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.

I Say, as I haue aboundantly proued in this Replie, and in my English Concord, that all our English-Protestant-Writers doe with full and vniforme consent, agree in the reall, solide, and substantiall Su∣preme

Gouernment of the King in all Causes, and ouer all persons, Ecclesiasticall, or Ciuill within his Dominions, next vnder Christ.

Further, that all the said Writers sully agree in the verie name of that Supreme Gouernment, to weet, the English name, Supremacy. Moreouer, that all the saide Writers, in the sense of this reall thing, and of the name of this reall thing, call the same Supreme Gonernment, in Latine, Primatum, Primacy: and Iu∣risdictonem Spiritualem vel Ecelesiasticam; Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction.

Againe, that all the saide Writers, call, and ac∣knowledge the King to bee reallie, Supreme Gouer∣nour, in all Causes, and ouer all Persons, Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill vvithin his Dominions, next vnder Christ. And in this sense, all the said VVriters call the King, Supreme Primate and Head of this Church, as hath been shewed expreslie out of their owne writings.

Whereby appea••eth, that in very truth, here is no English Iarre among our Protestant Writers, Reall, or Nominall. And so, these figge leaues, wherewith Becane endeauoureth to couer the shameful nakednes of the Popish sort, denying to acknowledge the Kings Supremacy aforesaid, are remoued and taken cleane away.

But alas for for this seely Iesuit, who is confined now, in his English Iarre, to Iarre Nominall only, and not Reall: and hath no other twigge to hang by, but this scattered consequent, viz.

The Protestant English Writers expresse the selfe same substantiall thing, to weet, the Kings Supremacy, with va∣rietie of names, and phrases.

Therefore the thing it selfe is not reall, but nominall.

Our Academian school-boyes, would, & deserued∣lie might, hisse this Iesuite with his consequent out of the Vniuersitie Schools, as exceeding foolish and chil∣dish. Thus rather would the argument proceede; The Iarres of some Writers, about a thing or matter, are Nominal only, and not Reall.

Therefore their consent is reall, and the thing it selfe Reall.

Touching Rochester-Bishop, inculcated by this Iesuite; our King in his Apology, pag. 121. according to the publike Records, writeth thus:

Roffensis in carcerem coniect us est, priusquam in iu∣dicium capitis de Primatu Pontificis vocaretur: idque, partim quòd tardior esset ad successionem Regiae prolis confirmandam, cui iam antea Regni Ordines subscripse∣rant: partim quod implicatus eo negotio tenebatur, quod de sancta Virgine Cantiana ill is temporibus forte incide∣rat, adeo vt propter ••elatas Pseudoprophetiae illius frau∣des, reus iudicatus sit Maiestatis, ob non detectam coniu∣rationem. The Bishop of Rochester vvas imprisoned, and condemned, not onely for acknowledging the Popes Supremacy: but also, for gaine saying the lawfull succes∣sion of the Kings progeny; and for concealing high treason against the King.

And why might not the Bishop of Rochester then, or why may not the Popish ones here now, in like case, be imprisoned or put to death, for treason against their Soueraign? Who can denie that it is treason, for any subiects, to deny their Soueraigne to be their lawfull Prince? But, since euery lawfull Christian Prince, is Supreme gouernour of his owne subiects in

things Spirituall and Temporall, or, which is all one, is Custos vtriusque Tabulae, Keeper of both Tables: to de∣ny that of their Soueraigne, is to deny him to be their lawfull Prince. Assuredly, to acknowledge the Popes Supremacy here, as now it is defined, and conuerted from Spirituall to Secular; is to acknowledge the King to hold his kingdome of the Pope in Chiefe, and that also at his will and pleasure, as it is plaine by their Canon law, and Canonists: yea, to hold their liues al∣so, as Tenants of Life, at the Popes will, by Iesuiticall doctrine, as before in this Reply, and in Becano-Bacu∣lus was expresly shewed, and prooued demonstra∣tiuelie.

And what is this else, but apparantly to denie the King, and to assert the Pope to be their Soueraigne Lord and King indeed? And is not this high treason in the highest degree? why then may not such lawful∣ly be imprisoned, condemned, and executed, as Arch∣traitors? At least, why may not our King require an oath (and this saide oath) of his subiects against the Pope vsurping his right:* 1.1 as well as Iehoiada the high Priest did of the men of Iuda, for Ioas their King, against Athalia that vsurped his state? Queene Elizabeth, in her Explanation of the Supremacy, caused these words to be printed, and published to all her subiects, viz.

That if any her subiects, would accept the oath of Supremacy, with this interpretation, sense, & mea∣ning; viz. That the K. or Q. Maiesty of England vnder God, is to haue soueraignetie and rule, ouer all manner of persons, borne within her Maiesties Realmes, Dominions and Countries, of what estate, Ecclesiasticall or Temporall, soeuer they be, so as no

forraine Power shall, or ought to haue, any superio∣rity ouer them: her Maiesty is well pleased, to accept euery such in that behalfe, as her good and obedient subiects; and shall acquite them of all manner penal∣ties, contained in the said Act against such, as shall pe∣remptorily, or obstinately refuse to take the same oath.

The like interpretation of the oath of Supremacy, holdeth now vnder our K. Iames, & was of force vnder King Edward 6. and King Henry 8: whereby it appea∣reth, that to imprison, or execute any here, for not ta∣king the oath of Supremacy; is all one, as to imprison & execute Traytors for not acknowledging their Kings Soueraigntie; and for acknowledging the Popes Soue∣raignetie ouer their King, in his prerogatiues Royall, Crownes, Kingdoms, and life it selfe.

Notes

• * 1.1

  2. King. ca. 11. v. 4