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

YOu use three arguments to prone that Doctor. Too∣ker agreeth with Hainric herein, viz. that Kings may make and depose Bishops. i. Tooker embraceth as or∣thodoxall, all things prooued by the King. But that Kings may create and depose Bishops, was soundly proned by the King. Therefore Tooker embraceth it as orthodoxall. Heere first the minor is false: for Tooker denieth that the King can create and depose Bisoops; for hee saith that the institution and destitntion of inseriour Priests, belongs to Bishoppes, and not to, Kings: therefore the King hath not solidly proued it. Secondly, it may thus bee returned: All Academichs willingly approur all things soundly prooued by the King. But the King hath soundlie prooued the Pope to be Antichrist. Therefore the English A∣cademicks willingly er••braec it as orthodoxall. The consequen•••• is faise. For Powell verily belioueth that the Pope is Antichrist. and the King is nor cortaine of it. The Syllogisticall form is goods. therefore one of the premisses is false.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

HEere haue we the picture of a very vnlearned Iesuit, whose lineaments are drawn with his owne pensill; and which is depainted with his owne liuely colours.

First, ignorantly hee confoundeth as one, a single narration with a double ratiocination; and the institu∣tion and destitution of inferior Priests, with the creati∣on and deposition of Bishops.

Secondly, he answereth two Syllogismes, and those produced from his owne forge onely, with denying

the conclusions of both.

Thirdly, he reasoneth from one indiuiduall, Doc∣tor Tooker, to all our Vniuersitie Academicks. Lastlie, hee brings in Maister Powell disallowing that, which hee chiefely approueth.

The single natration set downe in the English Con∣cord, was thus: Doctor Tooker, reading, and well ap∣prouing his Maiesties solidarguments, especially that from exemplary act of Salomon, commended in Scrip∣tures, viz. in deposing Abiathar, and placing Zadock, chiefe Priests; was so farre from denying the power of Kings to depose Bishops, that he, grounding him∣selfe vpon the said act of Solomon, concluded with the King and Hainric; That Emperours may lawfully de∣pose Popes, and so made vp the harmony of all good concord heerein. The Iesuit transformeth this single narration into a double Syllogisme: the former thus;

All which the King hath soundly prooued, Tooker doth not deny, but embrace, as orthodoxall. But that Kings may depose Bishoppes, the King hath soundly proued. Therefore Doctor Tooker doth not deny that Kings may depose Bishoppes. To this hee answereth thus: Doctor Tooker denyeth that Kings may depose Bishops, therefore the King hath not solidly prooued it. Then briefely and plainly his aunswer heere vnto is thus: The conclusion of this syllogisme is false. Therefore the minor is false. Which answer procee∣deth from extreame ignorance in the very principle of Logick.

But how proues hee (for hee dare not be Respon∣dent heere) the conclusion to be false? Because Doctor Tooker denieth the institution and destitution of inferiour

Priests to belong to Kings, as beeing proper to Bishops. As though inferiour Priests and Bishops were all one. As though institution and destitution of Priests, were all one with election & deposition of Bishops, or Popes. One Bishop may institute and destitute an hundred Priests: but one hundred Bishoppes cannot choose or depose one Bishoppe, especially an Archbishoppe, or Pope.

Heere are some lineaments & liuely colours of this Iesuits grosse ignorance: moe are to be seene in the se∣cond Syllogisme, following thus; All things sound∣ly prooued by the King, all English Academicks ap∣prooue. That the Pope is Antichrist, was soundly pro∣ued by the King: therefore all English Academicks al∣low, as orthodoxall, the Pope to be Antichrist.

To this hee answereth thus: The conclusion is false, and the forme good: therefore the maior or minor is false. It skilleth not whether, so that one of them be false.

What is this else, but to his vtter shame, to display his intolerable ignorance to the world, and to expose it as ludibrious to the meanest Academick Sophisters: who should be well lashr, or iustly exploded if they would aunswere right formed syllogismes, by deny∣ing the conclusions.

But how doth this Iesuit proue this later conclusion to be false? Because Gabriell Powell belieueth this doc∣trine, viz. that the Pope is Antichrist, which the King hath soundly prooued, to be orthodoxall. Wherein, behold the strange blockishnes of this Iesuit, who should haue instauced in one Academick, denying that which the King had soundly proued, viz. the Pope to be Antichrist: but hee brings in Maister Powell allow∣ing

with all his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 what the King therein had sound∣ly proued.

Moreouer, if the King did not prooue soundlie the Pope to be Antichrist; then the Iesuit takes away the suppositum, and so she weth himselfe to be a frivolous Disputer. If the King did solidly proue the Pope to be Antichrist, why should not Maister Powell belieue it as orthodoxall?

The Iesuit saith The King doth not hold it as certaine: Reply first that is nor ad idem; it is no aunswere to the Syllogisme, many part thereof. Secondly, though his Maiestie doth not hold those arguments so certain, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from that mysticall booke of the Re∣uelation, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his Maiestie solidly evinceth the same, from other places of holy Writ, the meaning whereof is more certaine, cleare, and euident.

Thirdly, Saint Paul teacheth the Iesuit, that the spi∣rits of the Prophets are subiect to the Prophers; That the Lord reuealeth some things to one, which he doth not to another.

To conclude this straine, the Iesuits maior proposi∣tion of this later syllogisme, doth manifest the great store of ignorance in him, arguing a general of all Eng∣lish Academicks, from the individuall D^r. Tooker.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Page 181