Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	see_v	write_v	year_n	3,146	5	4.6224	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A06517	The confutation of Tortura Torti: or, Against the King of Englands chaplaine: for that he hath negligently defended his Kinges cause. By the R.F. Martinus Becanus, of the Society of Iesus: and professour in deuinity. Translated out of Latin into English by W.I. P.; Refutatio Torturae Torti. English	Becanus, Martinus, 1563-1624.; Wilson, John, ca. 1575-ca. 1645?	1610 (1610)	STC 1699; ESTC S122416	35,918	75

THE CONFVTATION OF TORTVRA TORTI OR AGAINST ●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 magnificēt 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 i● 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 King● exacteth of his subiects SECONDLY of the King● Supremacy in Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall matters THIRDLY of the Popes power If we consider your words yow are neat and elegant inough if you● labour and diligence I accuse you not of idlenes But many other things there are which I do not so wel● 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

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