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

BECAN. Exam.* 1.1

OƲt of Beatus Rhenanus, who wrote Annotations vp∣on the book of Tertullian against Praxeas, you cite these words: Episcopus Romanus Montanizat, that is, the Bishop of Rome followeth the heresie of Montanus. I haue often warned you of your deceitful Citations; but all in vaine. Beatus Rhenanus, in his Annotations, hath not those words, but these. Rectissimè egit, &c. The Bishop of Rome did very well, who condemned that fained Prophecie of Montanus. Which words are cleane contrary to those former, vnlesse in your Grammar, to receiue, and to reiect Montanus, signifie the same thing. But I knowe the cause of your errour. The Printer, or some other, (besides the Annotations of Rhe∣nanus) had set downe in the margine of Tertullians booke, cer∣taine short notes, which shew the matters there handled. Therfore in a cortaine place, he put these two words Episcopus Romanus,

The Bishop of Rome: because the Bishop of Rome was there mentioned: and a little after he put apart this word, Montani∣zat, is a Montanist; because Tertullian defended the heresie of Montanus, which the Pope had condemned. You, haning no regard of truth or faith, conioyne those words thus: Episcopus Romanus Montartizat. I am asbamed of this Imposture or deceit.

Dr. HARRIS Reply.

IF there were but one dram of truth, faith, or mo∣desty 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 a∣gainst Praxeas: and in the beginning thereof, he wri∣teth thus: Nam idem (Praxeas) tunc Episcopum Roma∣num agnoscentemiam prophetias Montani, Priscae, Maxi∣millae, et ea agnitione pacem Ecclesiis Asiae et Phrygiae infe∣rentem; falsa de ipsis prophetijs adseuerando, et praecessorū eius auctoritates defendendo: Coegit, et literas pacis reuo∣care iam emissas, et à proposito recipiendorum charismatum concessare. Praxeas compelled the Bishop of Rome (vvho at that time acknowledged, or approued the prophesies of Montanus, and in so doing brought peace to the Churches of Asia, and Phrygia: partly by affirming false things of those Churches, and partly by defending the auctority of the Bishops predecessors) to reuoke his letters of peace, which he had sent, and to cease from his further communicating vvith Montanus.

By which words of Tertullian, it is cuident that the

Bishop of Rome did then approue, and by his letters maintaine the Hereticall Prophesies of Montanus.

Beatus Rhenanus in his edition of Tertullian, besides his Annotations vpon him, set footh his Marginall notes, ouer against the text, briefely expressing all-a∣long the matters contained in the text; & ouer against these words of the text (The Bishop of Rome acknow∣ledging 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 Mon∣tanus.

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 Roma∣num. 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 recei∣ued 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 a∣ny separation of them, by comma, full point, or a∣ny the like, at the word Romanus: as is to be seene in the Margine, in all the editions of Tertullian, (euen by

Papists, as namely, in the Edition of Renatus Laurenti∣us de labar, printed at Paris, cum priuilegio, An. 1580.) where those marginall notes are set downe.

Their ownc Pamelius, in his late Edition of Tertulli∣an, An 1608. leaues out those three marginal words; Episcopus Romanus Montanizat. And, in his 7. annotati∣on vpon those words, Episcopum romanum, sheweth himselfe griened at, and much disliketh, that those said three marginall words, are extant in all former printed e∣ditions: for thus hee writeth; Quare eo magis improban∣da aduocatio marginalis quae hactenus extat in excusis ex∣emplaribus 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 Mon∣tanizat, set down in the margin, separate frō the other two foresaid words, because Tertullian doth there Mon∣tanize, as this Iesuit would haue it; Pamelius in com∣mon sense, had no reason either to leaue our, or dislike those three marginall words.

Iudge now, gentle Reader, how either pittifully ig∣norant, 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 se∣parated: and so applying that to the Bishop of Rome, which the marginall note assigneth to Tertullian. A more pal∣pable vntruth could not be vuered.

Whereas he endeuoureth to iustific the same, by ci∣ting these words out of Rhenanus his annotations (Re∣ctissime

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 excee∣ding 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 appro∣ued Montanus; and accordingly sent letters to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, signifying his commu∣nion with Montanus, and so procuring great peace to those Churches. Whereupon, Rhenanus marginall note was, The Bishop of Rome doth Montanize. But Ter∣tullian saith againe, that he afterward, by the means of Praxeas, reuoked his said letters, and reiected Monta∣nus, Whereupon, euen on the text word, reuocare, Bea∣tus 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 appa∣rantly, 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?

Notes

• * 1.1

  Page 97