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.

HEere is but an idlerepetition of the selfe same Argument; which the English Concord had answered before, by denying his maior Pro∣position. Which deniall was grounded vpon the testi∣mony of Saint Augustine, whereunto this Iesuit an∣swereth not one word. The substance whereof vvas this: That attacts of Ecclesiasticall gouernment (and onely all those acts) which the King alone may doe as King, belong vnto him: but Excommunication be∣longs to euery Archdeacon; therefore that belongs not to the King.

The Iesuit beeing put vnto his shifts, hath fansied this new starting hole: viz. That power vndependant of any other, to excommunicate, is proper onely, and to euery supreme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall. Therfore if the King be supreme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall, hee hath that vndependant power to excommunicate.

Whereunto Ireply, first, that no Scripture, no, nor ancient Father, for the space of 600. years after Christ, doth assert this vndependant power of excommunica∣ting, to belong to the supreme gouernment Ecclesia∣sticall.

Secondly, that the ancient Fathers deny this vnde∣pendant excommunicating power to belong to Pe∣ter; (much lesse to the Pope.) but with one vniforme

consent, dogmatize according to the Scriptures, that all the Apostles receiued from Christ immediatly (not from Peter) power to excommunicate, equall vvith Peter.

Thirdly, that the very principall Schoolemen, as Peter Lombard, the Maister of the Sentences, Thomas Aquine, the Doctor Angelicall, Alexander Ales, the Doctorirrefragable, and Iohn Scot, the subrle Doctor, deny the same. First, they all foure define the keyes, by the power to open and shut, to binde and loose. See Lombard, Sent. l. 4. dist. 18. et 19. Alexander Sūma Theolog. part. 4. q. 20. memb. 2. et 5. Aquin as in Sent. l. 4. dist. 13 q. 1. art. 1. Scot. in Sent. l. 4. dist. 19. art. 5. Secondly, Alexander in Summa p. 4. q. 20. memb. 5. et 6. Tho: in 4. Sent. dist. 24. q. 3. art. 2. & Scot. in Sent. l. 4. dist. 19. art. 1. affirme, that the keyes promised to Peter, in the 16. chap. of Mathew, were giuen to the A∣postles in the 20. chap. of Iohn.

Fourthly, Bellarmine himselfe denieth this vndepen∣dant power of excommunicating to be proper to Pe∣ter: and proueth by foure sound arguments, the said power to be common to all the Apostles, thus: de Ro. Pontif. l. 4. cap. 23. That the Apostles receiued immedi∣atly frō Christ their Iurisdiction; First, by these words of our Lord, Iohn 20.

As my Father sent mee, so send I you. Which place, the Fathers, Chrysostome, & The∣ophylact, so expound, that they say plainly, The Apo∣stles, by those words, were made the Vicars of Christ: yea, and receiued the very office and authority of Christ.

Cyrill, vpon this place addeth, that

The Apostles by these words, were properly created Apostles, and Tea∣chers of the whole vvorld. And that wee should vnder∣stand,

stand, that all power Ecclesiasticall, is contayned in autho∣ritie Apostolicall, therefore Christ addeth; As my Fa∣ther sent mee: seeing that the Father sent his Sonne, en∣dued with chiefest, or highest power.

Cyprian, in his booke of the vnity of the Church, saith; The Lord speaketh to Peter, I vvill giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, and after his resurrec∣tion, said to him, Feed my Sheepe. And although after his resurrection, he gaue to all the Apostles equall pow∣er, and said: As my Father sent mee, so I send you; yet, to manifest vnitie, hee constituted one chayre. Where you see, the same to be giuen to the Apostles, by those words, I send you; which was promised to Pe∣ter by that, I will giue thee the keyes: and after, exhibi∣ted by that, Feed my sheepe. Now it is manifest, that by those words, I will giue thee the keyes, and by that, Feed my sheepe, is vnderstood the most full euen exte∣riour Iurisdiction.

Secondly, the election of Matthias vnto the Apo∣stleship sheweth the same. For, we read Acts. I. that Matthias was not chosen by the Apostles, nor any authoritie giuen vnto him; but that his election be∣ing craued and obtained from aboue, he was present∣ly numbred among the Apostles. Surely, if all the Apostles had Iurisdiction from Peter, that ought to haue been shewed most of all in Matthias.

Thirdly, it is proued out of Saint Paul, who pur∣posely teacheth that hee had his authority and Iuris∣diction from Christ; and thereupon, proueth him∣selfe to be a true Apostle. For, Gal. I. he saith, Paul an Apostle, not of men neither by man, but by Iesus Christ, and G O D the Father. And, there to shew that he re∣ceiued

not authoritie from Peter, or other the Apo∣stles, hee saith; But when it pleased him, which had sepa∣rated mee from my mothers wombe, and called mee by his grace to reueale his Scnne in me, that I should preach him among the Gentiles, immediatly I communicated not with flesh and bloud, neither came I againe to Ierusalem to the which were Apostles before mee: but I went into Arabia, and turned againe into Damascus. Then after 3. yeares, I came againe to Ierusalem to see Peter, &c. and chap. 2. For they that seemed to be somewhat, added nothing to me aboue that I had.

Fourthly, it is proued by cuident reason: for the Apostles were made onely by Christ, as it appeareth Luke 6. He called his Disciples, & chose twelue of them, vvhom he also called Apostles. And Iohn 6. Haue not I chosen you twelue. Now that the Apostles had Iutis∣diction, it is manifest, partly by the acts of Saint Paul, who 1. Cor. 5. did excommunicate, and 1. Cor. 6.7. 11.14. &c. made Canons. Partly also, because the Apostolicall dignity, is the first, and supreme digni∣tie in the Church: as it appeareth, 1. Cor. 12. Ephe. 4. See B. Thomas, in 1. Cor. 12.

Hitherto Bellarmine.

Vnto these, I will adde the testimony of two other Fathers, to weet, Origen, and Beda. Origen, Tract 1. in Matth. saith: Hoc dictum, Tibi dabo claues regni coelorum, caeteris quoque cōmune est: Et quae sequuntur, velut ad Pe∣trum dicta. sunt omnium communia. This saying, I vvill giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, is common to the rest of the Apostles: and the vvords that follow, as spo∣ken to Peter, are common vnto all.

Beda Homil. in Euangel. Quem me dicunt, saith; Po∣testas ligandi et soluendi quamuis soli Petro a Domino data

videatur, tamen absque vlla dubietate noscendū est, quode•• caeteris Apostolis, data est: The power of binding & loosing, though it seeme to be giuen by the Lord onely to Peter, yet without all doubt, it was giuen also to the rest of the Apo∣stles.

By which, it is soundly prooued, that all the Apo∣stles had the full power of the keyes, and most full Iuris∣diction Ecclesiasticall (and in one word) vndependant of any other, to binde, to loose, to open, to shut, to excommunicate & absolue, giuen by Christ, equally & immediatly vnto them, and their successors, as well as to Peter and his successors. But all Bishops are succes∣sors to the Apostles: therefore all Bishops haue most full vndependant Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall to excō∣municate. And therefore, by this Iesuits argument heere, all Bishops are supreme Gouernors of the whole Church. What then shall become of his Lord God the Pope, and the Popes Primacie? Whose fulnesse of power, must by this orthodoxall position, be distribu∣ted equally amongst all Bishops; not as from Peter or Pope, but as successors of the Apostles.

For so Cyrill in Iohn, lib. 3. ca. 20. Apostolis et eorum in Ecclesijs successoribus, plenam concessit potestatē. Christ (not Peter, much lesse the Pope) gaue to the Apostles, and their successors, fulnesse of power.

Where-to accordeth Saint Cyprian, de simpl. Praelat. saying: Christus candem dedit Apostolis omnibus pote∣statem: Christ gaue vnto all his Apostles the selfe same power.

Bellarmine, to proue the Ecclesiasticall authoritie of Matthias to be vndependant, and not dependant of Pe∣tex, brings in Matthias chosen an Apostle, not by the

Apostles, but by God. And so of S. Paul, chosen an Apostle, not by men, nor of men, but of God. How then can the Pope challenge vndependant Ecclesiasti∣call Iurisdiction, when he is chosen and made Pope, & also vnpoped by men, much inferiour to the Apostles? If the Pope alone haue vndependant Church gouern∣ment, to giue and take Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, to, and from whom he please; how was the Patriarch of Alexandria made equall vnto him in the first Nicen Councell, Can. 6? And why was the Archbishop of Constantinople, equalled with him in authority, and in all things, except in Seniority; in the first Councell of Constantinople, cap. 3. and in the Councell of Chalce∣don, Can. 28?

Certainly, this vndependant supreme gouernment, was not acknowledged to be in Anicetus Bishoppe of Rome, by Polycarpus, who gain-saied Anicetus in the ce∣lebration of Easter. See Euseb. l. 5. ca. 26. Nor in Vic∣tor, who vsurping authoritie ouer the Bishops of Asia, was countermaunded, withstood, and sharply rebuked by Irenaeus, Polycrates, and others, Bishops in France, Asia, &c. See Euseb. l. 5. cap. 25.

Touching the Iesuits argument, drawen from the Kings supreme gouermment ciuill, to conclude there∣by his power to exercise all acts pertaining to ciuill Iu∣risdiction. I reply and say, that true it is, the fountaine of all ciuill Iustice vnder God in this Kingdome, is in his Maiestic: That hee alone hath power to constitute ciuill Iudges, and accordingly doth so. But our most learned Lawyers, and reuerent Iudges, will teach the Iesuit, that when the Iudges be so constituted; by the lawes and customes of this kingdome, it pertaineth to

those Iudges, and not to his Maiestie, to iudge & sen∣tence, in matters personall, reall, or of blood, as Felo∣nies, and Treasons, equally between the subiects, and also betweene the King & his lubiects: which cuts in sunder the very hart-strings of this his main argumēt. For, if it pertaine not to the King, to exercise all acts of inferiour ciuill gouernment, though hee be the su∣preme ciuill Gouernour in his Kingdome; a fortiori it followeth, that it pertaineth not to his Maiestie, to ex∣ercise all inferiour acts of Ecclesia sticall gouernment, though hee be supreme Ecclesiasticall Gouernor.

The Lord of a Manour, to which belongeth a Court Baron, may constitute a Steward to haue Iurisdiction ouer his Tenants in that Court, in setting fynes, in a∣mercing, &c. yet the Lord of the Manour cannot exe∣cute that Iurisdiction: for if hee set fynes, or amerce, it is voide; though that Court be, and is also called, that Lords Court.