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 Primacie or Supremacie vnder King Henry, King Edward, and Qucene Elizabeth: was Spiri∣tuall and Ecclesiasticall; but vnder King Iames, it is not so (and what it will be is vncertaine.) Here is a Iarre.

D^r. HARRIS Reply.

IN my Concord booke I shewed, in generall and in particular, the Regall Primacy vnder K. Iames to be the selfe same, which was vnder K. Henry, K. Edward, and Q. Elizabeth; adding that it so would continue, as certainely it will, during this orthodoxall Religion among vs: which I hope shall continue so long as the sunne and moone endure; though the Ie∣suiticall, and all other Papisticall bowels burst thereat.

I shewod it in general; for that, the Supremacie then was, and now, no lesse, is, The kings Supreme power, in, and ouer, all causes, and all persons (within his kingdom) Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall; and therefore in the selfe same lawes of this kingdome, then, and now in force, called The kings supreme Power Spirituall or Ecclesiasti∣call.

In particular, I demonstrated the same, by setting downe the most materiall points, out of the expresse words of Scirpture, wherein the kings saide Supreme power Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall consisteth: in which saide, both generall, and particular points, as there they are set downe, all English Protestant Writers with full consent agree, without any Iarre, or diffe∣rence whatsoeuer.

If this shallow Iesuite had had any sound matter in him, in this his Examē, he would haue answered to the matter, especially to those materiall points founded vpon the Scriptures; and haue proued, that either those particular points belong not to the office of Re∣gall Supremacy: or else that wee Protestant Writers, iarre in some one or moe of those said materiall points gathered by the R. Bishop of Ely, and there set downe; as not warranted by holy writte to belong to kings; but this Iesuite passeth them ouer, with Noli metan∣gere, and onely sets before the Reader his twise sodden Ioathsome Colewoorts viz. That M^r. Burhill writeth thus: We doe not giue vnto the king Primacy Spirituall or Ecclesîasticall, but rather Primacy in, and ouer, causes, and persons Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall: whereas M^r. Burhil in his Appendix to the confutation of Eudaemon, Page 283. cuts this Iarre all in sunder, writing thus:

In the 21. chapter of my booke against Becane, I pur∣posely and plainly taught, how the said Regall Primacy may be called both waies, to weet, Primacy Spirituall and Eccle∣siasticall: or, Primacy in matters, and ouer persons spiritu∣all or Ecclesiasticall; and that they who call it spiritual Pri∣macy, meane nothing else then wee; vvho, in regard of the cauillations and calumnies of the Aduersarie (by Spirituall power, vnder standing nothing else, but power Sacerdotall, or Episcopall) call it Primacy in, & ouer causes and persons spirituall or Ecclesiasticall: And that in the very thing, there is no dissent at all among vs.

What could be spoken more fully and plainly, to put to silence the lying and iarring lips of this Iesuit?

Notes

• * 1.1

  Page 112