following You profit nothing I vvill teach you once againe It casilie appeareth that you neuer saw either the Glosses or Canons Such Glossators out of England are of no estimation Who would not admire the insolency of this Iesuiticall Bragadochio obiecting ignorance to the incomparablie learned Bishop Iewel vnto whom in the indifferent iudgement of any equall and indicious Readers of the writings of them both Becane is not worthy to holde the candle or to carry his books after him This I thought meete gentle Reader to signifie vnto thee in generall because this trifling disputer in his whole discourse following about Citations dooth nothing else but misspende the time in such emptie sopperies As for this Citation in particular viz. Dist. 9. ca. Innocent The very truth is it was onely the fault of the Transcriber for those very words D. 9. ca. Innocent written I expuncted with mine owne hand before any Iesuiticall censure passed ouer them The matter comprised in the words which I cited viz. That all power is giuen to the Pope as vvell in heauen as in earth was a thing so well knowne to all papists of any reading and also acknowledged as an article of popish faith that for proofe thereof I set downe no Citation in the Margine of my booke But now least this vnlearned Iesuite hauing read so little as by all his writings may appeare in the Canon law or popish Councells or Canonists should imagine that no proofes of the said matter are to be found in them I will direct him for his schooling sake first to the Canon law Dist 22. ca. Omnes Where Pope Nicholas speaketh thus Christ himselfe alone founded the Romane Church and erected it vpon the rock of faith when he gaue to Peter clauiger of eternall life the rights of the Empire earthly and also heauenly What is this else but more plainely translated into English thus He gaue to Peter and consequently to the Pope all power in heauen and earth But it may be the Iesuite would faine see the place where the very words are written Therfore Secondly I doe direct him to the popish Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Leo the tenth in which Councell Stephanus the Bishop of Petracha spake thus openly with great applause In the Pope is all power aboue all powers as well in heauen as in earth Thirdly I direct him to the most famous Canonist Abbot Panormitan who super prima primi de Electione cap. Venerabilem verb. Transtulit writeth thus The Pope may vpon very great cause transferre the Empire from one nation to another because he can doe vvhatsoeuer God can doe otherwise Christ had not beene so diligent a father of his family if he had not lest one on earth in his place vvho can doe all things that Christ himselfe can doe By this it is plaine that as All power in heauen and earth was giuen to Christ So all power in heauen earth is giuen to the Pope And consequently it is as plaine that as Christ is God so the Pope is God For better vnderstanding of which consequent I send the Iesuite to that learned and iudicious yet popish Writer Marsilius Patauinus who relateth out of Bernard thus All things were giuen to Christ because he was the eternall Sonne of God And Christ doth challenge to himselfe all things by the right of creation and merit of redemption And vvhosoeuer takes these vnto himselfe makes himselfe indeede God 2. Thes 2.4 That is as Saint Paul describeth him the popish Antichrist sitting in the temple of God as God shewing himselfe that he is God or rather exalting himselfe aboue all that is called God or worshipped Which may better appeare by Becanes solution of these two Questions following First whether as to Christ and Pope All power is giuen in heauen and earth so both Christ and Pope haue one and the same name giuen to them viz. The name aboue euery name that at the name of the Pope Phil. 1.9 as at the name of lesus euery knee should bow of things in heauen in earth and vnder the earth Vnto this former questioÌ„ I suppose Becane would say Respondetur quod sic that is affirmatiuely because in his Examen pag. 133. he saith The Pope Peter was receiued into the fellowship of the name and dignity of the indiuiduall vnity or Godhead Then the second questioÌ„ goes further thus whether at the name yea at the feete of the Pope all should not doe more than bow the knee since the greatest Emperours must fall downe flatte with their faces on the ground to kisse his feete and with their necks stretched out must receiue and entertaine his feete trampling vpon them and lastly as it is challenged at this time must offer readily their throats to be cut at the Popes pleasure Before I leaue this Straine I must set downe that which the Glosse out of the foresaide Canon Omnes D. 22. inferreth viz. thus Argumentum quod Papa habet vlrumque gladium et spiritualâ—m et temporalem This argueth that the Pope hath both the swords Spirituall and Temporall Euen as the Canonists also thence gather the Popes supreme power temporall euen ouer the Empire to conferre it to vvhom he will and to transferre it whence and whither he will And so the Pope falleth into the iust condemnation of God and Confusion in heauen whereof we heard before out of Chrysostome Here two great mischiefes are necessarily inferred pat vpon the Popes head the former That he is that Antichrist and his Primacy Antichristian The later That the Pope by reason of that his Primacy lieth deepely plunged into hellish confusion And yet here the Iesuite Becane is as mute as a fish so miserable a desendour of the Pope is he even that Becane who in the Preface to his Examen wished that he might be the kings valiant Champion to desend his Cause Now surely his Maiestie should be maincly wel holden vp through his great store of ignorance more grosse then euer I perceiued in any Iesuite Writer whatsoeuer English Concord BEcame in his Iarre Question 3. demanded Whether the King by reason of his Primacy may be called Primate of the Church And I in my Concord demand Whether the Pope by reason of his Primacy Anton. de Rosellis may be called as popish Writers call him King of Kings and Lord of Lords For example Boniface 8. vvho in time of solemne supplications vvent apparelled right as the Emperour himselfe Crowned vvith a golden Crowne Caesar like glistering in an embroidered gowne and a naked sword carried before him at his commandement Can ye Vide vit Dond in Sexco ô Academicks for the Iesuite often speakes to you beholding this spectacle forbeare laughing Vnto this the Iesuite saith no more but as followeth BECAN Exam. YOu cite out of the life of Boniface 8. vvhich is in the sixt booke of the Decretals these words Boniface 8. In time of solemne â—pplication but falsery There is no such
matter of the Kings Primacy or Supremacie and that Becane throughout his Iarre striueth onely about words or syllables Against which kind of contention St. 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 ⧠Becans Iarre The I. Question Whether the King of England haue any Primacie in the Church 1. THE first Iarre or contention then is concerning the name of Primacy Many of our Aduersaries admit this Name but M. Richard Tompson had rather haue it called Supremacy then Primacie His reason is because Primacy doth signifie a power of the same Order Now the King hath not power in the Church of England of the same Order with Bishops and Ministers but a power of higher and different Order from them Ergo hee hath not the Primacy but the Supremacy The vvords of M. Tompson pag. 33. of his booke are these Nos in Anglico nostro idiomate belliores longè sumus quà m per inopiam Latini sermonis nobis Latinè esselicuit NoÌ„ enim dicimus The Kings Primacy Regis Primatum sed The Kings Supremacy Regis Suprematum Quo vocabulo nos quoque deinceps vtemur Multùm enim differunt Primatus Suprematus Illud enim Potestatem eiusdem Ordinis videtur significare hoc non item Wee in our English tongue doe speake much more properly then vvee can doe in the Latine speech through the penury thereof For wee doe not say The Kings Primacy but The Kings Supremacie which word 〈…〉 For that Primacy and Supremacie doe greatly differ Primacie seeming to signifie a power of the same Order but Supremacie not so 2. Out of which words wee gather two things The one that all Englishmen vvho vse the Name of Primacie doe either erre or speake improperly if vve beleeue M. Tompson For if they speake propertie seeing that the vvord Primacy doth properly siguifie a Power of the same Order they doe plainely vnderstand that the King hath Power of the same order with the Bishops and Ministers of his Church But this now according to M. Tompsons opinion is an error wherefore either they doe erre or speake improperly 3. The other is that a Coniecture may be made of the thing signified from the word signifying The vvord Supremacie is a new and lately inuented vvord vnknowne to the Ancient Fathers not vsed in Scriptures vnheard of in the Christian world Moreouer vvhat doth it signifie The Supreme power forsooth of the King in the Church Wherefore this is new also Surely if the ancient Fathers either Latine or Greeke had knowne this power they would haue found out at least som word whereby to haue expressed the same properly But this it seemes none of them did English Concord Page 20 IS Becane the Iesuite become a captious cauiller at syllables Pri. and Sapre Our Soueraigue Lord K. Iames translated the english word Supremacy a Apol. â—ur fid pag. 54 into the Latin word Primatum and Mr. Thomson translated the same English Supremacy into his Latine word Suprematum Here is full agreement in the thing it selfe and will the Iesuit striue about words or diuâ—rs names of the selfe same thing Certainely a Christian king is neither Presbiter Priest nor b August Q ex viroq Testa mixt Q. 101 chiefe of Presbiters that is Bishop nor chiefe among the Bishops that is Archbishoppe nor chiefe of Archbishops that is Patriarke nor chiefe of Patriarkes to weet Pope and in that sense he is no Primate or hath Primacy but he is the onely Supreme gouernour of all Presbiters Bishops Archbishops Patriarkes and Popes within his dominions whose supreme gouernment we call in English Supremacy or after the Latin word which our king vâ—ed Primacy and acknowledge the same by our oath thereof taken But now let vs attend these two goodly consequences which the Iesuite maketh 1. R. Thomson hath deuised a new Latin name to expresse the selfe same thing and the selfe same English name of the same thing Therefore the thing it selfe is new The Fathers of the Nicene Councell deuised a new name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to expresse the Deitie of Christ or Christ in respect of his Deity Therefore is Christ his Deitie new or Christ in respect of his Deitie new Take heede Becane of such a consequent Thus rather perhaps the sequell would runne more roundly The name Iesuits is new Therefore deseruedly may the Iesuits be called as blasphemous so new sectaries Indeede if the ancient Fathers had acknowledged the power of Vniuersall Bishoppe they would haue found at least one word whereby to haue expressed the same properly especially considering that if we will beleeue Gregory the great Gregor li. 4. Ep it 76.78.80 et lib. 7 Epist 79 To assume that arrogant profane sacrilegious Antichristian name of Vniuersall Bishoppe is all one and the same as to be the king of pride Lucifer who set himselfe before his bretheren to be an Apostate from the faith and the forerunner of Antichrist In the Canon law we read thus Dist 99 Primx Let not the Bishop of the first Sea be called the Prince of Priests or high Priest or any the like but onely the Bishop of the first Sea but let not the very Bishop of Rome be called Vniuersall Bishop Let Becane tell me which of the ancient Fathers either acknowledged the Popes supreme power ouer the whole Church or in proprietie of speech and as proper vnto him called the same Primacy touching which Chrysostom as hee is cited in the Canon law Dist 40 Multi writeth thus Whosoeuer shall desire Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heauen neither shall he be numbred among the serwants of Christ who doth handle or contend for Primacy His second consequence is this Mr. Thomson deuised a new word or name whereby to expresse in Latin more fully and properly as be tooke it the English word Supremacy Therefore whosoeuer doe not call Supremacy in Latin Suprematum speake improperly Fy how hang these together Forsooth please it the Iesuites as scattered broomeshaggs To conclude Becane himselfe Quest 12. page 43. brings in Mr. Thomson speaking thus Primacy is a royall good thing or the Prerogatiue royall vvhich can not be taken away by Ecclesiasticall censure neither is it absurd that an heathen king should be Primate of the Church Therefore according to Becane his dispute here They vvho ascribe Primacy to the king and call him Primate of the Church erre not but speake properly BECAN Exam. Page 106 YOu say this strife is about the name It is so I vrge nothing else But of they strine as you say where is the concord which you promise In the very beginning you despaire of concord And of you cannot dissolue the strife about the name what shall become
our Kings much lesse of the King himself many yeares before King Henry the eight was borne were of no force by the common lawes of England as is manifested by Hainric in Becano Baculus Where also he hath taught you out of the same lawes that the King of England is the supreme Ordinary of his Kingdome On as it is in the oath of Supremacy The onelie supreme Gouernour of the Church of England And yet wee doubt not but he may besuspended from the Eucharist by a Bishop to whom hee himselfe hath committed Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction as Theodosius was by Ambrose that is by resnsall to giue him the holy CoÌ„munion but not in any iudiciall or coÌ„sistorian form of citation appearance and sentence to be cast out of the Church The Iesuit is deeply deceiued if he imagine that the action of Ambrose was solemne and canonicall or that it was excommunication in a strict and proper sense which thing I will when need requireth convince by many solid arguments And in the meane season let him shew mee whether Theodosius was canonically cited vnto the consistory of Ambrose or whether the Emperour did answere for himselfe either in person or by his Proctor Or whether the sentence of excommunication was pronounced vpon the Tribunall of the Bishop Or whether it were canonically denounced in the open Church before hee was forbidden to enter into the Temple And againe by whose commaundement and by what example did Saint Ambrose alone without his fellow Elders or the counsell of other Bishops excommunicate the Emperour of so many kingdoms espceially seeing Ambrose was neither Pope nor Patriatch And let the Iesuit giue some good cause why Ambrose should â—am â—â—e vpon so humble and godly an emperour by his excommunicating him who erred onely in one fact and not once blame or touch Constantius a most proud godlesse and hereticall Arian Lastly whether it were the custome at Millan to excommunicate all murtherers or else Theodosius had wrong for Iassure you murtherers are not excommunicated in England and I thinke very few are so censured at Mentz where Becane liueth BECAN Exam. Pag. 191 YOu aunswere that heere is no Iarre because all your Writers vniformly agree in this That the King cannot excommunicate But heere is the greatest Iarre Because all English Writers who confesse it doe manifestly differ from themseluss as these three Arguments proue First Whosoeuer hath all mannet supreme most ample full Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical in any Kingdome he may exercise all acts vvhich pertaine to IurisdioÌ„tion Ecclesiasticall in that kingdome And so be may excommunicate to wit by a power vndependant of any man such as the Pope hath the rest hauing it from him who may giue it to them and take it away Enen as the King who hauing supreme most ample Iurisdiction ciuill in his kingdome may exercise allciuill acts of that Iurisdiction in his kingdome But the Writer's assert the Kings all manner supreme most ample and full iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall Therefore they assert the Kings power to excommunicate Dr. 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 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 SuÌ„ma 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 froÌ„ 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 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
few Questions following I. Whether the King of England haue any Primacy in the Church or no II. Whether the Primacy of the King bee Ecclesiasticall and spirituall III. Whether the King by this Primacy may be called the Primate of the Church IIII. Whether by vertue of the same Primacy the King may be called Supreme Head of the Church V. Whether this Primacy consist in any Power or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall VI. Whether the King by reason of his Primacy can assemble or call together Councels and sit as President therein VII Whether he can make Ecclesiasticall Lawes VIII Whether he can dispose of Ecclesiastical liuings or Benefices IX Whether he can create and depose Bishops X. Whether he can excommunicate the obstinate XI Whether hee can be Iudge and determine of Controuersies XII From whence hath the King this his Primacy XIII Whether he can force his Subiects to take the Oath of Supremacy In these Questions doe our Aduersaries extreamely differ and disagree but especially these M. Doctor Andrewes in his Tortura Torti M. William Tooker Deane of Lichefield in his Combat or single Fight with Martin Bucane M. Richard Tomson in his Reproofe of the Refutation of Tortura Torti M. Robert Burhill in his Defence of Tortura Torti and M. Henry Salclebridge in his Refutation of Becane his Examen Besides these as opposite vnto them I will also cite Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England Genebard in his Chronology Polydor Virgil in his History of England Iacobus Thuanus of Aust in the History of his time Iohn Caluin in his Commentary vpon the Prophet Amos and others English Concord THe Regall Primacy in the Church of England is much more ancient then the Popish Primacy in the Romane Church The Regall Primacy had his beginning from the * Daniel chap. 7. v. 6 Ancient of Dayes vnder the most ancient Patriarchs It flourished magnifically vnder the Orthodoxall Kings Israeliticall and Euangelicall and now in England it flourisheth most of all vnder King Iames soundly sounded vpon the rock and built vpon the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets permanent for euer so that by the fall of raines the comming of flouds and the wine-blasts of any Iesuits whatsoeuer it cannot be so much as moued much lesse remooued and least of all rent and torne in peeces But of the Popish Primacy rightly saide Christ in the Gospell Euery Kingdome diuided in it selfe shall be desolate Now what and how great their Iarres and discords are I am to shew in handling these few Questions following English Concord BEcane in his booke of English discord and in his first Question demanded Whether the King of England haue any Primacy or Supremacy in the Church And I in my book of English Concord demaunded Whether the Pope haue anie Primacy in the Church considering that Saint Cyprian asserteth that Peter did neuer challenge or assume any such thing Epist ad Quintum 71. sect 3 as to say that he held the Primacy and that Chrysostome dogmatically writeth thus Whosoeuer desireth or affecteth the Primacy in earth as all Popes doe shall finde confusion in heauen Homil. 35 in Matth. Whereunto the Iesuite in his late book entituled Examen Concordiae Anglicanae The examination of the English Concord answereth or obiecteth thus BECAN Exam. THat they are not the words of Chrysostome Pag. 92 but of some other author ioyned with him 2. That these words are against our King desiring Supremacie in earth 3. That the Author speaketh promiscuously of both the Primaces Secular and Ecclesiasticall 4. but distinguisheth betweene the desiring and obtaining of the Primacy referring the one to vanitie and the other to the iudgement of God Dr. HARRIS Reply 1 I Doe commiserate the seely ignorance of this Iesuite Becane who knoweth not that these very words aforesaide are not onely canonized but also expresly fathered vpon Chrysostome in the Popes Canon law which the Iesuite dare not affront Dist 40. ca. Multi The wordes of the Canon are these Also Iohn Chrysostome Not euery one is a true Priest which is named a Priest Many Priests and few Priests Many in name but few in work Take heede therefore brethren how you sit vpon the Chayre because the Chayre doth not make the Priest but the Priest the Chayre c. The same Chrysostome Whosoeuer shall desire Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heauen neither shall he be numbred among the seruants of Christ Qui de Primatu tractauerit Who handleth or ambitiously speakes of or challengeth Primacy De Scriptor Ecclesiasticis And according to that Canon the most profound and famously renowmed Canonist euen by Bellarmine in his late booke to witte Henry Cardinall Hostiensis vpon the 15. Chapter of Penitency and Remission Cap. Cui Papa ascribeth these words vnto Chrysostome as to the Author of them thus And so in the Penitentiall Court the Pope is made lesse and his Confessor greater and this Chrysostome insinuateth Dist 40. Multi Wherefore the Iesuite may take from mee thus cleared this falsity vnto himselfe or else hee must returne it ouer To the Authoritie of their Apostaticall Church To their authentike and ordinary glosses and explanations of the Gospell To the decrees of the Romane Bishops To their chiefest Canonists and Diuines for in the writings of all those he may finde sentences written in that Worke called the Imperfect Worke alleaged as out of Chrysostom 2. By the expresse words of the foresaid Canon it is manifest that the words of Chrysostō are by their Canon law referred vnto Priests and Priests onely who sit vpon the Chayre in expresse tearmes often repeated Whereby it appeareth what a seely and vnmannerly Sophister this Iesuite is who thence frameth his Argument against our King drawne thus into form syllogisticall as indeed from thence it can be drawne no otherwise What Priest soeuer desireth Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in Heauen The King of England is a Priest desiring Primacie in earth Therefore he shall finde confusion in heauen Were this Iesuite in our Vniuersitie Schooles he wold be hist out as an absurd Dunse for arguing Our gratious King is no Priest but detesteth their Priests and Priesthood as Antichristian Hee is by the grace of God the high and potent Monarch of Great Britanne France and Ireland and vnder Christ made of God without any ambitious desire of his Primate or Supreme Gouernour ouer all persons and in all causes Ecclesiasticallor Temporall within his Dominions maugre the beard of the Pope and all his Shauelings But if the Iesuite will rightly assume out of the Maior proposition set down in the said Canon law he must take the triple crowne of Primacy from the Popes head and wrap it vp in the dust of Confusion thus What Priest soeuer though it were Peter himselfe doth challenge or ambitiously desire Primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heauen But the Popes of Rome haue and now most of all doe challenge
misliked the one for vanitie and approued the other as a good thing giuen by God whereas the expresse words of Chrysostome are cleane contrary thus Nune scimus c. Now vve knowe that a good vvorke is one thing and the Primacy of honour is another thing And that it is good to desire a good thing but to couet the Primacie of honour is vanitie To shut vp this point The Christian Reader may here vnderstand that the Pope euen by the vertue of this testimony of Chrysostome set down in and authorized by the Canon law is incapable of Ecclesiasticall Primacy For if he be no Priest indeede he can be no Ecclesiasticall Primate indeede But by this Canon indeede he is no Priest because he is no Priest Opere in Priestly work that is as S. Paul expounds it to preach the vvord in season 2. Tim. 4.2 1. Pet. 5.2 Heb. 5.14 out of season c. or as Saint Peter explaines it To feede Christs flocke vvith the sincere milke or strong meat of the vvord or as Chrysostome here describes it To serue his inferiours by ministring vnto them all that hee hath receiued from Christ ready not onely to neglect his owne profit to procure theirs but also if neede vvere to lay down his life for them The Pope therfore being lesse in nothing then in this work is by the expresse words of this Canon nothing lesse then a Priest indeede and by necessary ineuitable consequence nothing lesse then Ecclesiasticall Primate indeede Here is now high time for this Iesuite to lay-vnder his shoulders for support of the tottering Primacy of his Pope very sore shaken by this Canon law-shot and ready to fall down into the dust Wherein pittiful is the Popes case who in this conflict for his defendour bath so seelie a weakeling and so ignorant a Iesuite as this Becane is and hereafter will more and more appeare to be English Concord BEcane in his book of Iarre in his second Question demanded Whether that Primacy of the King be Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall And I in my booke of Concord Page 4. and in my second Question demanded Whether that Primacy of the Pope be Secular and Temporall Because on the one side the Pope Lucifer-like asserteth All power to be giuen vnto him as vvell in heauen as in earth Which power Pope Boniface the eightth went about to put in practise vvhen hee endeuoured to strike a Terrour into Kings Princes Nations and people on the earth rather then to plans Religion in them And on the other side Chrysostome saith They who belieue not the Iudgement of God nor feare it abusing their Primacy secularly turne it into the Secular And Christ saith first vnto Peter I vvill giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen not of earth and then of himselfe My kingdom that is my Primacie which to the Pope is in stead of his kingdome is not of this world Ioh 18.36 If it vvere of this vvorld my seruants would surely fight that I should not be deliuered to the Iewes And this said diametrall opposition betwixt the Primacy of Christ and the Primacy of the Pope-Antichrist caused Pasquill to write in verse no lesse truely then eloquently thus Christus regna fugit sed vi Papa subingat vrbes Spinosam Christus Triplicem gerit ille coronam Abluit ille pedes Reges his of cula praebent Pauit oues Christus Petit hic Regna omnia mundi Pace venit Christus venit hic radiantibus armis Christ worldly kingdoms offered did eschew The Pope by force seeks kingdoms to subdue A Crowne of Thorne our Sauiour Christ did beare The Pope a triple Crowne of gold doth weare Christ vvasht the feet of his disciples all But all must kisse the Popes feet great and small Christ fed his sheepe and lambs most carefully The Pope to worldly kingdoms casts his eye Christ to his owne both milde and meeke did come The Pope with Armes the world doth ouerun Here is a matter very dangerous to the Popes Primacy which this shallow Iesuite not daring to denie and yet not able to answere vnto it leauing it as it were the body flyeth onely vpon the shadow that is the Citation as it followeth BECAN Exam. OVs of Gratian Page 92. Dist 9. cap. Innocen you 〈◊〉 the Pope asserting All power to be giuen to him as well in heauen as in earth but falsly For in Dist 9. there is no such Canon to be found Yea runne ouer all the Distinctions that are in Gratian yet you shal not finde it Indeede there is such a Canon in the second part of the Decree 22. Question 4. which begins thus Innocens but there it no mention of those words which are cited by you Dr. HARRIS Reply IS this beseeming the grauitie of Iesuiticall Fatherhood so childishly to snatch after flyes that is Escapes in Citations either of the transcriber or composer or correctour and sometimes peraduenture of the Author himselfe seeing those escapes are so frequent in most bookes printed The Glosse of the Canon law is so accurately and iudiciously written that the most learned Canonists circ it often for good Canon law as they doe the very text of the Canon law and yet the saide accurate Glosse faileth often in the Citations which it vseth whereof these two Escapes may serue for a taste viz. Dist 81. ca. Si qui verb. Emendent The Glosse citeth Dist. 22. ca. Nullus and yet in that Distinction there is no such chapter to be found Againe in Dist. 96. ca. Si Imperator verb. Definimus the Glosse citeth Cause 20. Quest 3. ca. Quasitum and yet there is no such chapter or Canon to be found in that third Question nor in that twentieth Cause If this Iesuite had written against the Authors of that learned Glosse he would haue strewed vpon them as he hath done vpon me in like case these his rhetoricall flowers or rather boyish scurrilities viz You cite the Canon falsely You haue not read the Canon You vnderstand nothing How ost shall I warne you to cite truly It irketh mee to warne you so often I see I doe but lose my my labour in desiring you to cite truely since I can obtaine nothing c. In Page 8. of my English Concord I cited Iewell his Apologie part 4. cap. 21. Dinis 7. collecting certaine reasons to proue that which I there alleaged Iewell for proofe of his collections cited First 9. q. 3. Neque ab Augusto Secondly Dist. 40. Si Papa Thirdly Dist. 19. Si Romanorum For my part the authoritie and most profound learning of that reuerend Father bred such a reuerence in mee towards him that I would not so much as examine the saide Citations but set them downe as I found them written in his booke Now the Iesuite in his Examination of the saide Citations finding some small slips in some of them bestowed vpon the Bishop through or by my sides these scurrile and disgracefull flowers