prouoked you to these reproaches First it is nothing so and secondly if it had byn so what do you thinke it the part of a Christian man to requite euill with euill Truely the Apostle taught vs otherwise Rom. 12. 17. Nulli malum pro malo reddentes to wit that we should not render euill for euill to any man And lastly if you would haue done so why haue you not spared others Was not one Tortus inough for you to torture vnlesse with the like liberty you railed vpon others also Hereafter therfore abstaine from the like and giue eare to that of the Wiseman Prouerb 21. 23. Qui custodit os suum linguam suam custodit ab angustijs animam suam He that keepeth his mouth and his tongue doth preserue his soule from distresse And againe Matth. 12. 35. Ex abundantia cordis os loquitur Bonus homo de bono thesauro profert bona malus homo de malo thesauro profert mala Of the aboundance of the hart the mouth speaketh A good man out of a good treasure bringeth forth good thinges and an euill man out of an euill treasure bringeth forth euill thinges See then what kind of treasure this of yours is from whence come forth so many reproaches And beware Quia maledici Regnum Dei non possidebunt 1. Cor. 6. For that Raylers shall not possesse the Kingdome of God THE SECOND CHAPTER Of the Chaplaines Paradoxes AFTER your reproaches and railings follow your Paradoxes which are many in your booke but especially these 1. That the Puritans in England doe sincerely sweare to the Kings Supremacy 2. That the said Supremacy is to be giuen to the King by all right 3. That no man hath yet denyed but that the Kings of the old Testament had Supremacy in the Church 4. That the Kinges of the new Testament are Pastors of the flocke of Christ. 5. That Kinges are often called in the Scripture Christes or the Annoynted of our Lord but Priests or Bishops are neuer so called 6. That if the Pope were Head of the Church besides Christ it should be a monstrous and two-headed Church 7. That if the Pope should haue power to depose Kinges Ethnicks or Infidels were better in condition then Christian Princes 8. That if the Pope will haue a Temporall Kingdome it were to be persuaded that he went to the Diuell for it 9. That power to excommunicate was not giuen to S. Peter but vnto the Church 10. That the Prophesy of the Reuelation of Antichrist is already fulfilled and therefore is cleere and not intricate 11. That the Kinges of Denmarke and Sweueland as also the Princes of Germany agree with the King of England in matters of faith 12. That it is not now free for the King of England to change his owne or to admit Catholicke Religiō in his Kingdome for that he hath sworne twice to the contrary 13. That Cardinall Bellarmine is a Vow-breaker because of a Iesuite he is become a Cardinall 14. That Catholicks teach fidelity not to be kept and falshood to be lawfull 15. That Catholickes are of the race of Malchus because they interprete nothing aright but all sinistrously These few heades of many are now briefly to be examined The first Paradoxe 2. FIRST therefore you say that the Puritans in England do sincerely sweare to the Kinges Supremacy Your wordes are these pag. 379. towardes the end of the page Quos verò Puritanos appellat si Regium Primatum detestentur detestandi ipsi Profitentur enim subscribunt iurant indies sed illi quod faciunt ingenuè faciunt c. Those whom he to wit Tortus calleth Puritans if they abhorre the Kinges Primacy they are to be abhorred For they doe professe subscribe and sweare dayly And moreouer what they do they do sincerely c. that is to say they sincerely professe the Kings Supremacy they sincerely subscribe they sincerely sweare 3. But your king himself thinketh far otherwise of them in his Premonition to the Emperour Kings and Princes For thus he speaketh Praeclara sanè laus praeclarum encomium quo Puritanos ornaui cùm me plus fidei vel in illis efferis cùm montanis tum limitaneis latronibus quà m in hoc genere hominum inuenisse professus sim. Surely I giue a fayre commendation to the Puritans when I affirme that I haue found greater honesty with the high-land and border theeues then with that sort of people c. Behould now how greatly you differ from your King your Head and Ecclesiasticall Primate Your King professeth that he hath found more fidelity amongst barbarous or cruell theeues thē amongst the Puritans You on the contrary side affirme that the Puritans what they do they do sincerely So as those to you are sincere men that to your King are worse then cruell theeues 4. Againe saith the King Ego à Puritanis non solùm à natiuitate continuò vexatus fui verùm etiam in ipso matris vtero propemodum extinctus antequam in lucem editus essem c. I haue byn persecuted by the Puritans not only from my birth but almost extinguished also euen in my mothers wombe before I was yet borne c. What say you to this Will you still chaunt your wonted songe That the Puritans what they do they do sincerely To wit forsooth as you interprete they would sincerely haue extinguished the King in his mothers wombe before he was borne And is this in your Chapell to be sincere indeed 5. Moreouer the King saith Ego in meo ad Filium Libro multò acriùs ac vehementiùs in Puritanos quà m Pontificios inuectus sum I in my booke to my Sonne doe speake ten tymes more bitterly of the Puritans then of the Papists c. So as by the Kings owne iudgment the Puritans are worse then the Papists But you call Papistes Traytors Ergo the Puritans are worse then Traytors And yet notwithstanding you write that what they do they do sincerely 6. Againe the King yet writeth thus Mihi praecipuus labor fuit deiectos Episcopos restituere Puritanorum Anarchiam expugnare I haue laboured nothing so much as to depresse the Puritans Anarchy and erect Bishops againe c. To wit the Puritans affect an Anarchy or to be without a King they hate a Monarchy or Primacy Contrariwise the King depresseth this Anarchy and establisheth a Primacy Now I demaund if the Puritans detest this Primacy how do they then sweare thus sincerely thereunto Ergo eyther the Puritans are no longer Puritans or if they be the men they were to wit Puritans they affect Anarchy and detest Primacy and so what they do they do not sincerely but fraudulently 7. See then how contrary in all these thinges you are to the King Whome he accuseth you excuse and yet from impudency you cannot excuse them And is it not a great impudencie and if you will imprudencie that the Caluinistes in Germany and Holland who are nothing els but Puritans should
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
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
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
one only head to one body The Church is one body Except you imagine her to be a spread Eagle or a triple Geryon who hath as many heades as there be Crowns in the Popes myter Christ therfore alone is Head of the Church and not the Pope 24. But if it be so as heere you would beare vs in hand that it is why do you otherwhere affirme not a little forgetting your selfe that the King is Head of the Church Do you not feare least the Church should be double headed if not Christ alone but your King also be head thereof For thus you say pag. 338. Iam verò vt nomen capitis ad Regem reuocetur arte mirabili non est opus Praeiuit nobis voce Spiritus Sanctus 1. Reg. 15. 17. Nonne cùm peruulus esses in oculis tuis caput in tribubus Israel factus es Inter tribus verò Israel tribus Leui. Caput ergo Rex vel tribus Leuiticae qua in tributum Pontifex Achimelech sub Rege capite suo Chrysostomus camdem hanc vocem Capitis reuocauit ad Theodosium eumque dixit non solum caput sed quod in ipso capite maximè sublime est capitis verticem idque omnium in terris hominum Now that the Name of Head may be giuen to the King there shall need no great art The holy Ghost hath gone before vs in this word 1. Reg. 15. 17. saying When thou wast a little one in thine owne eyes wast thou not made head in the Tribes of Israel Amongst the tribes of Israel is the tribe of Leui. Therfore the King is head at least of the Leuiticall tribe in which Tribe was then the chiefe Priest Achimelech vnder the King his Head Chrysostome in like manner attributed this Name of Head vnto Theodosius and called him not only Head but which is most high in the head it selfe the top or crowne of the Head and that of all men on earth c. 25. I wonder at your inconstancy A little before you said that only Christ was head of the Church And why so That you might exclude the Pope whom you hate Now you will also haue the King to be head and not only head but the top or crowne of the head also Why so Because yow seeke to please and flatter the King And so it cōmeth to passe that you will easily endure a two-headed Church if the King may be one but in no wise if the Pope should be any And when you haue placed Christ and the King of England as two Heads of this Church then it seemes to you a faire and comely Church but if Christ and the Pope be placed togeather then is it deformed monstrous Get you hence with this your Head wherin the Church hath one while one head another while two It seemes that that of Ecclesiasticus 27. 12. may be fittly applied vnto you Stultus vt luna mutatur A foole is changed like the moone And that also of S. Iames 1. 8. Vir duplex animo inconstans est in omnibus vijs suis. A double dealing fellow is inconstant in all his wayes The seauenth Paradoxe 26. YOv say that if the Pope should haue power to depose Kinges Ethnickes or Infidels were better in condition then Christian Princes to witt for that these may be deposed by the Pope the other may not For thus you write pag. 36. of your booke Hac doctrina semel promulgata non multa pòst sceptra credo Christo subijcientur Quid enim Rex Ethnicus non potest deponi à Papa Christianus potest Meliori ergo iure regnatur apud Ethnicos Quis non dehin◠iem sic vt est manebit Ethnicus Subditi qui Ethnicisunt officio suo in Reges laxari nequeunt at Christiani queunt Quis non subditos suos malit Ethnicos quà m Christianos Quis Christianus Rex esse velit This Doctrine to wit of deposing Princes being once set abroach I beleeue few Scepters will hereafter be subiected to Christ. For why An Ethnicke King cannot be deposed by the Pope a Christian King may be therefore it is better to be a King amongst Ethnickes Who will not hēceforward now if he be so remayne still an Ethnicke Subiects if they be Ethnickes cannot be absolued frō their obedience to their Kinges but Christian Subiects may Who would not then haue his subiects Ethnickes rather then Christians Who would be a Christian King 27. You neyther speake warily nor Christianlike Not warily for first what you haue sayd may be thus retorted vpon you Yf the King of England should haue power to depose Bishops which you affirme then were the Bishop in Spayne France and Poland better in condition then the Bishops of England For that heere they may be deposed at the Kings pleasure and there not Secondly for as we say that Christian Princes may be deposed by the Pope if they offend not Ethnicks so do you likewise confesse that Christian Princes may be excommunicated and not Ethnicks Yet is it not wel inferred of this your Doctrine that Ethnickes are better in condition then Christians seing that it is a greater euill to be depriued of the spirituall goods of the Church by excommunication thē of a temporall Kingdome by deposition And therefore can that be much lesse inferred out of our opinion 28. You speake not Christianlike For it is not a Christian mans part thus to dispute The offences of Kinges are punnished amongst Christians but not amongst Ethnickes Ergo I had rather be an Ethnick Prince where I may not be punnished if I offend then a Christian Prince where I shall be punnished if I doe offend Thus truly you dispute If say you Christian Kinges when they deserue it may be deposed and Ethnicks although they do offend cannot be deposed I had rather be an Ethnicke King then a Christian. And so truly you playnly shew that you more esteeme a temporall Kingdome which you would not loose then a heauenly Kingdome which you doe not greatly care for The eight Paradoxe 29. YF the Pope say you will haue a Temporal Kingdome it were to be perswaded that he went to the Diuell for it seing that he hath power to dispose of the Kingdomes of this world For thus yow write pag. 36. Quod si Pontifici animus est ad regna mundi est in Euangelio memini mentio de quodam qui regna mundi penes se esse eaue disponendi ius habere se dixit Eum adeat censeo cum illo transigat And if the Pope haue a mynd to a temporall kingdome there is mention in the Ghospel I remember of a certayne fellow to wit the Diuell who sayd that all the kingdomes of the world were in his power that he had right to dispose of them I thinke it best he go vnto him and couenant with him c. 30. Say my friend speake you this in iest or in earnest In whether manner you doe it you eyther become iniurious to your own
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
hanc meam de Antichristo coniecturam libebit refellere singulis disputationis meae partibus ordine respondeat And my only wish shal be that if any man shall haue a fancy to refute this my cōiecture of Antichrist that he answere me orderly to euery point of my discourse c. But for you Syr it shall not be necessary to answer thus to euery point you may dispatch the matter in one word if you shall but say to your King And it shall please your Maiesty you are deceyued in your coniecture that which is seene with the eye needs no coniecture We all dayly see with our eyes this Mystery of Antichrist And are you the only man in England that seeth it not c Yf you do but thus you haue gotten the goale 37. But indeed you are not onely contrary to the King heerin but to your selfe also For if the Prophesy of Antichrist were now already reuealed and cleere in all mens eyes as you affirme who is then this Antichrist whome the prophesy meaneth The Pope you wil say And this also doth your King coniecture though he see it not with his eyes Well be it so But then in another place you say That your King may be excommunicated by the Pope though not deposed or depriued of his Kingdome Can therefore Antichrist excommunicate your King Take heed what you say and beware least whilst you please your King by flattery you displease him through imprudency The eleauenth Paradoxe 38. THE Kinges of Denmarke say you Suetia as also the Princes of Germany with many others do agree with the King of England in matters of faith For thus you write pag. 53. of your booke Quod si praesentis instituti foret edoceriposses Serenissimum Magnae Britanniae Regem qui cum eo sentiunt Reges Daniae Suetiae Germaniae Principes Respublicas Heluctiae Rhetiae quiue per Galliam Belgium Poloniam Hungariam Bohemiam Austriam Ordines à nobis sunt partem esse Dominici gregis nec minorem nec minùs illustrem partem quà m quae est pars Pauli Quinti But if it were our present purpose heere to declare you to wit Tortus might be taught to know that the Kinges excellent Maiesty of Great Britany and they which agree with him to wit the Kings of Denmarke and Suetia the Princes of Germany the Comon-wealthes of Suitzerland and Rhetia all other States that adherre vnto vs throughout France the Low Countryes Polonia Hungary Bohemia and Austria are part of the Lords flocke and not a meaner nor a lesse famous part then that of Paul the fifth c. 39. Yea although it were your present purpose you could neuer be able to teach vs that which you hereaffirme And this I will shew you particulerly For first you say your King agreeth in matters of faith with the Kings of Denmarke and Suetia But how can this be They be Lutheran Princes and acknowledge Christes Reall Presence in the Eucharist which your King doth vtterly deny Secondly you affirme the same of the Princes of Germany and States of other Countryes But these do not agree amongst themselues some being open Lutherans and others Caluinistes How then can they being deuided amongst thēselues agree with your King except your king as you insinuate he doth professe Caluinian Religiō with Caluinists and Lutheran with Lutherans Omnibus omnia factus vt omnes lucrifaciat being all to all that he may gaine all Thirdly suppose this were so though it be not and that all Princes and States as well Lutherans as Caluinistes did agree among themselues and togeather with your king how can it be verified that they are a part of the Lords flocke This I vnderstand not I vnderstand it not I say how they are a part of the flocke and not the whole flocke For eyther there be yet others besides those you haue named which belong to the Lords flocke or none If there be others why then did you not name them or who be those others I suppose by your owne iudgement they are neyther Papists nor Anabaptistes For these you reiect If there be no others besids those you haue named before wherefore did you then call them a part not the whole flocke of Christ I will speake yet more cleerely If the kinges of England Denmarke and Suetia and other Princes and States which agree with them be but a part of Christs flocke and not the whole flocke then followeth it of necessity that besides those there is another part of Christes flocke which agreeth not with them and so Christs flocke must consist of two partes wherof one is deuided from the other Do you thinke so indeed If you do not then explicate your selfe better 40. But let vs graunt this also that they are a part of Christs flock that agree with your King in Religiō with what face dare you yet affirme that part to be no meaner nor lesse famous a part then that of Pope Paul the fifth This I vnderstand lesse then the other For with Paul the fifth agree Rodulph the Emperour the Kinges of Spaine France Polonia the Archdukes of Austria the Princes Electors of Mentz Treuers Cullen the Dukes of Bauaria Lorayne Brabant Franconia Tuscany the Bishops of Bamberge Constance Spire Wormes Paderborne c. to omit many others and yet dare you be so bould as to affirme that this is a more meane and lesse famous part then that which agreeth with your King in matters of Religion You are totoo intemperate in auouching and I doubt not but your King who is of no dull wit will easily perceaue that you very grossely flatter him The tweluth Paradoxe 41. YOV say that it is not now free for the King of England to change his Religion or permit the Catholicke in his Kingdome because he hath sworne twice to the contrary For thus you write pag. 81. of your booke speaking to Tortus Nec in eo Regi audiendus qui consilium das de religione liberè habenda integrum hoc iam illi non est Nam non semel periurus sit quin bis si te audiat Qua enim siqua est fidei bis data conscientia vel conscientia vel fide ferret in regnis suis ritus vestros vel vsum eorum publicum qui susceptâ primùm Scotiae susceptâ deinde Angliae Coronâ Regiâ vtrolique solemni ritu Deo iusiurandum praestitit de conseruanda in Statu suo illa colendi Dei formula nec alia quà m quae in regnis suis tum publicè recepta vtriusque Gentis legibus stabilita esset Neither in this point are you to be heard of the King in that you giue him counsaile to permit the free exercise of religion this being not lawfull for him now to do For that therby he shall not be once but twice periured if he heare you herin For with what fayth or conscience if there be any conscience of fayth twice giuen can he admit
your cerimonies or the publike vse therof who when he was first Crowned in Scotland and after in England did most solemnely sweare to God in both places to mantaine in his Dominions that forme of Religion and no other which was then receaued publikely in his Kingdomes and established by the lawes of both Realmes c 42. Truly I perceaue you threaten your King that he shall be accompted periured if he permit the Catholicke Religion in his Kingdome or forsake his owne imbrace another What do you not thinke it lawfull for him to change his Religion if he haue sworne he will not do it So it seemes belike But how if the Religion be false which he hath sworne to mantaine What shall he then do Shall he persist rather in his false Religion then breake his oath Take heed what you say An oath say the Lawiers is no band of iniquity and I may adde nor of falsity And therfore notwithstanding an oath neuer so often made a man may change his Religion if it be false he may annull his pact or couenant if it be vniust This is most certaine What would you do if your King should say that the Religiō is false which he now professeth Would you vrge him vpon his oath That in an euill act is annulled What Would you persuade him to forsake his false Religion imbrace the true I thinke you would Why do you then dissemble Why do you so much vrge the King vpon his oath as though vpon no occasion or euent soeuer it were lawfull to chang a Religion that is once confirmed by an oath although it be impious and false Go too gather your wittes togeather a little better and then speake 43. One thing I would yet demaund of you and that is this Your King in his booke of Premonition doth exhort Catholicke Kings and Princes that they should forsake the faith and Religion which hitherto they haue professed vnder the Pope and imbrace the English Religion which the King professeth Now it is well knowne that most of these Princes in their Coronation do sweare that they will neuer do it to wit change their Religion Heere I demaund I say whether your King hath lawfully and prudently exhorted them to do it or no If he hath done it lawfully and prudently why do you accuse the Catholickes who do but the like in a better cause If he did it vnlawfully and imprudently why did you not admonish him to surcease from such an Exhortation seeing yow are his Chaplaine and perhaps in this matter his Secretary Thus you stumble at euery blocke The thirtenth Paradoxe 44. YOv say that Cardinall Bellarmine is a Vow-breaker because of a Iesuite he is become a Cardinall For thus you write pag. 56. At votum non video cur à Mattheaeo Torto nominari debuit nisi si interposita voti mentione Domino suo Bellarmino gratificari voluit quo olim Iesuita factus voti se reum fecit hoc votum iam fregit postquam ostrum induit But I do not see how it can be called a vow by Matthew Tortus vnlesse in mentioning of the same he would needes gratify his Maister Bellarmine who being somtime a vowed Iesuite hath now broken that vow by putting on purple c. 45. It seemes you vnderstand aswell what it is to be a Vow-breaker as a periured person And euen as a little before you did pronounce your King to be forsworne if he should admit Catholicke Religion in his Kingdome So now you pronounce Cardinall Bellarmine to be a Vow-breaker because against his will he admitted the Dignity of a Cardinal Truly you are very ready to vpbraid and taunt And why I pray you doe you not call Luther a Vow-breaker who of a Monke became a married man if he may be called a married man and not rather a sacrilegious fornicator and adulterer Why not also a periured person that reiecting the ancient faith which he had receyued from Christ the Apostles and his Ancestours most holy and learned men and sealed with an oath did imbrace a new Religion repugnant to Christ and the truth 46. That you may therefore vnderstand the matter heare then what followeth It is one thing to vow or promise to God any thing absolutely and simply and another thing to doe it with a certayne limitation He that voweth after the first manner is bound to performe that which he promiseth he that voweth after the second māner may be quit of his band when the limitation therof doth suffer the same Exāples herof we haue in the old Testamēt For the Daughters Wiues did vse to vow with this limitation to wit if their Parents and Husbāds did consent therto Numb 30. The Nazaraeans in like manner vowed with this limitation to wit they bound themselues for a certaine time only not for their whole life Numb 6. So likewise doe we in our SOCIETY He that bindeth himself by a simple vow is not thought to be otherwise obliged thē at the arbitrement of his Superiours So as if he should be by them for a iust cause dismissed out of the SOCIETY the band or obligation ceaseth But he that bindeth himselfe by a solemne vow dependeth on the arbitrement of the Pope who may take him from the SOCIETY and place him in any other Degree or Dignity And what new thing is this now I pray you The like is dayly exercised amongst you You promise your King Allegiance and Obedience but with this double limitatiō First as long as you remaine in England Secondly as long as the King doth not chang his Religion For if it be otherwise you thinke you are not bound thereunto The fourteenth Paradoxe 47. YOV say the Catholickes teach fidelity not to be kept and falshood to be lawfull For thus you write pag. 156. of your booke Vos qui fidem non seruandam id est perfidiam licitam legitimamque docetis etiámne vos quicquam de perfidia audetis hiscere in turpitudinem vestram etiam vel nomen nominare You that teach fidelity not to be kept that is to say falshood to lawfull dare you I say as much as once open your lippes against falshood or perfidiousnes or to name the thing to your owne shame 48. But stay my friend who be they with vs that teach this doctrine If your set purpose be nothing els but to deale falsely and to calūniate it is no great meruaile if you write thus For be it spoken with your good leaue this is a loudlye and a manifest calumniation But if you be desirous of truth as it becommed you to haue byn why did you not examine the matter first before you wrote it downe No doubt but you should haue found another kind of doctrine amongst Catholicks And if you yet please you may see what I haue formerly written of this argument in my Disputation Of keeping faith or promise to Heretickes and in my Sundry mixt Questions of the same matter
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
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