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.

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,

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 ver∣tues, the Church vvere bound to beleeue vices to be good, and vertues to be euill, vnlesse the Church would sinne a∣gainst 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 ma∣ners, 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 other∣wise, 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 for∣bid

vertue: or that the Church should belieue vice to be good, and vertue euill: for I cited it in a hypotheti∣call 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 him∣selfe to be an Heretike 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 do∣ctrine 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 com∣manding

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 con∣science, 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 ab∣surditie and impossibilitie; their great learned VVri∣ters, Schoolemen, and Canonists (as, Ockam, Cusan, Antonin. Sanders, Turrecremata, Zabarella, Canus, Al∣phonsus, 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 do∣ctrines of faith, and also be an heretike. Among the syno∣dicall Epistles in the Councels of Basill, thus wee read: Many Popes are saide to haue fallen into errours and here∣sies. 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 lite∣rarum 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, wri∣ting 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; where∣fore should there be any Vniuersities; or any in them, to bu∣sie, 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 controuer∣sies 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 Tem∣poralls of all Princes, Kings, and Emperours, Directly, or Indirectly? especially, considering that the most lear∣ned Popish VVriters, bitterly and irreconcileably dis∣sent in these points.

This Iesuit Becane,* 1.1 in the winding vp of his most ig∣norantly-grosse, and vniust censures of my false citati∣ons, 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.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Page 101.