Primatemque confingas It may seeâ—e to â—auour of malice and cry out vpon your sausines when as you feigne the King Head and Primate of the Church c. And M. Burhill pag. 133. Nec Primatem quidem omnino Regem nostrum dicimus multò vâ—rò minù◠Primatem Ecclesiasticum Neyther do we at all call our King Primate and much lesse Ecclesiasticall Primate c. 3. â—eere hence do I frame a twofold Argument One out of M. Tookers words in this manner He that aâ—â—irmeth the King to be Primate of the Church is a sausy and malicious fellow But M. Salclâ—bridge affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church Ergo he is a sausy and malicious fellow The other argument I frame out of M. Salclebridges words thus He that denyeth the King to be Primate of the Church doth offend against the publicke Profession of the Truth receyued in England But M. Tooker denyeth the King to be Primate of the Church of England Ergo he offendeth against the publicke profession of the Truth receyued in England So I wâ—s one Mule claweth another 4. But now it may be demaunded whether of them doth iudg more rightly in this case M. Salclebridge who affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church or M. Tooker that denieth it This controuersy dependeth vpon another question to wit whether these two Names Primate and Primacy are necessarily coÌ„nexed or as they say Coniugata M. Salclebridge thinketh that they are Therfore because he hath once affirmed the King to haue the Primacy of the Church he consequently auerreth that the King is Primate of the Church For that with him this argument hath force à Coniugatis The King hath Primacy Ergo the King is Primate As also this The Chaplaine hath a Bishopricke Ergo he is a Bishop 5. Now M. Tooker he thinketh the contrary For pag 6. of his booke he expressely saith That the King hath the Primacy of the Church but yet he is not the Primate of the Church And contrariwise The Archbishop of Canterbury hath not the Primacy of the Church and yet is he Primate of the Church So as he denyeth these two consequeÌ„ces à Coniugatis to wit 1. The King hath the Primacy Ergo he is Primate 2. The Archbishop is Primate Ergo he hath the Primacy And perhaps he will deny these in like manner 1. The Chaplayne hath a Bishopricke Ergo he is a Bishop 2. M. Tooker is a Deane Ergo he hath a Deanery IIII. Question VVhether the King by reason of his Primacy may be called Head of the Church THIS Title first began to be vsurped of King Henry the 8. as all Authors aswell our owne as our aduersaryes do testifie For thus wryteth Iacobus Thuanus in his first booke of the Historyes of his times Henricus post diuortium se Caput Ecclesiae constituit K. Henry after his diuorce from Q. Catherine made himselfe Head of the Church c. And Polydor Virgil lib. 27. of his History of England saith Interea habetur Concilium Londini in quo Ecclesia Anglicana formam potestatis nullis antè temporibus visam induit Henricus enim Rex Caput ipsius Ecclesiae constituitur In the meane while to wit after his forsaid diuorce a Councell was held at London wherin the Church of â—ngland tooke to it selfe a forme of power neuer heard of before For that King Henry was appointed Head of the same Church c. Genebrard also in the fourth booke of his Chronology hath these words Henricus anno 1534. in publicis Comitijs se Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae appellauit King Henry in the yeare of our Lord 1534. in publicke Parliament called himselfe Head of the Church of England c. Also Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England saith Ex qua dicendi formula primam occasionem sumptam aiunt vt Rex Supremum Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae diceretur By which manner of speach it is said the first occasion was taken of calling the King supreme Head of the Church of England c. And againe in the same booke Proponebantur cis noua Comitiorum Decreta iuâ—â—bantur iurciurando affirmare Regim Supremum Ecclesiae esse Caput The new Laws or Statutes of the Parliament were propounded vnto them to wit to the Kings subiects and they were commaunded to sweare that the King was head of the Church c. Iohn Caluin in like manner vpon the 7. Chapter of the Prophet Amos wryteth thus Qui tantopere extuâ—erunt Hâ—nricum Regem Angliae certè fucrunt homines inâ—enâ—â—derati Dedâ—runt enim illi summam rerum omnium petestatem hoc me grauiter semper vulnerauit Erant enâ—m blasphemi cùm vocarent cum summum Caput Ecclesia sub â—hristo Those who so greatly did extoll K. Hâ—nâ—y of Enâ—land were men void of consideration For they gaue vnto him the chiefe power of all things and this point did euer gall me grieuously For that they were blasphemers when they called him the chiefe Head of the Church vnder Christ c. 2. The same Title did K. Edward Sonne to K. Henry and his Successour vsurpe as it may be seene by his Letters to Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury which begin thus Edouardus Dei gratia Angliae Franciae Hyberniae Rex supremum in terris Ecclesiae Anglicanae Hybernicae tam in causis spiritalibus quà m temporalibus Caput Reuerendo Thomae Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo salutem Edward by the Grace of God King of England France and Ireland supreme Head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland as well in causes Ecclesiasticall as temporall to the Reuerend Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury greeting c. The same Title also did Bishop Cranmer giue vnto the said King as appeareth by his letters wrytten to other Bishops subiect vnto him thus Thomas permissione diuina Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus per Illustrissimum in Christo Principem Edouardum Regem sextum supremum in terris Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae Hybernicae sufficienter legitimè authorizatus Tibi Edmundo Londinensi â—piscopo omnibus fratribus Coëpiscopis vice nomine Regiae Maiestatis quibus in hac parte fungimur mandamus vt Imagines ex â—cclesijs cuiusque dioecesis tollantur c. We Thomas by Gods permission Archbishop of Canterbury being sufficiently and lawfully authorized by our most gratious Prince in Christ King Edward the sixt supreme Head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland do in his Maiesties Name and place which herein we supplie commaund you â—dmund Bishop of London and all the rest of our Brethren Bishops that Images be taken out of the Churches of euery Diocesse c. And Doctor Sanders also in his booke of the Schisme of England saith thus Quamprimùm visum est Henrici octaui mortem diuulgare statim Edouardus Henrici filius nonum aetatis annum agens Rex Angliae proclamatur summum â—cclesiae Anglicanae in terris Caput proximè secundum Christum constituitur
disputed of The first is of assembling or calling togeather of Synods The second of enacting of Ecclesiasticall lawes The third of coÌ„ferring or bestowing of benefices The fourth of creating deposing of Bishops The fifth is about Excommunication The sixt and last is about the decision and determining of Controuersies The question then is whether these offices belong to the Kings Primacy I will speake a word of ech in order 2. First it may be demaunded whether the King by vertue of his Primacy may of his owne authority call or assemble togeather Synods and therin sit as chiefe and head This was certainly persuaded that it might be done in the tyme of King Henry K. Edward and Queene Elizabeth but now vnder King Iames the matter is called into question M. Salclebridge pag. 121. affirmeth that he can do it in these words Christiani Principes in Regnis suis cum laude propria auctoritate Synodos conuocarunt Constitutiones condideruÌ„t causas audierunt cognouerunt Christian Princes haue with great praise assembled Synods by their owne authority in their Kingdomes haue made Constituâ—ions heard and examined causes c. And againe pag. 146. Rex Angliae potest Synodos indiâ—â—re omnium Ordinum Oecumeniâ—as in ijsdem praesidere The King of â—ngland saith he may asâ—embâ—e Generall Councells of all Orders or degrees and therin sit as President or Chiefe c. And pag. 155. he saith in like manner Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate de iure Synodos conuocarunt The Kings of â—ngland haue by thâ—ir owne supreme authority and by â—â—ght assâ—mbled Synods c. 3 Now M Toâ—ker in this poynt is very variable one while contradicting himselfe another while others And this is manifest out of the diuers testimonies he produceth The first is pag. 37. where he hath these words A quibus magis aequum est indici Conciliaâ— quà m ab illisâ— penes quos semper â—uit authoritas â—a congregandi Cùm autem communitâ—r triplex ponâ— soleat Concilium Generale Prouinciale Dioecâ—sanum Concilium Gâ—nâ—rale solius Papae iussu celebrari vultis sed neque illud nisi ab Impâ—ratoribus Regibus simul consentientâ—bus hodie indici debet Prouinciale à Metropolitaâ—o cum suis Suffragancis Dioecesanum ab Episcopo cum Curatisâ— Râ—ctoribus Clericis Dioeceseos c. By whome is it more fit that Councells should be assembled then by those in whose power hath alwayes authority byn to call them togeather For wheras commonly there be 3. sortes of Councells Generall Prouiâ—ciall of a particuler Diocesse the Generall Councell you will haue to be celebrated only by commandment of the Pope but yet not so neyther now a dayes vnlesse Emperors Kings do agree therunto also A Prouinciall Counâ—ell is to be assembled by the Metropolitan and his Suâ—fragans thâ—t of the Diocesse by the Bishop therof togeaâ—her with the Curates Rectoâ—s and Clarkes of â—he same Bishopricke c. Out of which testimony we may gatâ—er that the K. of England cannot assemble a Councell of his owne authority Not a geneâ—all because that belongeth to the common consent of Kings and Emperours Not a Prouinciall because that pertayneth to the Metropolitan Not of the Dâ—ocesse because that belongeth to the Bishop therof What then I pray you is left vnto the King 4. Another testimony heerof is out of the same M. â—ooker pag. 41. in these worâ—s Abundè liquet ex CoÌ„cilijs ipsis historia Ecclesiastica â—râ—uincialâ—a Concilia Nationalia ab Imperatoribus aâ— Regibus fuisse congregata It is abouÌ„dantly manifest out of the CouÌ„â—els themselues and the Ecclesiasticall Historyes that Prouinciall and Nationall Councels haue byn assembled by Emperours and Kings c. This now is plainely repugnant to his former testimony For there he affirmeth that Prouinciall Councells are to be assembled by the Metropolitans therof heere he saith â—hat they must be assembled by Kings and Emperours There is distinguished oâ—ly a threefould Councellâ— to wit Generall Prouinciallâ— â— and that of the Diocesse heere now is added a fourâ—h to wit Nationall 5. His third testimony is set downe pag. 42. where he propoâ—eth this question Quo igitur iure tantam sibi potestatâ—m arrogat Pontifâ—x solus Num diuino â—y what right then I pray you doth the Pope challenge vnto himselfe alone so great power Doth he do it by diuine right c. And a little after he addeth Erat Apostolorum omnium non vnius tantâ—mmodo indicere Concilium statuere cum verborum solennitate Visum est Spiritui sancto Nobis c. It belonged to all the Aposâ—les not to one alone to assemble a Councell and with solemnity of words to ordaine It seemes good vnto the Holy Ghost and Vs c. As if he would say That as by diuine right not S. Petâ—r alone but all the Apostles togeather with equall power did assemble the fiâ—st CouÌ„cell at Ierusalem therin decreed that law about eating of bloud and strangled meates so in like manner by diuine right not the Pope alone but all Bishops with equall power must assemble Councells and decree Ecclesiasticall lawes Surely if it be so then without doubt it followes that the power to call or assemble Councells doth not belong by the law of God to secular Kings and Princes but to the Apostles and their successâ—urs c. 6. His fourth testimony is pag. 63. where he saith Mixtum autâ—m ius râ—suitâ—ns â—x vtâ—oque iure Regio Episcopali est Legum sanctio Synodorum indictio praesâ—dendi in ijs praerâ—gatiuâ— controuâ—rsâ—aruÌ„ decisio aliorumque actuum qui his finitimi sunt exâ—rcitium quae fâ—rè ab origine Primaâ—us Râ—gij descâ—ndunt communicantur Sacâ—râ—otiâ—u c The decreing or enacting of Lawes the assembling of Synodes Prerogatiue of â—itâ—ing therin as chiefe or head as also the exercise of all other offices in this kind is a certaine mixt Right proceeding from both Kingly and Episcopall power which things do in a manner come downe or descend from the origen of the Kings Primacy and are communicated or in parted vnto Priests c. This now againe as you see is contrary to that which he said next before For there he will needs haue the assembly of Synods or Councels to belong by diuine right to the Apostles heere forsooth he will haue the same chiefely to belong to Kinges and from them to be deriued vnto Bishops These things do not agree one with another VII Question VVhether the King can enact Ecclesiasticall Lawes or no 1. IT is cleere that K. Henry the 8. did aswell by himselfe as by his Vicar Generall Cromwell enact Ecclesiasticall Lawes For so saith Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England His diâ—bus vigilantissimus hic Ecclesiae Pastor Henriâ—us quo in posterum sciretur quae cui rite nupta esset legem ediderat perpetuam de Nuptijs Comitiorâ—m etiam auctoritate â—onfirmatam qua
2. The later part of the former point affirmeth Mâ— Burhill pag. 137. when he saith Quod Ambrosio licuit in Theodosium idem alijs in Regem simili de causa liceat c. As it was lawfull for Ambrose to proceed against Theodosius so is it lawfull also for others to proceed against the King in the like cause c. To wit he would say as it was lawfull for S. Ambrose being a Bishop to excoÌ„municate Theodosius the Emperour so in like manner is it lawfull for our Bishops of England to excomunicate King Iames if he offend in like manner And then againe pag. 242. Supremus Ecclesiae Gubernator potest eijci ex Ecclesia The supreme Gouernour of the Church to wit the King may be cast forth of the Church c. And pag. 267. Rex etsi iustissimè excommunicatus non amittit Primatum The King although he should be most iustly excommunicated yet he doth not loose his Primacy c. 3. Now I do not see how these things can possibly hang togeather or agree with those which hitherto before haue byn attâ—ibuted to the King For vnto him is attributed That he is Primate and the supreme head of the Church of England That he is aboue all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as temporall in his Kingdome That he hath supreme most ample and full iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall no lesse then politicall and temporall And notwithstanding all this being so great a person yet can he not excommunicate any one of his subiects eyther Laicke or Church-man although neuer so rebellious and obstinate Nay although he be so great as he is he may neuerthelesse be excommunicated by his subiects cast out of the Church of England wherof he is supreme Head I caÌ„not vnderstand this mystery 4. Heerunto will I adde 3. arguments more which will increase the difficulty The first is He that hath supreme most ample and most full IurisdictioÌ„ Ecclesiasticall in any Kingdome may exercise all the actions offices that belong vnto Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of that Kingdome But now the King hath supreme most ample and most full iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the Kingdome of England as M. Tooker and M. Salclebridg do confesse Ergo he may exerciâ—e all offices belonging Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical in the Kingdome of England Ergo he may also excoÌ„municate for that excoÌ„munication which is denouÌ„ced by sentence is an act of Ecclesiasticall Iurâ—sdiction Or els contrariwise if you will thus He that cannot exercise all acts of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiâ—â—ion in any Kingdome hath not supreme most ample most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiastiâ—all in that Kingdome But the King of England cannot exercise 〈…〉 of â—cclesiasticall Iurisdiction in his Kingdoâ—e because he cannot excommunicate any man 〈…〉 not supreme most ample and most 〈…〉 â—â—â—lâ—siasticall in his Kingdome 5. The second argument is this He that giueth to another power to excommunicate without doubt hath power himself to excommunicate bâ—cause no man can giue to another that which he hath not himselfe But the King of England giueth power to his Bishops to excommunicatâ— Ergo hâ— hath power to excommunicate The Minor is proued out of M. Tooker pag. 304. where he affirmeth That the Bishops of England do receyue all their Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court from the King But now power to excommunicate belongeth to Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court aâ— the Chaplaine pag. 41. and M. Tooker pag. 305. expressely teach vs saying Rex habet omnem iurisdictionem spiritualem in foro exteriori exceptis quibusdam censuris The King hath all Iurisdiction spirituall in the exteriour Court excepting certaine Censures But now hâ— excepteth ExcommunicatioÌ„ wherin yow see is to be noted againe a contradictioÌ„ in M. Tooker for that he referreth Censures amongst which excommunication is one to the Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court True indeed Buâ— yet he adioyneth two other things that are conâ—radictory The first that the King can giue vnto Bishops all Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court and thâ— second that the King hath not all Iurisdiction oâ— the exteriour Court 6. The third Argument is That whosoeuer is subiect to another in Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction of the exteriour Court hath not supreme moâ—t ample and full IurisdictioÌ„ Ecclesiasticall of the exteriour Courtâ— But the King is subiect to some other body in Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court to wit to the Bishop because he may by him be excommunicated by sentence and cast out of the Church as M. Burhill doth confesse Ergo he hath not supreme most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the exteriour Court c. Or if you will contrarywise thus He that is subiect to no other in Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction cannot by any man be excoÌ„municateâ— by sentence But the King now if he haue supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction is subiect to no other in Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall Ergo he cannot by any other be excoÌ„municated c. I doubt not but you maâ—ke well that these things do not agree XI Question VVhether the King may be Iudge of all Controuersies in the Church 1. CONTROVERSIES that arise in the Church are of two sortes some are about faith and Religion others are concerning Ecclesiasticall affayres The former of these questions then is Whether the King by vertue of his Primacy be supreme Iudg of all Controuersies which pertayne vnto faith and Religion M. Salclebridge saith he is pag. 163. in these words Sic luce clarius â—st Christianos Principes cum laude Controuersâ—as fidâ—i dijudicasse dirâ—misse etiam in vniuersalibus octâ— Concilijs c. So as it is more cleare then the suÌ„ne that Christian Princes with praisâ— haue iudged of and decided controuerâ—ies of faith and that in eight Generall Councells c. Which is as much to say in the first of Nice the first of Constantinople that of Ephesus Chalcedon the second third fourth of Constantinople and the second of Nice wherin diuers coÌ„trouersies concerning matters of faith were iudged of and decided especially concerning the diuinity of Christ against the Hereticke Arius of the diuinity of the holy Ghost against Macedonius of one person of Christ against Nestorius of two Natures in Christ against Eutyches and Dioscorus so of others All these Controuersies saith M. Salclebrigde were iudged of and decided by Kings and Emperours 2. M. Tooker now he affirmeth the quite contrary who by no meanes will haue Kings or Emperors to be Iudges of Controuersies of faith For thus he writeth pag. 3. of his booke Olere autem malitiam ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud vidâ—tur cùm Regem caput Ecclesiae Primatemque confingas omniumque causarum controuersiarum quae ad fidem Râ—ligionem pertinent iudicem tribuas It may seeme to sauour of malice cry out vpon you sausinesse when as you feigne the King to be head of the Church and Iudg of all causes and controuersies which pertaine vnto faith and Religion c. And againe pag. 50â—â— Rex in
suo Regno omnibus superior sit nulli subditus Fidei iudex ne appelletur quidem Although the King in his owne Kingdome be aboue all and subiect to none yet he may not be called in any case the Iudge of our Faith c. And pag. 313. Reges Christiani non sunt â—idei ac Religionis Iudices Christian Kings are not Iudges of Faith Religion 3. So as if now in England there should chance to arise a dissention or debate concerning any point of Faith or Religion as for example concerning the râ—all Prâ—sâ—nce of Christ in the Eucharist what should your Academicks heere do To whome should your Cittizens and the rest of the subiects haue recourse Should they go vnto the King as iudge in this point and aske his sentence and determination M. Tookâ—r you see would not go to the King What should they go to some other Iudge then But M. Salclebridge he will admit no other What then were best to be done in this case Truly euen that which hitherto hath bin done in the debate of the Kings Supremacy to wit alwayes to braule and iarre therabout neuer end the controuersy And what 's the cause In very deed no other but for that some thinke one thing some another and they cannot or rather will not find out the certaine true Iudge who can decide the matter And this is the property of heretikes 4. The other Question is Whether the King be Iudg of all Controuersies that concerne other Ecclesiasticall affaires M. Salclebridge saith that he is pag. 165. in these wordes Audin Controuersias Episcopales ab Imperatore dirâ—mptas Do you not heare Syr that Episcopall Controuersies haue bin decided by Emperours c. What M. Tooker thinketh of this point is not well knowne For sâ—me times he affirmeth it as for example pag 24. thus Nâ—mini dubium est quin in Primitiua Ecclâ—sia dâ— râ—bus pâ—rsâ—nis Ecclâ—siasticis ius dicâ—râ—nt Imperatorâ—s No man can doubt but that in the Primitiue Church Emperors iudged of matters and persons Ecclesiasticall c. And yet pag. 23. he seemeth to deny it Non est Princeps supra res sed supra personas The Prince saith he is not aboue the matters but aboue the persons c. And then againe pag. 49. Rex in suo Regno supremus est non supra res sed supra homines The King in his owne Kingdome is the chiefe or principall but yet not chiefe ouer thinges but ouer men And thus you see euery where nothing but iarring and disagreement XII Question VVhence by what Title hath the King his Primacy in the Church 1. THE sense hereof is Whether the King precisely in that he is a King or rather in that he is a Christian King hath the Primacy of the Church The former part of this point M. Tompson seemeth to approue pag. 78. where he saith Omnes Principes â—tiam Pagani obiectiuè habent supremam potestatâ—m in omnes omnino personas suorum subditorum generatim in res ipsas siue ciuiles sint siue sacrae vt in cultu diuino Religione procuranda saltem quoad modum exercitium All Princes yea euen those that be Pagans haue for the obiect of their supreme power all manner of persons that be their subiects and generally all thinges whether ciuill or sacred as in aduancing Gods honour and Religion at leastwise so far forth as belongeth to the manner and exercise therof c. And then againe pag. 94. Primatus est Regium honum quod Censurâ tolli non potest Nec est absurdum Regem vâ—lut Ethnicum esse Primatem Eâ—clâ—siae Primacy is a certaine Kingly right that cannot be taken away by censures Nor is it absurd that a King as he is an Ethnicke be Primate of the Church c. And yet further in the same place Rex Ethnicus cùm Christo initiatur non acquirit Primatum de nouo An Ethnicke King saith he when as he is instructed in Christ or the Christian faith doth not purchase therby any new Primacy c. To whome consenteth M. Burhill pag. 251. thus Rex titulo Râ—gis temporalis potest sibi vindicare assumere Primatum Ecclâ—siae A King by the title of a temporall King may clayme vnto himselfe and take vpon him the Primacy of the Church c. And pag. 267. Rex etsi iustissimè excommunicatus non amittit Primatum in rebus Ecclesiasticis A King although he be most iustly excommunicated yet doth he not loose his Primacy in Ecclesiasticall matters c. 2. My Lord of Fly now he teacheth vs a quite contrary lesson in his Tortura Torti â—ag 39. where he auerreth that the Primaâ—y of the Church doth belong to the King not because he is a King but because he is a Christian King and therfore Ethnicke Kings haue not Primacy in the Church so long as they remaine Ethnicks but do then receyue the said Primacy when they are made Christians and loose the same againe also when they be excoÌ„municated His words are these An non Regi Ethnico praestare fidem fas Imo nefas non praestare In Ethnico enim est vera potestas temporalis idque sâ—ne ordine ad potestatem Ecclesiasticam Is it not lawâ—ull then to yield Allegiance to an Ethnicke King Nay rather not to yield iâ— is a wickednes For in an Ethniâ—ke there is true temporall power and that without respect to Ecclesiasticall poweâ— c. And a little after Rex quiuis cùm de â—thnico Christianus fit non perdit terrenum ius sed acquirit ius nouum Itidâ—m cùm de Christiano fit sâ—cut Ethnicus vigore sententiae amittit nouum ius quod acquisierat sed retinet terrenum ius in temporalibus quod fuerat illi proprium priusquam Christianus fieret c. Euery King when as of an Ethniâ—ke he becoÌ„meth a Christian doth not loose his earthly right but getteth a new right And so in like manner when as of a Christiâ—n he becommeth as an Ethnicke to wit by â—xcoÌ„munication then by vigour of the sentence he looseth that new right which he had gotten but yet notwithstanding he still retayneth his earthly right in temporall things which was proper vnto him before he became a Christian c. 3. So as according to the opinion of M. Tompson and M. Burhill it followeth that all Kings whether Christians or Ethnicks or of whatsoeuer other Sect or Religion they be are Primates of the Church in their owne Kingdomes Therfore all Englishmen and Scots who liue at Constantinople are by their sentence subiect to the Turke in Ecclesiasticall matters as also they that liue in Spaine are subiect to King Philip and they at Rome to the Pope and so to others in other places What now shall those men do if the Turke should commaund them to follow the Alcoran The King of Spaine force them to heâ—re Masse The Pope to pray for the dead and some heathen King perhaps compell