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

THomson saith expresly, that The Primacy of the Church, is not to be defined by Ecclesiasticall Iu∣risdiction: but the law of England doth so define it. Thomson saith, that The King doth gouerne Ec∣clesiasticall things, but not Ecclesiastically: therefore his Iurisdiction is not Ecclesiasticall. Burhill detracteth from the King all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in the outward Court, that is, as you say. Sacerdotall: but Tooker faith, that All iurisdic∣tion of Priests, is in the inward Court. The Bishop of Ely saith, The King hath no Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the outward Court, but onely power of Censure. And saith againe: The King hath not power of censure. But Hainric, and Tooker say, The King hath all supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction. The English law saith, The King hath all manner Ecclesiasti∣call Iurisdiction. The Bishop of Ely saith, Hee hath some Ec∣clesiasticall Iurisdiction, but not all.

So the King hath Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall; with Tooker, Supreme: vvith the law, all manner: vvith the Bishop, some, but not all: vvith Burhill, and Thomson, none, none at all. Is this your English Concord?

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

THe foole will alwaies be playing with his ba∣ble; some fooles with varietie: but this clay∣witted Iesuit, playes with his downe right re∣petitions of the same things in the same words; wher∣as 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

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 gouern∣ment to be called Primacy, or the King Primat; as Pa∣pists vnderstand it, to weet, Episcopall: but he himselfe calleth the Kings supreme Church gouernment, Pri∣macy, 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,* 1.2 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 Episcopa∣tum. 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 Iu∣risdiction Presbyteriall, is in the inner Court. Is heere any Iarre?

The Bishop of Ely saith, The King hath power of Cen∣sure, to weet, Regall, and Ecclesiasticall (as plainly ap∣peared, 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 Iuris∣diction,

viz. Regall. And the King hath not all Ecclesi∣asticall 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 Ecclesi∣asticall Iurisdiction, that is, Regall. Ma. Thomson saith, The King hath no Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, or Pri∣macy (for Primacy and Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, are all one with Ma. Thomson) Episcopall: but Ma. Thom∣son saith: The King hath Primacy, or Supreme Eccle∣siasticall 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 Episco∣pall. 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 affir∣meth 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 vn∣truths: for M. Burhills express words in hisa 1.3 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

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 Eli∣zabeth: 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.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pag. 139
• * 1.2

  Appendix pag. 284.
• a 1.3

  Pag. 285.