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.

HIs first words of the 12. Question, shew that he makes the Suppositum of himselfe, & not out of our Writers opinion; especially Ma. Thomson, and Ma. Burhill, heere named by him. For, hauing set downe the Question thus, Whence, and by vvhat title, hath the King Primacie in the Church? hee saith; The meaning of this Question is, Whether the King haue Primacie as a King, or as a Christian King.

But as Becane hath produced Ma. Thomson, & Ma. Burhill, in his 1. and 2. Questions, They both deny the King to haue Primacie in the Church. Therefore the Iesuit heer sets downe the Suppositum as of him∣selfe, and not as out of their opinions. But what meant the Iesuit to say, hee disputed heere, when he onely as∣ked the Question? Do boyes vse to dispute with their Maisters, when they onely aske questions of their Mai∣sters? Indeed, if the Iesuit had disputed, hee should haue disputed as in my English Concord is set downe; and so by his dispute, he had not taken away his ovvn Suppositum, (as heere hee doth) but had disputed out of the opinion of some others, who averre the Kings Primacy.

As touching the Iarre; the English Concord, euen out of the expresse words of Ma. Thomson, manifested the agreement between the reuerend Bishop, and Ma. Thomson, in this point, so plainly & directly; that Ma. Thomson himselfe wondred that Becane could stumble at it, as at any Iarie. And now lately comes forth Ma. Burhill, in his Appendix pag. 289. asserting, That an

Ethnick King, vvhiles he is an Ethnicke King, can no more be supreme Gouernour of the Church, then an Ethnick man. vvhile he is an Ethnick man, may be a Priest, of, or in the Church. And so, touching this poynt, & this Questi∣on, heere is made up, a full & vniforme Concord: and the Iesuiticall myst of this supposed great Iarre, vtter∣ly dispelled.

But, is this Iesuit well in his wits, affirming, That if the King, precisely as King, haue Ecclesiasticall Primacie; then hee is secure, because as long as hee is King, he can not lose it; but if hee haue it as a Christian King, hee may lose it? vvhen as death, or, (by their Antichristan popish new doctrine) the Pope (by one breath of his mouth, at his pleasure, excommunicating, and thereby pro∣scribing any Christian King) may take away his king∣dome, and so his primacie: but neither Pope, death, nor diuel, can take away his Christianitie. Rom. 3. ver. 35.

Note also heere (good Christian Reader) the hor∣rible impudencie of this Iesuit; who ironically affer∣teth, That Kings are sure, and may be secure to enioy their kingdoms; when as Suarius, in his spanne-new Booke, hath made it knowen to all the world, that by Iesuiticall doctrine (most stiffely defended as ortho∣doxall, and now in force) Kings are not sure to enioy, for the space of one moneth, weeke, or day, their kingdoms, liberties, or liues, if the Pope be disposed to bereaue any of them thereof. That is, to excommu∣nicate them; and that is very easily done, euen by the breath of his mouth, wheasoeuer he is pleased to pre∣tendany cause thereof. For then, by their Canon law, because hee is supreme Iudge, whose will stands for

reason, and law is summa ratio, reason: no man must say vnto him, Domine, cur Itafacis? Sir Iudge Supreme, vvhy doe you so?

Thus in plaine truth, by these poysonfull miscre∣ant Iesuits, are the liues and kingdoms of all Kings Christian, brought at this day into farre more immi∣nent danger, then are the liucs and liuings of the mea∣nest vassals of the said Kings: and yet (saith this Iesuit) Kings, in respect of their kingdoms, may sleepe soundlie on both sides. Which indeed is nothing else, but to lull them asleepe in the bedde of carelesse securitie; there∣by, with more speed and lesse danger, to cut their throats.