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
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
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