ecclesiae spiritualibus. Euery King, vvhen of a Pa­gan, hee becommeth a Christian King, dooth not lose his earthlie right, to vvit, in the spirituall good things of the Church.

By which words it is most apparant, that the Bi­shop, no lesse then Bellarmine, explaneth that nevv right, to ben right to eternall life: vnto which the Chri­stian Kings are brought by those said spirituall good things of the Church; beeing the meanes which God hath ordained, and sanctified to that purpose.

Secondly, I reply, that as Excōmunication groun­ded vpon no fault of the Christian King, cannot take away his right to eternall life, so it cannot take away his Primacy Ecclesiasticall.

Againe, that Excommunication grounded vpon a grieuous sinne of the excommunicated, ioyned with impenitencie and obstinacie; may as well, may rather, cause him to lose his right to life eternall; as it may force him to lose his Primacy Ecclesiasticall. Doth not the perpetuall binding of any mans sinnes, viz. beeing ob­stinate and impenitent, exclude him directly from his right to eternall life; but that binding, if at all, excludeth him frō the Primacy, indirectly, & by consequent only

Lastly, I reply, That although it be true, that priuat subiects, as wel as their Kings, becomming Christians, or Pagans, get a new right to euerlasting life: yet that is nothing to the purpose, which intendeth Kings one­ly, (not priuat persons) what they acquire or lose, in becomming Christian Kings.

Now, the new right to the Kingdome eternall, is, as their new seruice of GOD is, to the King eternall. But according to Saint Augustine: Heerein Christian Kings, as Christian Kings, serue the Lord; vvhen they do those things to serue him, vvhich they could not doe, but as they are, or in that they are Christian Kings.

It is not enough for a Christian King, towards the obtaining of eternall life, or, as Bellarmine speaketh, of Gods eternall kingdome, to serue the Lord, as a Christian King, that is, by executing his Primacy Ecclesiasticall, as hee that is Custos vtriusque Tabulae, The graund or Cause-keeper of both the Tables; and so holding his nevv right to life eternall. According to that of Saint Paul, vnto the same sense, though in another case: 1. Tim. chap. 2. ver. 15. Women, through bearing of children shall be saued, if they continue in faith, and loue, and holinesse vvith modestie: so Christian Kings shall be saued, by well vsing their Primacy Ecclesiasticall, if they continue in faith, loue, and holines.

Thus are all these seuerall examinations Iesuiticall, as Potters sheards, shiuered to nothing: thus haue we this Iesuit acknowledging the Ecclesiasticall Primacie of Christian Kings. Why then, vnlesse the Iesuit haue somwhat to say in arrest of iudgement, shold not we, as we haue obtained, so openly proclaime the victory?

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

THe Iesuit is vtterly exhausted, and come to a Non plus. For vnto all this last, and longest 13. chap. of the English Concord, hanging as an in­toxicated Dart, in the lyuer of this Iesuit, and of his Lord God the Pope, & other Popelings, he answereth not one word.