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.

YOu say Haintic and Tooker doe not dissent heerein. Richard, I admire your impudencie. Hainric saith: Christian Princes commendably haue determined controuersies of faith. Tooker saith: Christian Kings are not Iudges of faith. These are vtterly repugnant: there in none so blinde, vvho may not heere see a Iarre. For if they be no Iudges, how can they iudge? And if cōmendably they iudge matters of faith, they must needes bee Iudges of faith. It is cer∣taine, Hainric is of opinion, that the King is supreme Iudge of faith amongst men in this life: or (vvhich is all one) the supreme President of Councels. GOD onely is absolutely the supreme Iudge, or President of Councels. Wee say, The Pope, amongst men, is supreme Iudge. You say, The King, or Emperour.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

HEere is nought else, but the empty froath of the selfe-same things reiterated. Doctor Too∣ker 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 Too∣ker knoweth and acknowledgeth the same: Impuden∣cie it selfe would hardly say, there were any iarre heer∣in. But the Iesuit cannot conceiue, how one may com∣mendably determine a controuersie in any matter, vn∣lesse he were the onely supreme Iudge euery vvhere, touching that matter.

As though Iames did not determine that controuer∣sie of faith in the Coūcell of Hierusalem. Act. 15. v. 19.

And yet the Iesuit will not permit Iames to be supreme Iudge in controuersies of faith.

As though Daniel did not commendably iudge & determine the controuersie touching the chastitie of Susanna: and yet Daniel was no supreme Iudge of wo∣mens 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 Scrip∣ture: Mariage is honour able among all men, and the bed vndefiled: determined: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The companie of man and vvife, to be cleanenesse, and chastitie.

And therevpon saith Sozomen. Lib. 1. cap. 22. Paph∣nuij sententiam approbauit Concilium, et de hac re, nul∣lam legemtulit, sed eam in cuiusque arbitrio, non in neces∣sitate, 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 monu∣menta retinet? In vvhat Councell hath not Hosius bee••e chiefe, and President? vvhat Church is vvithout some no∣table monuments of his Presidentship?

But why doth not the Iesuit answer vnto Socrates? who writeth the very same that Hainric affirmeth here∣in; and much more in the Proem to fift booke, where hee hath these words: Passim in historia Impe∣ratorum mentionem propterea fecimus, quod exillo tempo∣re quo Christiani esse coeperunt, Ecclesiaenegotia exillorum nutu pendere visa sunt, atque adeo maxima Concilia de e∣orum sententia, et conuocata fuerunt, et adhuc conuocantur. Therefore in this history haue we mentioned the Emperors, because, since they first became Christian, the Churches af∣faires depended vpon them, and the greatest Councels, were and are assembled by their command.

Surely, if to bee Presidents in those greatest Coun∣cels, 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 con∣trouersies 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 al∣waies Presidents, and had the Primacie in those said grea∣test Councels.

The Iesnit cannot deny, but that Cusanus so wri∣teth: 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 indi∣cious learning or reading, from this so vnlearned and shallow Iesuit.

If the Pope should be that vniuersall Bishop or su∣preme Iudge of còtrouersies in faith: then, as said Pope

Gregory the great; If he erre in the faith, all the members of Christs Church then liuing, must erre in the faith. Then Hereticks, Apostates from the faith, and the principall Authors of that Apostasie, that is, Antichrists, viz. Popes, may be supreme Iudges of controuersies in faith. Which is impious, and absurd: For, as Lyra in Math. cap. 16. saith; Constat &c. It is certaine that ma∣ny 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 Augu∣stine (against Cresconius the Grammarian, lib. 21. chap. 2.) saith; Dominus semper veraciter iudicat: Ecclesia∣stici autemiudices, sicut homines, plerumque falluntur. God iudgeth alwaies truly: others, euen Ecclesiasticall Iudges, are most commonly deceiued.

Notes

• Pag. 204.