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

THe name of Iesuits, is as ancient as the name of Chri∣stians. By both those names, one and the same thing is signified. But the name of Caluinists, Hugonots, &c. is new. Heerein peraduenture the comparison is fit, That as those Fathers denised a new word, or name, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to abolish the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Arians vsed: so Thomson deuised a new name, Suprematus, to abolish the name Primatus; which the King, Burhill, and other Academiks vse. And again, as the Nicen Fathers reputed all for hereiticks, vvho vsed the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; so Thomson should account those to be hereticks, that vse the word Primatus. But what Concord is this? Rather a huge Iarre.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

THe vniforme concord, in the thing it selfe, & name of the thing, hath bin heertofore in this booke demonstrated sufficiently. The Iesuits eyes therfore seeming to see heer an huge discord, are, as Samsons foxes; tyed together by the tayles, within his head: but separatly set in his face, looking asquint;

which appeareth the rather to be true, because hee seemes heere to behold things, and like, which are eucry way vnlike.

As first, those Fathers did not deuise a new word, for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was long before: onely they a∣scribed it as a new attribute to Christ, in respect of his Godhead: but M^r. Thomsons word, Suprematus, is spanne new.

Secondly, the Fathers did not giue both those name, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vnto Christ: but Master Thomson calleth the Kings Supreme Gouernment of this Church, both Suprematum, and Primatum.

Thirdly, the Fathers held them for hereticks, who did vse the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Becane heere saith: but M^r. Thomson holdeth our King, the Bishop of Ely, and o∣thers, to be orthodoxall professors, who vse the word Primatus. So that heer at enothing but dissimilitudes, vnlesse it be in this; that as the Fathers deuised a new name, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to abolish that as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the A∣rian hereticks ascribed vnto Christ: so M^r. Thomson deuised a new word, Suprematus, to abolish the other word, Primatus, as the Popish hereticks doe now a∣scribe it, to the Pope.

But what more doe I espy in this Iesuit heere? Tru∣ly, if he be not a very vnskilfull linguist in the Greeke and Syriack tongues, I behold in him Heresie and Blas∣phemy. Heresie in that he holdeth them hereticks, that say, Christ is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, consubstantialis, of the same sub∣stance with the Father. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is vnitas substantiae, the vnity of substance. viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is consubstantialitas, or substan∣tiae vnitas, consubstantialitie, or vnitie of substance.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The very identity of substance, vvithout any difference, variance, or distinction.

His Blasohemy, in challenging, to themselues, I meane the sect of Ieluits, the name of Iesuits, that is to say, Sauiours from sinnes: which is the most proper name of the Lord Christ; according to that saying of the Angel:* 1.2 Thou shall call his name IESVS (in Syriack, Ieshua) for he shall saue his people from their sinnes.

And according to that of S^t. Peter: Neither is there Saluation in any other.* 1.3 For among men, there is giuen none other Name vnder heauen, vvhereby wee must be saued.

Therefore, what horrible and detestable blasphe∣mous caytifs are these Iesuits, to appropriat this name, the name of Sauiours, vnto themselues! Our Lord Ie∣sus, is called Christ, passiuely, because he was annoin∣ted with the oyle of gladnesse aboue his fellowes. So then, in that oyntment, he had fellowes, or partakers.

The Oyle was first poured vpon the Sacrificers head: but afterward, it ranne downe to the skirts of his clothing. Therefore saith S^t.* 1.4 Iohn, Yee haue an oyntment from that holy One.

Then, as our Lord Iesus, our Head, because hee was anointed, was called Christ, that is to say, Anoynted: so his members the Saints, because they also are anoin∣ted with the same oyle, though not in the same degree; are called Christians, that is to say, Anoynted.

But our Lord Christ, was called Iesus, or Ieshua, ac∣tiuely, because he should saue his people from their sinnes. And onely he called Iesus, or Ieshua, because There is no Saluation in any other. For that among men, there is giuen none other Name vnder heauen, whereby we must be saued.

Therfore, there is but only one Iesus or Ieshua in name, or in deed, by whom Gods people are saued frō their sinnes; so all the members of Christ, are called people Saued, and not one of thē, Sauiours from their sinnes. But the word Iesuits,* 1.5 according to the Syriack lan∣guage, signifieth in English, Sauiours: as though they were Sauiours of their people from their sins, as Christ is the Sauiour of his people from their sinnes.

By plaine narration of which certaine truth, groun∣ded out of the expresse words of the Scripture, euery Idiot may perceiue, how blasphemous this Sect of Ie∣suits is, in assuming vnto all men of their Sect, and to none but of that Sect, the name of Iesuits, that is, Sa∣uiours of the world. Vnlesse it be by way of contrarie∣tie, as Mountaines, because they moue not, are called, Montes, a non mouendo: so they are called Iesuits, Saui∣ours of the vvorld; beeing in very truth, the most noto∣rious, and infamous Destroyers of the world, of Kings and kingdoms, fighting manfully vnder the banner of their Lord God, Antichrist the Pope: who, by S^t, Iohn,* 1.6 is rightly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

But now, it is high time to see, how this Iesuit, in the profundity of his ignorances, and absurdities, a∣gainst all common sense, reason and diuinity, vvould haue these following Parallells to meet together.

• 1 The name of Iesuits, but of 79. yeeres standing. The name of Christians, beeing of standing almost 1600. yeeres. Are of the same Antiquitie.

Explication.

Ignatius Loyala, the first Author of the Sect of the Iesuits, and the first imposer of the name of Iesuits vpon that Sect (as Becane in his Examen,* 1.7 confesleth,) did not associat his fellowes, whom hee afterward cal∣led Iesuits, till the yeere 1534. that is, 79 yeeres past; but the Professors of the Gospell,* 1.8 were about the yeere of Christ, 40. first called Christians, viz. 1573. yeeres past.

• 2 To be anointed, as all Christians are: To be Sauiours, as onely Christ is. Is one, & the same thing.
• 3 To be called by a name common to all Christians in the vvorld: To bee called by holy a name common to no Christian in the vvorld, but to them onely who are of the Sect of Iesuits. Is all one.
• 4 To be called by a holy name, imposed by the Apostles, warranted by Scrip∣tures, giuen according to the professi∣on of the publique Christian faith: To be called by a name of blasphemy, im∣posed by that monster Ignatius Loy∣ola, according to their destroying pro∣fession, directly against the Scrip∣ture, which condemneth all Sects, & Sectaries, vvith their Sect names. 1. Cor. 3. v. 3.4. &c. Is euen the selfe same.

• 5. Sectaries, to take voluntarily, vnto themselues, names and titles of Schisme or Sect; as Dominicans, Franciscans, Iesuits, &c. Orthodoxall professours, by their hatefull and hereticall aduersaries, to be tearmed malignantly in scorne, by Sect-names which they detest: as Caluinists, Hugo∣nots; &c. Is all one selfe same thing.

Who euer wrote so vnlearnedly, and so absurdlic, as this Iesuite Became here doth? I much maruaile, that his Superiours suffer him to blurre papers, and to pub∣lish them abroad, in this so learned Age. But before I part here with the Iesuite thus, he mustacknowledge, that [whereas in my booke of Concord, I proued out of Pope Gregory the great, the name, and title of their Popish Primate to weet, Vniuersall Bishop, to be an ar∣rogant, profane, sacrilegious, Antichristian, Luciferian, and Apostaticall name, giuen to him, and taken by him, against their owne Canon law; And whereas al∣so, out of, and by vertue, of their Canon law, I wrap∣ped-vp their Primate in the dust of hellish confusion, be∣cause he desireth, and ambitiously challengeth a Primacie in earth, aboue all Princes, Kings and Emperours vp∣on earth, cuen in their Temporalls, their Crowns, and Kingdomes, and, as the case is now, their very lines] he hath not here one word to say, for his Lord Godthe Pope, in this his desperate case; and in the Iesnits accu∣rate Examination (for so he would make vs belicue) of my Concord book.

Gentle Reader, I haue beene the more prolyx here, in my Reply against the Iesuites Examen, in this first chapter, because it giucth such light to the remainder, as dispelleth the foggy mists, which this Iesuite ende∣uoureth to raise, whereby to make our vniforme agree∣ment, in truth, touching the kings Supremacy, to be a seeming discord. So that a short Reply to all the rest, will be sufficient; with reference vnto this, yea e∣uen to this one distinction of Regall, and Sacerdotall, rightly vnderstood.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pag. 108.
• * 1.2

  Mat. i. v. 21.
• * 1.3

  A••. 4. v. 12.
• * 1.4

  1. Ioh. 2. ver. 20.
• * 1.5

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.6

  Reue 9. ver. 11.
• * 1.7

  Pag. 14.
• * 1.8

  Act. 11. ver. 26.