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.

IT seemeth the wits of this Iesuit are much wa∣sted; for he knowes not the way wherein, or the place whereto, hee intendeth to goe.

Amongst vs Writers, who all deny the King hath power to excommunicate, hee said there was a great Iarre; because vvee also held the King to be supreame Ecclesiasticall Gouernour in his dominions. By which Medium, viz. The Kings supremacie, supposed to be true; the Iesuit endeuoured to inferre necessarily, that there∣fore the King might excommunicate.

But in this his third Syllogisme, the Iesuit goeth a∣bout to ouerthrowe the supposed truth of the said Medium: namely, to proue, that the King is not su∣preme Gouernour Ecclesiasticall. And what is this to the matter in hand? viz. to proue a Iarre? VVhich answere is more sufficient, then his fondnesse deser∣ueth. Yet, because, hee imagineth this Syllogisme to be invincible, I will answere directly vnto it, & shiuer it all to naught.

I deny both the Maior and Minor Proposition there∣of. I say, The Maior is false, & shew it thus; The Pope is subiect to other Bishops, who, in exteriour Court, that is, in Councells, haue not onely excommunica∣ted, (whereof see Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. Nicephor. lib. 17. cap. 26. Concil. Constantinopol. 6. Act. 13.) but al∣so anathematized him. Yet saith this Iesuit, The Pope in Court exteriour, is supreame Gouernour o∣uer all Bishoppes, to vvhom hee giueth, and from vvhom hee taketh away at his pleasure, power to excom∣municate.

Againe, The Pope is subiect to a Priest, his Confes∣sor, vvho hath power to exercise the keyes against the Pope, viz. to open vnto him heauen gates, and to shut them against him. To binde his sinnes, and to loose them. To throwe him out of that communion of

Saints, whereof wee read in the Creede. To deliuer him to Sathan: and therfore to excommunicate him.

The Iesuits starting hole heere is, That the Priest may binde the Popes sinnes in the internall Court, but not in the externall.

As though the Court of Conscience, were not the highest Court vnder Heauen. As though that Communion which stands onelie of Saints indeede, and all those Gods Elect, vvere not aboue that Com∣munion, which consisteth of holy ones, and vnholie: of the Elected and Reprobated. For, as by popish Ca∣nons, The Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction is aboue the Temporall: so the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction inter∣nall, is aboue the externall.

If therefore the Priest Confessour bee aboue the Pope, vvhose sinnes hee bindeth; vvhom hee deli∣uereth to Sathan; vvhom hee excommunicateth from that inward Communion of Saints Elect, by ver∣tue of his invvard Iurisdiction; vvhy may hee not much more excommunicate him from the Com∣munion of the righteous and vnrighteous, the Elect and Reprobate, by externall Iurisdiction, vvhich is farre inferiour to the other?

But because the Iesuit heere taxeth mee, for not distinguishing betweene Iurisdiction internall, and externall; between the binding of sinnes in Court ex∣teriour and interiour, I answere him, as Tertullian did to another Heretick: Ostendat Hermogenes scriptum, aut vae illi. Let Becan shevv vvhere this distinction is vvritten, or vvoebe vnto him.

If he cannot, then let him heare, what the Church of England in her Apologie, the second part, chap. 7.

Diuis. 5. hath orthodoxally, and iudiciously determi∣ned heerein: viz. Seeing one manner of vvord is giuen to all, and one onely key belongeth vnto all, we say there is but one onely power of all Ministers, as concerning opening and shutting.

So that if the Priest by this one key shutte out the Pope, that is, binde his sinnes, then he excommunica∣teth the Pope: or if with that selfe-same key, hee open to the Pope, that is, remit his sinne; then heab solueth the Pope. For wherefore is one excommunicated, but because his sinnes are bound? wherefore is one absol∣ued, but because his sinnes are remitted? If it bee not in respect thereof, the King may be said to haue power to excōmunicate; that is to say, to keep men from the Communion, viz. when he committeth some to close prison: where, neither any can speake to them, nor they to any.

Now therefore, if the Priest may be the cause of the cause, that is, if hee can binde the Popes sinnes; vvhy may he not be the cause of the effect: that is, why may he not excommunicate the Pope; or, (which with S. Paul is all one) deliuer him to Sathan? According to that of Saint Hierome to Heliodore, of the Eremiticall life:

God for bid that I should speak any euill of those, who succeeding the Apostolike degree, make the body of Christ vvith their sacred mouth: vvho hauing the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, in sort iudge before the day of Iudge∣ment. It is not lawfull for mee to sit before a Priest: hee may, if I sinne, deliuer mee to Sathan for the destruction of the flesh, that the Spirit may be saued.

And so Saint Rasil of the solitarie life, cha. 23. Peter, inquit, Amas me, &c. Christ said vnto Peter, Louest thou

mee? Feed my sheep. And in like sort vnto all Pastors and Doctors hee gaue the same power. A token vvhereof is this, that all binde and loose equally, as vvell as Peter.

If euery Pastor and Doctor binde and loose equal∣ly, as well as Peter; vvhy not in Court exteriour as well as Peter, sith the sheep are committed vnto them, as well as vnto Peter?

The Minor Proposition I also deny heere, as I did in the English Concord. That is, I deny that any Bishoppe hath power to throwe the King out of the Church, or to excommunicate him, according to canonicall ex∣communication, so properly called and defined.

And further I denied, that the supposed excommu∣nication of Theodosius, by Ambrose, was canonicall ex∣communication: yeelding there some reasons thereof. Whereunto (though very materiall) this silly Iesuit answereth not one word; and yet with Iesuiticall, that is, with brasen face, is bold to set before thee (Christi∣an Reader) his loathsome Coleworts, twise, yea, thrise sodden.