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
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
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 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