And there shall you find what the Catholickes truly and really thinke of this point and vvhat our Aduersaries do falsely calumniate The fifteenth Paradoxe 49. YOV say that the Catholicks are of the race of Malchus for that they heare and interprete all with the left eare and nothing with the right For thus you write pag. 92. of your booke Interea tamen dextrâ datum dextrâ positum quicquid in Iuramento positum Quod dextrâ datum est vos sinistrâ accepistis de Malchi prosapia estis cui praecisa auris dextra nec vlla vobis auris reliqua nisi sinistra qua auditis omnia omnium quae à nobis dicuntur sinistri auditores interpretes In the meane while notwithstanding whatsoeuer is put in an oath is giuen with the right is put with the right That which is giuen with the right you receaue with the left and are of the race of Malchus who had his right eare cut of Neither haue you any right eare but a left wherwith you heare all things and become the sinister hearers and interpreters of all things that are said by vs c. 50. Thus you hould on after your wonted manner either to trifle or calumniate But I care not Let vs graunt what you say to wit that the Catholiks are of the race of Malchus What get you by this Truly nothing that makes against vs. For do you not know out of the Ghospell that assoone as Malchus his right eare was cut of it was againe presently restored by Christ And to this end that he should heare or interpret nothing with the left but all with the right eare If you therfor wil haue vs to be of the race of Malchê° you must confesse that this was so brought to passe by Christ for vs that we should heare and interpret all with our right eares and nothing with our left alone 51. But if I listed in like sort to iest I would not say that you were of the race of Malchus whose eare was cut of but rather of the race of the Iewes who haue eares and yet heare not according to that of S. Matthew 13. 14. Auditu audietis c. You shall heare with you eares and you shall not vnderstand and seeing you shall see and shall not see For the hart of this people is waxed grosse and with their eares they haue heauily heard and their eyes they haue shut c. and the rest that followeth But I will not deale so with you THE THIRD CHAPTER Of the Kinges Supremacy badly defended by his Chaplaine SEING you haue once determined to flatter the King you go about to defend and approue whatsoeuer you imagine will please him And with this mind desire you are imboldned to defend the Primacy of the Church which he vsurpeth to himselfe But truly very vnluckily For in this kind you commit a double fault First because you bring many Arguments which do ouerthrow the Kings Supremacy which yet you do for lacke of foresight SECONDLY because the Argumentes you bring for proofe of the said Supremacy in the King are of so small reckoning or accompt as they seeme contemptible I will lay them both open before you and for that which belongeth to the first head or point these Arguments may be deduced out of your owne Principles against the Kings Supremacy The first Argument against the Kings Supremacy taken out of the Chaplaines owne Doctrine 2. THE first Argument I frame thus He hath not the Primacy of the Church who hath no iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall neither in the interiour Court nor exteriour But the King out of your owne Doctrine hath no iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall neither in the interiour Court nor exteriour Ergo he hath not the Primacy of the Church The maior proposition is cleare of it selfe because by the name of Primacy we vnderstand nothing els in this place but supreme Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall He then who hath no iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall neither internall nor externall hath not the Primacy of the Church But the King by your doctrine hath none neither internall nor externall 3. Not internall For that this Iurisdiction consisteth in the power of the Keyes or in the power or authority of forgiuing sinnes in the Court of ConscieÌ„ce which the King hath not as you confesse pag. 380. of your booke in these words Rex non assumit ius Clauium The King doth not assume or take vpon him the power of the Keyes And worthily For that Christ spake not to Kings but to the Apostles when he said Accipite Spiritum Sanctum c. Receyue the holy Ghost whose sinnes you forgiue shal be forgiuen them and whose sinnes you retaine shal be retained c. 4. Not externall For this I will euidently euince out of your owne Principles which are these three The first that the Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the exteriour Court is not founded vpon any other place then that of S. Matthew 18. 17. Dic Ecclesiae c. Tell the Church if he will not heare the Church let him be vnto thee as an Ethnicke and Publicane Your second Principle is that the Iurisdiction which is founded on that place is nothing els then the Right of Censuring or power to excommunicate Your third is that the King hath not the Right of Censuring or power to excommunicate I doubt not but you will acknowledg these your three Principles And the last you set downe pag. 151. of your booke in these words Nos Principi potestatem Censurae non facimus We do not giue power or authority to the King to vse Censures And againe pag. 380. Rex non assumit ius Censurae The King doth not take vpon him the Right or power of vsing Censures The former two Principles you in like manner set downe pag 41. thus Censura duplex est Publicani Ethnici minor maior Minor à Sacramentis excludit modò De maiore verò quae arcet Ecclesia ipsa quae perinde reddit vt Ethnicos vix quisquam est quin fateatur institutam eam à Christo Matth. 18. per verba Dic Ecclesiae si Ecclesiam non audierit sit tibi sicut Ethnicus De exteriori foro ibi agitur Exterioris fori Iurisdictio illo nec alio loco fundata est A Censure is two-fold to witt of the Publican Ethnick the lesser and the greater The lesser doth exclude froÌ„ Sacraments for the present But as for the greater which casteth out of the Church it selfe and maketh men like vnto Ethnicks there is scarce any man but will confesse that it was instituted by Christ Matth. 18. by these words Tell the Church if he will not heare the Church let him be vnto thee as an Ethnicke And in that place is it meant of the exteriour Court the iurisdiction of which exteriour Court is grounded on that and no other place c. Marke well what heere you say The iurisdiction of the externall Court where is it founded in the Ghospell In
no other place say you then in Matth. 18. It is wel I desire no more 5. Hence then do I thus now conclude All Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the externall Court is founded in that only place Dic Ecclesiae tell the Church But the King hath not the Iurisdiction that is founded in that place Ergo he hath no iurisdiction founded in the Ghospell of Christ but in the braynes of his Chaplayne Consider now well how you will deale with your King who by your own Doctrine is deuested of all Ecclesiasticall power and recall those wordes of yours that you wrote pag. 90. of your Booke Primatus spiritualis debetur Regibus omni iure The spirituall Primacy is due vnto Kinges by all right No truly not by all right for as now yow confesse they haue it not by right of the Ghospell or new Testament The second Argument 6. THE second argument which I produce no lesse forcible then the former is this He hath not the Supremacy of the Church who cannot by his power Spirituall expell out of the Church any man although he be neuer so guilty or faulty and yet himselfe if he be guilty may be expelled by others or which is the same thing cannot excommunicate any man and yet may be excommunicated himself by others But your King by your owne Doctrine cannot excommunicate or cast out of the Church any mā and yet himself may be excommunicated and cast out by others Ergo according to your Doctrine he hath not the Primacy of the Church 7. The Maior is certayne and is manifest by a like example For as he is not accompted a King who cannot banish or exile out of his Realme any man though neuer so wicked and yet himselfe notwithstāding may be banished and exiled by others if he offēd euen so standeth the matter in this our case Now I subsume thus But the King can excommunicate or cast out of the Church no man because he hath not the Right or power to censure as your self speaketh yet notwithstanding may he be excommunicated himself or driuen out of the Church as you confesse pag. 39. of your Booke in these words Aliudest priuare Regem bonis Ecclesiae communibus quod facit sententia potest fortè Pontifex aliud priuare bono proprio idest regno suo quod non facit sententia nec potest Pontifex Priuabit censura Pontificis societate fidelium quâ fideles sunt bonum illud enim spirituale ab Ecclesia Non priuabit obedientia subditorum quâ subditi sunt bonum enim ciuile hoc nec ab Ecclesia c. It is one thing to depriue a King of the cōmon or spirituall goods of the Church which the sentence of Excommunication doth perhaps the Pope can It is another thing to depriue him of his owne proper good to wit his Kingdome which the sentence of Excommunication doth not nor the Pope can The Popes Censure shall depriue or exclude him from the society of the faithful in that they be faithfull for that is a spirituall good and dependeth of the Church But it shall not depriue him of the obediēce of his subiects in that they be his subiects for this is a ciuil or temporal good nor doth it depend of the Church c. Then I conclude thus Ergo the King by your owne sentence hath not the Supremacie of the Church 8. And by this Argument which is taken out of your owne Doctrine I not onlie proue the King to haue no Supremacie Ecclesiastical but also that himselfe doth thinke far otherwise in this point then you do For you confesse out of your former wordes that the King may be excommunicated by the Pope Ergo you must also confesse that the King in this case is inferior to the Pope But your King in his Premonition to all Christian Princes denieth it in these words Nā neque me Pontifice vlla ex parte inferiorem esse credo pace illius dixerim For neither do I think my selfe any waie inferiour to the Pope by his leaue be it spoken Yf he be no waie inferiour vnto him how can he then be excommunicated or punished by him See then by what meanes you will heere defend your King The third Argument 9. MY third Argument is drawne from your own wordes pag. 177. of your Booke which are these Duo haecregna Reipublicae Ecclesiae quamdiu duo manent hoc ab illo diuisum duos habent postquam in vnum cealescunt non vt in ducbus duo sed vt in vno vnus Primus est These two Kingdomes to wit of the Common-wealth and the Church so long as they remaine two this deuided from that they haue two Heades but after they become one not as two in two but as one in one there is but one Chiefe c. This you would say There be two distinct Kingdomes in this world one of the Ciuil Comon-wealth another of the Church of Christ These Kingdomes so long as they remaine two haue two Primates or Heades but when they grow into one they haue but one Primate or chiefe Head I accept that which you graunt and do subsume thus But in the new law which Christ instituted there remayne two Kingdomes nor are they become one Therefore in the new Law there must be two distinct Primates or Heads one whereof must rule the Church the other the Ciuill Commonwealth Ergo the King of England if he belong to the new Law doth not rule both at once 10. What can you heere now deny Tell me I pray you in Christes time when the new Law was instituted were these two Kingdomes deuided or were they one This later you neyther can nor dare affirme For if the Church and Common-wealth had byn one in Christes tyme then should there haue byn but one Chiefe or Head of both according to your owne doctrine And therefore eyther Christ should haue byn Chiefe both of the Church common wealth which you will not graunt or els he should haue byn Chiefe or Head of neyther which is against Scripture It remayneth then that in Christs tyme those two Kingdomes were distinct deuided and had two different Primates or Heads to wit Christ Head of the Church and the King or Emperour Head of the Common-wealth 11. But now if in Christs tyme there were not one and the same Chiefe or Head both of the Church and Common-wealth which you ought to graunt how then dare your King who professeth the Institution of Christ vsurpe vnto himselfe both Primacies to wit both of the Church commonwealth vnlesse you will say that he followeth herin the custome of the Iewes and not of the Christians so in this point is more like a Iew then a Christian. For this you doe seeme to insinuate when as pag. 363. of your Booke you say A more institutoue Israelis orditur Apologia c. From the custome and institute of Israel to witt the old Testament our Apology
THE CONFVTATION OF TORTVRA TORTI OR AGAINST â—he King of Englands Chaplaine for that he hath negligently defended his Kinges Cause By the R. F. MARTINVS BECANVS of the Society of IESVS AND Professour in Deuinity Translated out of Latin into English by W. I. ◠¶ Permissu Superiorum M.DC.X. TO THE RIGHT REVEREND AND RIGHT HONORABLE PRINCE AND LORD LORD IOHN SVICARD Arch-bishop of the holy Sea of Mentz Arch-chancellour of the Sacred Roman Empire through Germany and Prince Electour His most Clement Prince and Lord Martinus Becanus c. THere came of late right Reuerend and right Honorable Prince two bookes out of England one whereof bare title of the Renowned King Iames the other of his Chaplain both which as manifestly oppugning the Roman Church I haue for the loue of truth refuted as modestly as I could As for the former I haue dedicated the Confutation therof to the Inuincible Emperour Rodulph and the other renowned Kinges Illustrious Princes of the Christian world among whome you are one But the later I haue thought it not amisse to dedicate specially vnto your magnificeÌ„t Name and that for two reasons The one that for so much as I haue taken this paines for defence of the Catholicke faith and Religion it seemes vnfit that the same should be published vnder the Patronage of any other then your selfe who are so great a professor and protector of the said faith in Germany The other reason is for that your meritts and benefitts towards our Archiepiscopall Colledge of Mentz do by a certaine right challenge and exact the same at my hands You will I trust take iâ— in good part and fauourably accept this my sincere token of Duty and Reuerence THE TRANSLATOVR to the Reader WHERAS gentle Reader in the yeare of our Lord God 1607. there being published both in English Latin a Booke intituled Triplici nodo triplex cuneus or An Apology for the Oath of Allegiance and this without Name of Authour the same was answered very briefely modestly in both languages by the Catholicke party the next yeare following And first in English by an English-man who also concealed his Name and then in latin by Card. Bellarmine vnder the Name of Matthaeus Tortus Who not suspecting the said Booke to be his Maiesties of Great Britany as indeed it was but rather of some of his Ministers about him thought it not fit to publish this his answere in his owne but in the name of the foresaid Matthaeus Tortus But when in the yeare 1609. his Maiesty hauing now seene these answers to his booke come forth resolued to publish anew his said Apology with a large Preface or Premonition To all Christian Princes c. he therwithall forthwith gaue commandement to two of the best learned as is thought in his Realme that they should separately make Answer to both the fornamed Books written against his foresaid Apology which presently they did And that in English he committed to M. Doctor Barlow who made Answere therto and published it the same yeare 1609. but how substantially he hath performed the same may perhaps be shortly examined The other in latin of the forsaid Matthaeus Tortus he recommended to M. Doctor Andrewes a man of great esteeme and litterature in our Countrey who the same yeare in like manner set forth an Answere therto intituling it Tortura Torti which Answere of his comming forth in latin F. Martinus Becanus of the Society of Iesus and Professour in Deuinity hath though briefely yet substantially confuted this present yeare 1610. And for that the said Fathers Booke is very short written in latin I haue bestowed a few houres to translate the same into our English tongue for such as eyther vnderstand not the latin or els haue not had the commodity to come by any of the said Copyes of the former edition published in that language W. I. THE CONFVTATION OF TORTVRA TORTI OR AGAINST the King of England his Chaplaine YOV haue written a booke of late in defence of your King against Matthaeus Tortus intituled Tortura Torti or the Torture of Tortus You discouer not your Name but insinuate your self to be a Chaplaine Alm-nour or Tormentor I because it is more honorable wil cal you Chaplaine In the said Book you dispute principally of three heads FIRST of the Oath of Allegiance which your Kingâ— exacteth of his subiects SECONDLY of the Kingâ— Supremacy in Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall matters THIRDLY of the Popes power If we consider your words yow are neat and elegant inough if youâ— labour and diligence I accuse you not of idlenes But many other things there are which I do not so welâ— approue especially these First that you are exceedingly giuen to reproaching and taunting Secondly that you do euery where insert many falsities and absurdities Thirdly that you rather ouerthrow then establish your Kings Supremacy which you would fortify which is as foule a fault as may be Of these three heades then will I treat in order 1. Of the Chaplaines Reproaches 2. Of his Paradoxes 3. Of the Kinges Supremacy ouerthrowne by him I trust you will pardon me Syr if I modestly set before your eyes these three thinges as well for your owne benefit as others For your owne that hereby you may know your selfe and if it be possible become hereafter more wise For others that they may learne not so lightly to trust you who haue so often and so fouly faultred in things of so great moment Heare me then patiently THE FIRST CHAPTER Of the Chaplaines Reproaches STRAIGHT then in the entrance of your Torture you reprehended Matthaeus Tortus that he is altogeather full of railings and reproaches For thus you writ of him Per librum totum ita petulans ita immodestè immodestus ita totus in conuitijs facilè vt quiuis Matthaeum Tortum esse possit intelligere c. Throughout all his booke so impudent he is so imodestly immodest so wholy giuen to reproaches that euery man may easily perceaue him to be Matthew Tortus c. But you Syr do farre surpasse Matthaeus Tortus in this kind You spare no man You prouoke all with some reproach or other where the least occasion is offered Pope Clement the 8. you call perfidious Cardinall Bellarmine a Vow-breaker D. Sanders the greatest lyer of all men liuing Edmund Campian and others who haue suffered martyrdome for the Catholick fayth you call Traytors The Iesuites Authors of most outragious wickednes the Catholicks you tearme the race of Malchus who hauing their right eares cut of do heare and interpret all with the left I pretermit what you haue malepertly vttered against Matthaeus Tortus 2. These and the like reproaches which are very familiar with you as I perceaue do not beseeme an honest man much lesse the Chaplaine or Almenour of a King yet perhaps do they not altogeather misbecome a Tormentor Neyther may you excuse your selfe by the example of Matthew Tortus as though he had first
dare so often to reprint the foresaid Premonition of your king wherin they are so manifestlie and sharpely touched For what could more belong to their ignominie or disgrace then to be accompted worse then theeues that by the publike testimonie of a King For as much as they had conspired his death being yet in his mothers womb And is it not impudencie to diuulge in print againe and againe this their shamefull ignominy nor yet heereby to feare their publicke infamie And yet neuerthelesse with you what they doe they doe sinâ—urely The second Paradoxe 8. THE Primacy Ecclesiasticall say you is due to Kinges by all Right For these are your wordes pag. 90. Primatus spiritualis debetur Regibus â—mni Iure The primacy spirituall is due to Kings by all right Let vs then see if it be so Right or power as you know is deuided into naturall and positiue this Right againe is either diuine or humane Diuine power is partly of the old Testament and partly of the new Humane likewise is partly Canonicall partly Ciuill Will you then that the Primacy Ecclesiastical be due to kings by all these kindes of Right It seemeth you would But in another place you confesse that it is due by the only Right of the old Testament Ergo not by all the former For thus you write pag. 363. Amore institutoque Israëlis orditur Apologia inde enim vim habet atque neruos suos quaestio haec omnis de Primatu In Israele enim populo suo regum instituit Deus Ecclesiam in regno ex mente sua Exemplum inde nolis sumendum est cùm in Testamento nouo nullam habeamus Nusquam enim in vnum coaluerunt Ecclesia Imperium procul se habuit Imperium ab Ecclesia c. From the custome and inâ—stitute of Israell to wit the old Testament beginneth our defence because from thence hath all this question her force and strength to wit of the Supremacy For in Israel did God erect a Kingdome for his people and in that Kingdome did he found a Church to hiâ— owne liking From thence are we to take an example for so much as in the new Testament we haue none For no where haue the Church and Empire byn ioyned togeather in one The Empire hath kepâ— aloofe of from the Church c. 9. I doubt not you will acknowledg these your words which do condemne you For if the Question of Supremacy as here you affirme hath no other force then from the custome and institute of the People of Israell then is not this Supremacy due to Kings by naturall Right nor by diuine of the new Testament nor by Canonicall or Ciuill How then is it due by all Right Againe if in the new Testament the Church and Empire did no where consist or ioyne togeather in one Then by right of the new Testament it is not necessary that they should consist in one Ergo it is not due by all right And truely if no where in the new Testament they consisted togeather in one how commeth it to passe that now of late in England they be thus vnited togeather in one Here you haue plainely brought your selfe into straites The third Paradoxe 10. NO man say you hath yet denyed but that the kings of the old Testament had Supremacy in the Church For thus you write pag. 364. In Israële autem nondum os reperitam durum quod negare etiam auderet praecipuas in re Religionis partes penes Regem extitisse In Israell to wit the old Testament could I neuer yet find any man so impudent that durst deny but that the principall offices in matters of Religion were in the Kings power c. But I haue found not one but many that dare deny the same Of your owne Countreymen are found that dare deny it Nicolas Sanders in his second booke Of the visible Monarchy of the Church and 3. Chapter in solution of the 5. obiection of Protestants and Thomas Stapleton in his fifth boke of Doctrinall Principles of faith the 23. Chapter Of our men are found that dare deny it Cardinall Bellarmine in his first booke Of Councells and 20. Chapter Iacobus Gretzerus in his second booke Of Considerations to the Deuines of Venice 1. 2. 3. Consider Adam Tannerus in his first booke Of the Defense of Ecclesiasticall liberty the 15. Chapter and others 11. All these sayd Authors in the places here cited propose the argument which you are wont to vse to proue the Kings Supremacy in Spirituall matters And it is this Moyses Iosue Dauid Salomon Iosias and other Kings of the old Testament haue had the Primacy of the Church Ergo the Kings of the new Testament haue it also In the solution of which argument all deny the antecedent They deny I say that the kings of the old Testament if precisely we respect kingly power had the Supremacy of the Church although they graunt that some of theÌ„ had that power not by any ordinary Right as being Kinges but for so much as that they were both Prophets and Priestes by an extraordinary concession or graunt The wordes of Bellarmine are these Respondeo primo Moysen c. I answere first that Moyses was not only a Prince but a chiefe Priest also as is manifest out of the 98. Psalme Moyses Aaron in sacerdotibus eius Moyses and Aaron were accompted amongst his Priestes c. Iosue Dauid Salomon and some others were not only Kings but also Prophets to whome God committed many things extraordinarily which otherwise by office and Right belonged to the Priests And in this sort King Salomon remoued Abiathar from his function of Priesthood and appointed Sadoc in his place And this he did not as King but as a Prophet by diuine inspiration Secondly I say quoth Bellarmine that diuers other good Kings of the Synagogue did neuer intermeddle in the affaires or offices of the Priests and if at any time they did they were sorely punished by God for it c. Thus farre Bellarmine The like haue the rest of the forenamed Authors 12. This notwithstanding I adde moreouer wherein you deceiue or are deceaued that some of the foresaid Authors do not only deny the antecedent but the consequence of the former argument also and therfore they admit two solutions The first is this We deny say they that the Kings of the old Testament had Supremacy in the Church The later this Although we should grant that Kings of the old Testament had the Primacy of the Church yet would it not follow by consequence that the Kings of the new Testament haue the same also c. For which they assigne diuers reasons Read what I haue said in solution of the same argument in my Confutation of the King of Englands Apology the 2. Chapter The fourth Paradoxe 13. YOV say the Kings of the new Testament are Pastors of the flocke of Christ. And although those wordes Pasce oues meas Feede my sheep were spoken to
Peter yet notwithstanding do they belong to Christian Kings also And for that there were no Christian Kings in Christs time to whome the care of his flocke might be committed therfore they were not spoken to them For thus you write pag. 53. Rex noster est Dux gregis sub Christo Pastorum Principe Sunt alij Reges Christiani ad vnum omnes sua si iura nossent vel vires illis vel animus non deesset c. Our King to wit of England is Head of the flocke vnder Christ the chiefe of Pastors And so are all other Christian Kings not one excepted if either they knew their rights or that their strength or courage failed them not c. And yet more plainely pag. 91. Neque quiquam ad rem quod de Christo addis non Regem aliquem sed Apostolum gregis sui Pastorem designante Certè vt nec Regem sub lege quia nondum ibi Rex vllus at vbi iam Rex tum nec ei Pastoris nomen negatum Ita sub Euangelio cùm non essent Reges adhuc qui tum nulli erant Pastores esse non poterant At vbi Reges Christo nomen dederant tum demum non minùs pastores hi quà m olim Reges Israelis Quòd si autem ab initio statim nomen Christo dedissent nulla ratio quò minùs Gregis Christiani Pastores designari potuissent Neither say you is that to any purpose which you to wit Tortus adde of Christ appointing not a King but an Apostle the Pastor of his flocke Truly as he appointed no King vnder the law for that there was yet no King but when there was a King then the name of Pastor was not denied him Euen so vnder the Ghospell when there were not yet Kings for that being none they could not be Pastors But when Kings once became Christians then at length were they no lesse Pastors then were of old the Kings of Israell And if presently from the beginning they had byn Christians there can be no reason giuen why they should not haue byn designed Pastors of the Christian flocke c. 14. Heere is not one alone but many Paradoxes or singular opinions And first I demaund of you if in Christs time there had byn any Christian King whether Christ would haue said vnto him Pasce oues meas feed my sheepe If you affirme yea how proue you it Or who did euer affirme it before your selfe Or whether are you the first that haue reuealed this mistery to the Christian world If you deny it yow do well But if Christ did not say to any Christian King Feed my sheepe by what authority do you say now to King IAMES Pasce oues Christi feed the flock of Christ VVhat Will you depose Peter from his Pastorall office who was ordayned therto by Christ and suborne your King who was not ordained by Christ Surely a bould enterprize and worthy no doubt such a Chaplaine 15. Againe I demaund what meane these words Pasce oues meas feed my flocke You in the 52. page of your booke expound them of the feeding by Word and Doctrine Be it so But you your selfe Pag. 380. doe confesse that your King doth not feed the sheep of Christ by Word and Doctrine Ergo the King by your owne graunt is not the Pastor of the flocke of Christ. Neyther can those wordes Feed my sheep in the sense that Christ spake them any way belong vnto the King Heere you may not so soone quit your selfe I wot well For of necessity you must eyther confesse that these words Feed my sheep are not vnderstood of the feeding by Word and Doctrine or els that it belongs to the King to feed by Word and Doctrine or verily that the King is not the Pastor of Christs flocke But all these 3. wayes are against you You will haue the wordes of Christ feed my sheep to be vnderstood of feeding by Word and Doctrine You will haue your King not to feed the flocke of Christ by Word and Doctrine You will haue your King to be the Pastor of Christes flocke What euasion then can you heere haue 16. Thirdly I demand why do not other Christian Kinges take vpon them this Pastorall office if they be truly Pastors of Christs flocke They would doe it say you if eyther they knew their rights or that their strength or courage fayled them not And what I pray you is this then as much to say that the King of England is wise and the rest are fooles He hath force and strength the rest are weake and impotent He is couragious the rest are fearefull and cowardly Thus it commeth to passe that whilst you flatter your owne King you become contumelious against others The fifth Paradoxe 17. KINGES say you in Scripture are often called Christes or the Annoynted of our Lord but Bishops and Priests are neuer so called and therefore Matthew Tortus did very ill to call the Pope by that Name Your wordes are these pag. 114. Mihi verò multò magis improprium videtur quòd Pontificem nouo nomine nec ei in Scripturis sacris vsquam attributo CHRISTVM DOMINI indigitasti Truly it seemeth to me much more improper that you haue intitled or pointed out the Pope with a new name to wit The Annointed of our Lord when as the same was neuer attributed vnto him in Scripture And a little after say you Reges quidem reperio sic in sacris litteris saepè saepiùs nominatos Pontifici nomen hoc tributum ibi non memini Iuuet nos Matthaeus vel vnum locum designet in toto volumine Bibliorum vbi nomen hoc vlli Pontifici sacri illi scriptores attribuerint Kinges do I often find to haue byn often so called in holy VVrit but I remember not that this name is there attributed to the Pope Let Matthew to wit Tortus helpe vs to find out though but one place only in all the volume of the Bible where this name hath byn giuen to any Priest by any of those sacred wryters c. 18. But stay my friend there is no need that Matthew should be sent for out of Italy to shew you one place I my self that am neerer at hand wil assigne you more then one Heare me then First Exod. 29. 7. Oleum vnctionis fundes super caput eius Aaronis atque hoc ritu consecrabitur Thou shall powre out oyle of Annoynting vpon his head to wit of Aaron and with this cerimony he shal be consecrated And Leuit. 4. 3. Si Sacerdos qui vnctus est peccauerit If the Priest that is annoynted shall offend c. Againe Leuit. 8. 12. Fundens oleum super caput Aaron vnxit eum consecrauit Powring out oyle vpon the head of Aaron he annointed and consecrated him And Leuit. 16. 32. Expiabit autē Sacerdos qui vnctus fuerit And the Priest that is annointed shall expiate or reconcile And Numbers 3. 3. Haec nomina
filiorum Aaron Sacerdotum qui vncti sunt quorum consecratae manus vt Sacerdotio fungerentur These be the names of the Sonnes of Aaron the Priests that were annoynted and whose handes were consecrated to do the function of Priesthood And againe Num. 35. 25. Manebit ibi donec sacerdos magnus qui oleo sancto vnctus est moriatur He shall stay there vntill the high Priest that is annoynted with holy oyle do dye 19. Behould heere you haue diuers places of Scripture in which Priests are called Annoynted and therefore Kinges are not alone so called This yow might haue learned out of S. August vpō the 26. Psalme concerning the title therof where he teacheth that in the old Testament Kinges and Priests were annoynted for that both of them did prefigure one Christ or Annoynted which was to be both King and Priest The wordes of S. Augustine are these Tunc vngebatur Rex Sacerdos Duae istae illo tempore vnctae personae In duabus personis praefigurabatur futurus vnus Rex Sacerdos vtroque munere vnus Christus ideo Christus à Chrismate Then was annoynted both the King the Priest These two persons at that time were annoynted In two persons was prefigured to be both a King and a Priest one Christ in both offices therfore was Christ so called of Chrisme c. And againe vpon the 44. Psalme about those words vnxit te Deus God hath annointed thee c. he writeth thus Vnctum audis Christum intellige Etenim Christus à Chrismate Hoc nomen quod appellatur Christus vnctionis est Nec in aliquo alibi vngebantur Reges Sacerdotes nisi in illo regno vbi Christus prophetabatur vngebatur vnde venturum erat Christi nomen Nusquam est alibi omnino in nulla gente in nullo regno Thou hearest saith S. Augustine Annoynted vnderstand Christ For Christ is deriued of Chrisme This name that is called Christ is a name of Annointing or vnction Neyther were Kings and Priests annoynted in any sort any where then in that Kingdome where Christ was prophesied and annoynted and whence the name of Christ was to come In no other place is it at all in no other nation in no other Kingdome c. So S. Augustine 20. Therefore by the iudgment both of Scripture and S. Augustine no lesse Priests then Kinges are called Annointed But you will say they are not called the Lords Annoynted as Kings are First I answere that that 's no matter For we dispute not of wordes but of the matter signified by words Moreouer these two wordes Christ and Annoynted do signify one and the same thinge and as S. Augustine speaketh This Name which is called Christ is a Name of vnction And secondly I say you assume falsly For that Priests are not called in Scripture Annoynted only but also Christs And so we read in the second of Machabees 1. 10. Populus qui est Ierosolymis in Iudaea Senatusque Iudas Aristobolo Magistro Ptolomei Regis qui est de genere Christorum Sacerdotum his qui in Aegypto sunt Iudaeis salutem sanitatem The people of Ierusalem Iudea the Senate and Iudas do send greeting to Aristobolus Maister to King Ptolomey who is of the race of Christes or Annoynted Priests and to the Iewes that be in Aegipt c. Behould heere Aristobolus is of the race of Christes Priests therefore Priests are called Christs that is to say Annoynted 21. But you will yet obiect All these things are vnderstood of Priests of the old Testament but I would fayne see a place say you where the Priest of the new Testament to writ the Pope is called Christ or Annoynted Marry hearke you And I in like māner would as fayne see a place where Kinges of the new Testament are called by that Name Is it lawfull trow yee for you to transferre this Name which was of old giuen to ancient Kinges and Priests by the holy Ghost to the King of England and shall it not be lawfull for vs likewise by the same right to transferre it to the Pope Heere you take vpon you too much 22. Moreouer I say that once only this Name of Christ or Annoynted is to be found in the new Testament in that sense whereof we now treat to wit in the 2. Chapter of S. Luke vers 29. where it is said Responsum acceperat Simeon à Spiritu Sancto non visurum se mortem nisi priùs videret Christū Domini Simeon had receiud an answere of the Holy Ghost that he should nor see death vnlesse he first saw the Christ or Annoynted of our Lord. Here our Sauiour is called the Christ of our Lord to wit Annoynted of our Lord. He was annoynted both King and Priest as S. Augustine aboue noted not with corporall oyle as were the Kings and Priests of the old Testament but with spirituall oyle to wit of the holy Ghost For vpō him rested the spirit of our Lord the spirit of wisdom vnderstanding the spirit of counsell and fortitude the spirit of knowledg and piety as it is written in Isay the 11. Chapter vers 3. And this is that which Dauid foretold Psalme 44. 8. Vnxit te Deus Deus tuus ole◠laetitiae prae consortibus tuis God hath annoynted thee yea thy God with the oyle of gladnes before all thy companions That is to say God hath annoynted thee Priest and King in a peculiar manner before all other Kings Priests For he annoynted thee with the holy Ghost and them with corporall oyle only Heerehence I gather that wheras the Kings Priests of the old Testament were therefore annoynted with corporall oyle that they might be a Type or figure of the Messias to come who was to be annoynted both King and Priest with spirituall oyle so much the more doth this Name Annoynted or Christ our Lord agree to Priests then vnto Kings by how much Christ tooke vpon him the office of a Priest in this life more then of a King Or els if he equally tooke vpon him both offices then by equall right Priests as well as Kings may be called Annoynted or Christs of our Lord And therfore I see no cause why yow should attribute this Name only to Kings and take it away from Priests vnlesse it was because it pleased your fancy so to do The sixt Paradoxe 23. YF besides Christ say yow the Pope should also be head of the Church it should be a mōstrous and two-headed Church For thus you write pag. 331. of your Booke Monstrosum verò corpus cui plus vno sit capite That is a monstrous body that hath more heads then one And then againe pag. 398. Vnicum est caput vni corpori Ecclesia vnum corpus Nisi bicipitem aquilam fingas autem tricipitem Geryonem cui tot capita sunt quot in mitra Pontificia coronae Christus ergo solus Ecclesiae caput non Papa There is but
King or els contumelious to the Pope neyther whereof doth well beseeme you The iniury you offer to your King yow cannot deny For durst you without iniury haue answered your king eyther in iest or earnest when as after the death of Queene Elizabeth he demaunded the Crowne of England with these words If you will raigne in England go to the Diuell and couenant with him who is the distributer of all Kingdomes I thinke you durst not For if you had then farewell Chaplaineship Wherfore then dare you be so saucy to speake thus to the Pope but for that you list to raile vpon him 31. But you will say the Pope seekes a temporall Kingdome which is not due vnto him Let him cōtent himselfe with a spirituall Kingdome But what if in like manner I should say of your King He seeks a spirituall Kingdome Let him content himselfe with a temporall Moreouer I adde that the Pope hath far more right to temporal Kingdomes then you King hath to the Church which thing I am to declare more largely in another place The ninth Paradoxe 32. YOv say that power to excommunicate was not giuē vnto S. Peter but vnto the Church to wit by those wordes Dic Ecclesiae c. Tell the Church and if he will not heare the Church let him be to thee as an Ethnicke As also by those other wordes Quaecumque solueris c. Whatsoeuer you shall loose vpon earth shall be loosed in heauen and whatsoeuer you bynd vpon earth shal be bound in heauen c. And yet notwithstanding you adde that the Church may transferre this power to whome she please For thus you write pag. 14. of your booke Potestas haec ibi cui data Non Apostolo Petro. This power there to whome was it giuen Not to Peter the Apostle And againe Vt autem Petro potestas ibi non data censuram hanc vsurpandi ita nec Petro si vsurparet ratihabitio promissa Dicitur enim Quoscumque ligaueritis Non Petro igitur vel Papae sed Ecclesiae And as power was not there giuen to Peter to vse this censure so neyther if he had vsed it was the ratihabition or approuing thereof promised to Peter For it is said Whomesoeuer ye shall bind therfore it was not giuen to Peter or to the Pope but to the Church And yet againe pag. 42. Res ipsa rei ipsius promissio ratihabitio vsus denique Ecclesiae datur ab Ecclesia habetur transfertur in vnum siue plures qui eius pòst vel exercendae vel denunciandae facultatem habeant The thing it selfe the promise of the thing it selfe the approuing of it yea the vse therof is giuen to the Church From the Church it is both had and transferred to one or more who shall afterward haue the faculty to exercise or denounce the same 33. Out of this your Doctrine it followeth first that in the time of the Apostles power to excommunicate was immediatly giuen to the Church of the Corinthians and from thence transferred to S. Paul the Apostle that he might exercise and publikely denounce the same vpon the incestuous person But this very point you openly deny in the same place in these wordes Paulus congregatis Corinthijs potestatem censurae denunciandae facit Paul hauing gathered togeather the Corinthians giues power to denounce the Censure Certes if S. Paul giue power to the Congregation or Church of Corinth to denounce the Censure vpon the incestuous person as heere you affirme how had he then receaued the selfe same power from the same Church Or what necessity was there I pray yow to giue that power to the Church if the Church had receaued it before from Christ by those words Dic Ecclesiae tell the Church These things do not agree togeather 34. Secondly it followeth that now at this present in England the power to excommunicate is immediately in the English Church and not in the Bishops and from the Church the same may be transferred to Bishops But if it be so why doth not the Church of England giue this power to the King her Head and Primate Why doth she rather giue it to the Bishopes then to the King when as the Bishops are subordinate vnto the King in spirituall Iurisdiction as you will needs haue it And is it not an absurd thing that you to wit the Church of England should giue power to the Bishops to excommunicate and cast out of the Church their King their Head their Pastor and their Primate and yet would not giue the same power to the King to inflict the same Censures vpon his subiects to wit the Bishops Surely you are eyther very cruell towardes your King or els you do not seriously and in good earnest giue him the Supremacy One of the two must needs follow Therfore looke well with what spirit you wrote these wordes following in the 151. pag. of your booke Nos Principi Censurae potestatem non facimus We do not giue power to our King to exercise Censures vpon vs. And wherfore do ye not if you truly acknowledg him for your Pastour Primate But let vs go forward The tenth Paradoxe 35. YOv say that the Prophesy of the reuelation of Antichrist is already fulfilled and therefore it is so cleere that it may be seene with the eyes For thus you write pag. 186. Minimè verò mirum si ista quae dixi tam vel claram vel certam in scripturis Patrum interpretationem non habeant signatus adhuc liber huius Prophetiae erat It is no meruayle if these things which I haue sayd be neyther cleere nor certayne in the writinges of the Fathers For as yet the booke of this Prophesy was not vnsealed c. And a little after say you Mirari tamen non debeat quis si non illis tam adeo explicita omnia fuerint quà m Nobis per Dei gratiam iam sunt qui consummatam iam Prophetiam illam quotidie oculis vsurpamus But yet let no man meruayle if all thinges were not then so vnfoulded vnto them as now by Gods grace they be to vs who dayly see with our eyes that prophesy to wit of Antichrist to be already fulfilled c. 36. And is it so indeed But your King thinketh the contrary For that in his Premonition he playnely auerreth that That Prophesy of Antichrist is yet obscure and intricate and that by only coniectures it may be disputed of His wordes are these Sanè quod ad definitionem Antichristi nolo rem tam obscuram inuolutam tamquam omnibus Christianis ad credendum necessariam vrgere As for the definition of Antichrist I will not vrge so obscure a point as a matter of faith to be necessarily beleeued of all Christians c. And shall we thinke that that which is obscure and intricate to your King is dayly manifest to you No It followeth in the Kings words Id autem maximè mihi in votis est vt si cui
or defence beginneth and from thence hath all this question her force and strength to wit of the Supremacy For in Israell did God erect a Kingdome for his people in that Kingdome he founded a Church to his owne liking From thence are we to take example for so much as in the new Testament we haue none For no where haue the Church and Empire byn ioyned or vnited togeather in one c. 12. Out of this your so cleare and manifest confession I gather two things The one is that your King of England doth vsurpe vnto himselfe the Primacy both of the Church and Cōmon wealth without any example therof in the new Testament The other that either your King of England must needs be deceaued or els that other Kings and Emperours are in errour For if as you say the Church and Empire no where in the new Testament haue conioyned togeather in one that yet now in England they are vnited in one it followeth necessarily that hitherto all Kings and Emperours haue erred in this point your King only is the first that is vvise or els truely which is more credible that other Kings and Princes haue heerin beene wise and your King to haue beene deceaued and missed the marke 13. But I see well what may be heerto obiected and that is this That the Pope forsooth in some part of Italy doth vsurpe also the Primacy both of the Cōmonvvealth and Church I confesse it to be so But this conioining to vvit of temporall and spirituall states hath beene introducted by humane right only but you contend that your King hath both Primacies by diuine right And this you cannot proue The fourth Argument 14. THE fourth Argument is taken out of the wordes of your Booke pag. 35. 36. where you say Christus enim cuius hic vicem obtendis non sic praefuit dum in terris fuit Regnum quod de mundo fuit non habuit Regni quod non habuit vices non commisit Christ vvhose office you pretend did not so rule when he liued vpon earth he had no Kingdome which vvas of this world He gaue not another his place in a Kingdome which he had not c. And thē againe a litle after say you Est ille quidem Rex Regum sed quâ Regum Rex est immortalis est mortalem nullum Proregem habet Papa mortalis ipse non aliter Christi vicarius quà m quâ mortalis Christus He truly to wit Christ is King of Kings but in that he is King of Kings he is immortall he hath no mortall Viceroy or Vicar The pope is mortall nor he is otherwise the Vicar of Christ then in that Christ is mortall c. 15. In these words you go about to proue that the Pope although he be Christs Vicar yet hath he no temporall Kingdome You suppose Christ to be considered two manner of waies First as he is immortall or according to his Diuinitie Secondly as he is mortall or according to his humanity This done you argue thus Christ according to his Diuinity or in that he is immortall is King of Kings and hath all the Kingdomes of this world in his power yet notvvithstanding hath he no mortall Vicar or Substitute But the Pope is mortall Ergo he is not the Vicar of Christ in that Christ is immortall or God Againe Christ according to his Humanity say you or as he is mortall hath no temporall Kingdome and therfore cannot haue any Vicar or Substitute in a temporall Kingdome Ergo the Pope although he be his Vicar yet is he not so in his temporall Kingdome but in his Spirituall 16. This is the force of your Argument But do you not see that this may be in like manner retorted backe vpon your King Yea by the very same argument your King may be deuested both of his temporall Kingdome and his Supremacy in the Church Which I proue thus If your King haue a temporall Kingdome he hath it either as the Vicar of God immortall which he pretendeth or els as the Vicar of Christ mortall But neither of these may be said Not the first Because God as he is immortall hath no mortall Vicar as you freely affirme But your King without all doubt is mortall Ergo he is not the Vicar of God immortall Not the later Because Christ as he is mortall hath no temporall Kingdome and consequently no temporall Vicar Ergo your King is not the Vicar of Christ in his temporall Kingdome And so he is either deuested of all temporall dominion or if he haue any he must needes be some other bodies Vicar then Gods immortall or Christs mortall This I know you will not graunt therfore the other must be graunted 17. Hence do I further conclude Your King doth not vsurpe vnto himselfe the Primacy of the Church by any other title then that he is a temporall Prince and the Vicar of God But now I haue shewed out of your owne doctrine that he is not a temporall King nor the Vicar of God Ergo by the title of a temporall Prince he cannot claime the Primacy of the Church Heere you had need to succour him if you can The fifth Argument 18. THE fifth Argument may be taken out of your owne wordes before rehearsed pag. 39. of your booke thus Aliud est priuare Regem bonis Ecclesiae communibus c. It is one thing to depriue a King of the commō or spirituall goods of the Church which the sentence of excommunication doth perhaps the Pope can It is another thing to depriue him of his owne proper good to wit his Kingdome which the sentence of excōmunication doth not nor the Pope can The Popes Cēsure shal depriue or exclude him frō the society or cōmunion of the faithfull in that they be faithful for that is a spiritual good depēdeth of the Church But it shal not depriue him of the obediēce of his subiects in that they be subiects for this is a ciuil or tēporall good nor doth it depend of the Church c. 19. Heere you distinguish two sorts of good things which belong to the King Some you call Spirituall which depend of the Church others Ciuill which depend not of the Church You adde These to wit Ciuill are proper to the King of which he cannot by Censure be depriued The other are the common goods of the Church of which he may be depriued Now I demaund whether the Primacy of the Church which the King vsurpeth belonge to the common goods of the Church or rather to his owne eiuill or temporall goods One of these two must you graūt if your distinction be good and sufficient If this Primacy belong to the common goods of the Church it followeth then that euery faithfull Christian that is in the Church is no lesse Head of the Church then your King For that the goods which be common to all Christians being in the Church may no lesse be vsurped of one then
of another But if this Primacy belong to the Ciuill goods of the Church then it followeth that the King cannot be depriued of the Primacy of the Church by any Ecclesiasticall Censure and therfore after that he is excommunicated and cast out of the Church as an Ethnicke vet in him remaineth the Primacy of the Church which is most absurd 20. The like Argument is taken out of your words following which are these pag. 40. of your booke Rex quiuis cùm de Ethnico Christianus fit non perdit terrenum ius sed acquirit ius nouum put â in bonis Ecclesiae spiritualibus I tidem cùm de Christiano fit sicut Ethnicus vigore sententiae amittit nouum ius quod acquisierat in bonis Ecclesiae spiritualibus sed retinet tamen terrenum ius antiquum ius in temporalibus quod fuerat illi proprium priusquam Christianus fieret Euery King when of an Ethnicke he is made a Christian doth not therby loose his temporall right but getteth a new right to wit in the spirituall goods of the Church In like manner when of a Christian he is made an Ethnicke to wit by Excommunication he by force of the Censure leeseth his new right which he had gotten in the spirituall goods of the Church but yet notwithstanding he keepeth his temporall right his ancient right in temporalities which was proper vnto him before he was a Christian. 21. Heere also do you distinguish the double right of a King the one ancient and temporall which a King hath before he be a Christian the other new and spirituall which he getteth when he is made a Christian Now in like manner I demaund whether doth the Supremacy of the Church which your King vsurpeth belong to that ancient temporall right or rather to this new and spirituall If it belong to the ancient and temporall right it followeth that Ethnicke Kings before they be made Christians haue the Supremacy of the Church which is absurd If it belong to the new and spirituall right it followeth that Kings when in baptisme they be made Christians or members of the Church do receaue more in their baptisme then other men which in another place of your Booke you deny For you contend that all men of what sort or degree soeuer they be are equall vnto them in those things which are obteined through baptisme The sixt Argument 22. THE sixt Argument you insinuate pag. 53. of your booke when you say Nec enim Regum subditi quâ subditi Ecclesiae pars vlla sunt sed Regni Antequam de Ecclesiae essent subditi erant cùm extra Ecclesiam sunt nihilominus manent subditi Quâ fideles sunt pars Ecclesiae sunt quâ subditi sunt Regni ac Reipublicae pâ—rs sunt Neyther are the subiects of a King in that they be subiects any part of the Church but of the Kingdome Before they were of the Church they were subiects when they are out of the Church notwithstanding they remaine subiects In that they be faithfull or Christians they are a part of the Church In that they be subiects they are a part of the Kingdome and Commonwealth 23. Heerhence do I argue thus The Iurisdiction of a King doth not extend it selfe but to the subiects of the King in that they are subiects for if we regard them in that they be not subiects they cannot be vnder the Iurisdiction of the King But the subiects of a King in that they be subiects are not a part of the Church but only of the commonwealth as you affirme So as the Iurisdiction of a King which he hath ouer his subiects in that they be subiects cannot be Ecclesiasticall but Ciuill only Ergo they are not subiect to the King in Ecclesiasticall affaires but only in Ciuill Nothing is more certaine out of this your owne Principle THE CHAPLAINES Argument for the Kinges Supremacy 24. HItherto haue I shewed that out of your owne doctrine strong Argumentes may be drawne to ouerthrow the Kings Supremacy Now let vs see if your others be as forcible to the contrary wherwith you goe about to establish the same Supremacy in the King I will pretermitt those which are common to you and your King and are by me refuted otherwhere One which is most peculiar and principall to your selfe I will heere discusse Thus then you propose it in the 157. page of your Booke Dixit autem olim Iosue populus in omnibus pariturum se ei sicut Moysi paruerunt paruerunt autem Moysi in Ecclesiasticis Non intercessit tum Pontifex Eleazarus ne in omnibus sed temporalibus Quòd si quicquam interesse putet quòd Iosue verus Dei cultor fuit ne in Orthodoxis solis locum habere videatur Rex Babel certè haeretico par nempe Idololatra cui tamen Propheta non modò non dissuasit populo sed author etiam fuit submittendi colla sub iugo eius eique seruiendi Idem Pharaoni factum cuius absque veniâ nec pedem mouere voluerunt de Aegypto vt Deo sacrificarent Idem Cyro cuius itidem absque veniâ nec excedere Chaldaea vt templum aedificarent c. The people sometyme sayd vnto Iosue that they would obay him in all thinges as they had obeyed Moyses but they obeyed Moyses in Ecclesiasticall matters Nor did the high Priest Eleazarus then meddle no not in any thing but in temporall But if any man shal thinke this more to auayle because Iosue was a true worshipper of God and least this right should seeme to haue place in only Orthodoxall or right-beleeuing Kinges Behould then the King of Babel equall to an Hereticke to wit an Idolater whome notwithstanding the Prophet not only not dissuaded the people to obay but also was Author that they submitted their neckes vnder his yoke serued him The like was done to Pharao without whose leaue they to wit the Iewes would not mooue a foot out of Aegypt that they might sacrifice to God And the same to Cyrus without whose leaue in like maÌ„ner they would not depart out of Chaldaea that they might build their Temple c. 25. The force of your Argument is this that not only Orthodoxall Kings in the old Testament but Gentiles also Idolaters had the Primacy of the Church Ergo the same is to be said of Kinges of the new Testament The former part of the antecedent you proue by the example of Iosue to whome the people of the Iewes said Ios. 1. 17. As we haue obeyed Moyses in all thinges so will we obey you But they obeyed Moyses not only in temporall matters but also in Ecclesiasticall Ergo did they so obey Iosue The later you proue by the example of the three Gentile Kinges Nabuchodonosor in Babylon Pharao in Egipt and Cyrus in Chaldaea to whome the Iewes were subiect euen in Ecclesiasticall matters because without their leaue they durst neyther offer Sacrifice nor build their Temple 26. That you may
the other side that which you bring of Gentile and Idolatrous Kinges I do not see what force it may haue For that those three Kinges which you mention were by your owne confession eyther Primates of the Church of God or they were not I hope you will not say that they were because yow affirme the contrary more then once in your Tortura and that worthily to wit that they who be out of the Church of God cannot be Princes and Rulers in the same Church Yf they were not Primates of the Church as certes they were not how then will you proue by this their example that the King of England is head or Primate of the Church This only you may conclude that as the Iewes durst not go forth of Egypt to sacrifice to God without King Pharao his leaue who had brought them into cruell bondage vnder his yoke So in like manner the Catholickes that liue in England dare not go out to other Catholicke Countries where they may receiue the holy Eucharist after the Catholick manner without King Iames his leaue who will not suffer them so to do without his licence vnder payne of death or imprisonmēt And the like may be said of the other two Idolatrous Kings But what is this to the Primacy of the Church I should rather thinke it belonged to tyrāny or impiety The Conclusion to the Chaplayne 30. YOvv haue heere briefly what I haue thought concerning your Booke which you haue written in defence of your King You haue heere I say these three pointes First that you haue oftentimes handled the matter not so much in Argument as in raylings or exprobrations Secondly that you haue defyled euery thing with Paradoxes and false opinions Thirdly that you haue rather ouerthrowne then established the Kings Primacy which you sought to fortify and all these things haue you done through a certayne desire you haue to flatter the King Therefore if you shall represse this your desire and behould the onely truth of the thing it selfe it will be very easy for you to amend your former faultes which I altogeather counsell you to doe And if you set God before your eyes who is the first and principall verity you will doe it AN APPENDIX Of the Comparison betweene a King and a Bishop IN your booke you do so compare a King and a Bishop togeather that you manifestly depresse the Authority of the one and extoll the Dignity higher then is sitting of the other And therefore what others haue thought before you concerning this point I will briefly lay before your eyes that you may choose whether changing your opinion you will stand to their iudgmentes or els retayning it still persist in your errour Thus then haue others thought and taught before you Num. 27. 21. Pro Iosue si quid agendum erit c. Yf for Iosue any thing be to be done let Eleazar the Priest consult with the Lord. At his word to wit Eleazars shall he goe out and go in and with him all the sonns of Israel and the rest of the multitude c. So as heere the secular Prince is commanded to do his affaires at the descretion of the Priest Deuter. 17. 12. Qui superbierit c. He that shall be proud refusing to obay the commandement of the Priest who at that time ministreth to our Lord thy God c. that man shall dye and thou shalt take away the euill out of Israel c. 1. Reg. 22. 27. Ait Rex Saul Emissarijs c. King Saul said to his Seruants that stood about him Turne your selues and kill the Priests of the Lord c. And the Kings seruants would not extend their hands vpō the Priests of the Lord. So as they made greater esteeme of the Priests authority then of their Kings commandement 4. Reg. 11. 9. Fecerunt Centuriones iuxta omnia c. And the Centurions did according to all things that Ioida the Priest had commaūded them and euery one taking their men c. came to Ioida the Priest c. And he brought forth the Kings sonne and put vpon him the diademe and the couenant c. And Ioida commanded the Centurions and said to them Bring forth Athalia the Queene without the precincts of the Temple and whosoeuer shall follow her let him be stroken with the sword c. 2. Paralip 19. 11. Amarias Sacerdos Pontifex vester c. Amarias the Priest and your Bishop shall be chiefe in those things which pertayne to God Moreouer Zabadias the sonne of Ismael who is the Prince of the house of Iuda shal be ouer those works which pertaine to the Kings office c. 2. Paralip 26. 16. Cùm rob oratus esset c. When Ozias the King was strengthened his hart was eleuated to his destruction c. and entring into the temple of our Lord he would burne incense vpon the altar of incense And presently Azarias the Priest entring in after him and with him the Priests of our Lord c. they resisted the King and said It is not thy office Ozias to burne incense to our Lord but the Priests c. Get thee out of the Sanctuary contemne not because this thing shall not be reputed vnto thee for the glory of our Lord God And Ozias being angry c. threatned the Priests And forthwith there arose a leprosy in his forehead before the Priests c. and in hast they thrust him out c. Ioan. 21. 32. Feede my sheepe c. Matth. 16. 19. To thee will I giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen c. Act. 20. 28. The holy Ghost hath placed Bishops not secular Kings to gouerne the Church of God c. 1. Cor. 4. 1. So let a man esteeme vs as the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God c. 2. Cor. 5. 20. We are Legates for Christ c. S. Gregory Nazianzen writing to the Emperours of Constantinople apud Gratian. dist 10. can 7. saith Libenter accipitis c. You do willingly heare that the law of Christ doth subiect you to Priestly power For he hath giuen vs that power yea he hath giuen vs a Principality much more perfect then that of yours c. S. Gregory the Pope writing to Hermannus Bishop of Metz dist 96. can 6. saith Quis dubitat c. Who doubteth but that the Priests of Christ are to be accompted the Fathers and maisters of Kinges and princes Ioan. Papa dist 96. can 11. Si Imperator Catholicus est c. If the Emperour be a Catholike he is a Sonne and not a Prelate of the Church What belongeth to Religion he ought to learne and not to teach And then againe afterwards Imperatores c. Christian Emperours and Kings ought to submit their imployments vnto Ecclesiasticall Prelates and not preferre them Innocentius 3. in decret de maior obed can 6. Non negamus c. We deny not but that the Emperour doth excell in temporall things but the Pope excelleth in spirituall which are so much the more worthy then temporall by how much the soule is preferred before the body c. Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spaine to the Emperour Constantius sayth Desine quaeso Imperator c. Giue ouer I beseech you o Emperour do not busy your selfe in Ecclesiasticall affaires nor in such things do not teach vs but rather learne of vs. To yow hath God committed the rule of the Kingdome but vnto vs hath he deliuered the affaires of his Church c. S. Ambrose in his 33. Epistle to his Sister Marcellina writeth that he had sayd to the Emperour Valentinian Noli te grauare Imperator c. Do not trouble your selfe o Emperour to thinke that you haue any Imperiall right in those thinges which are diuine To the Emperour do pallaces belong but Churches pertaine vnto Priests c. Valentinianus the Emperour said Mihi qui vnus è numero laicorum c. It is not lawfull for me that am but one of the number of laymen to interpose my self in such businesses to wit Ecclesiasticall Let Priests and Bishops meet about these things wheresoeuer it shall please them to whome the care of such affaires belong c. This is related by Zozomenus lib 6. hist. c. 7. and by Nicephorus lib. 11. cap. 33. by Ruffinus lib 1. cap. 2. Eleanor Queene of Englād in an Epistle she wrote to Pope Celestine hath these wordes Non Rex non Imperator à iugo vestrae Iurisdictionis eximitur Neyther King nor Emperour is exempted from the yoke of your Iurisdiction or power More of this matter in another place FINIS Faultes escaped in the Printing Pag. 7. lin vlt. in some copies dele is 17. lin 7. shall read shalt 19. lin 21. to write read to wit 36. lin 4. in some copies Mattheaeo read Matthaeo 38. lin 8. to lawfull read to be lawfull 40. lin 7. in some copies you read yours 57. lin 15. in some copies the read he 58. lin 1◠in some copies this read his LAVS DEO