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.

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 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 Religion 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 , quàm 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 , them 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 , quàm 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 dare so often to reprint the foresaid Premonition of your king , wherin they are so manifestlie and sharpely touched ? For what could more belong to their ignominie or disgrace , then to be accompted worse then theeues , & that by the publike testimonie of a King : For as much as they had conspired his death , being yet in his mothers womb ? And is it not impudencie , to diuulge in print againe and againe this their shamefull ignominy , nor yet heereby to feare their publicke infamie ? And yet neuerthelesse with you , what they doe , they doe sin●urely .

The second Paradoxe .

8. THE Primacy Ecclesiasticall , say you , is due to Kinges by all Right : For these are your wordes pag. 90. Primatus spiritualis debetur Regibus ●mni Iure . The primacy spirituall is due to Kings by all right . Let vs then see , if it be so . Right , or power , as you know , is deuided into naturall , and positiue : this Right againe is either diuine or humane . Diuine power , is partly of the old Testament , and partly of the new . Humane likewise , is partly Canonicall , partly Ciuill . Will you then that the Primacy Ecclesiastical be due to kings by all these kindes of Right ? It seemeth you would . But in another place you confesse , that it is due by the only Right of the old Testament : Ergo , not by all the former . For thus you write pag. 363. Amore , institutoque Israëlis orditur Apologia : inde enim vim habet , atque neruos suos quaestio haec omnis ( de Primatu . ) In Israele enim populo suo regum instituit Deus , & Ecclesiam in regno ex mente sua . Exemplum inde nolis sumendum est , cùm in Testamento nouo nullam habeamus . Nusquam enim in vnum coaluerunt Ecclesia & Imperium ; procul se habuit Imperium ab Ecclesia &c. From the custome and in●stitute of Israell ( to wit the old Testament ) beginneth our defence : because from thence hath all this question her force , and strength ( to wit of the Supremacy . For in Israel did God erect a Kingdome for his people and in that Kingdome did he found a Church to hi● owne liking . From thence are we to take an example : for so much as in the new Testament we haue none . For no where haue the Church and Empire byn ioyned togeather in one : The Empire hath kep● aloofe of from the Church &c.

9. I doubt not , you will acknowledg these your words , which do condemne you . For if the Question of Supremacy , as here you affirme , hath no other force , then from the custome and institute of the People of Israell ; then is not this Supremacy due to Kings by naturall Right ; nor by diuine of the new Testament ; nor by Canonicall , or Ciuill . How then is it due by all Right ? Againe , if in the new Testament the Church and Empire did no where consist or ioyne togeather in one : Then by right of the new Testament , it is not necessary , that they should consist in one : Ergo , it is not due by all right . And truely , if no where in the new Testament they consisted togeather in one : how commeth it to passe , that now of late in England they be thus vnited togeather in one ? Here you haue plainely brought your selfe into straites .

The third Paradoxe .

10. NO man , say you , hath yet denyed , but that the kings of the old Testament had Supremacy in the Church . For thus you write pag. 364. In Israële autem , nondum os reperitam durum , quod negare etiam auderet , praecipuas in re Religionis partes , penes Regem extitisse . In Israell ( to wit the old Testament ) could I neuer yet find any man so impudent that durst deny , but that the principall offices in matters of Religion , were in the Kings power &c. But I haue found , not one , but many , that dare deny the same . Of your owne Countreymen are found that dare deny it , Nicolas Sanders in his second booke Of the visible Monarchy of the Church , and 3. Chapter , in solution of the 5. obiection of Protestants : and Thomas Stapleton in his fifth boke of Doctrinall Principles of faith , the 23. Chapter . Of our men are found that dare deny it , Cardinall Bellarmine in his first booke Of Councells , and 20. Chapter . Iacobus Gretzerus in his second booke Of Considerations to the Deuines of Venice , 1. 2. & 3. Consider . Adam Tannerus in his first booke Of the Defense of Ecclesiasticall liberty the 15. Chapter , and others .

11. All these sayd Authors in the places here cited , propose the argument , which you are wont to vse to proue the Kings Supremacy in Spirituall matters . And it is this : Moyses , Iosue , Dauid , Salomon , Iosias , and other Kings of the old Testament haue had the Primacy of the Church : Ergo , the Kings of the new Testament haue it also . In the solution of which argument , all deny the antecedent . They deny ( I say ) that the kings of the old Testament ( if precisely we respect kingly power ) had the Supremacy of the Church : although they graunt , that some of them had that power , not by any ordinary Right , as being Kinges , but for so much , as that they were both Prophets and Priestes , by an extraordinary concession or graunt . The wordes of Bellarmine are these : Respondeo primo , Moysen &c. I answere first , that Moyses was not only a Prince , but a chiefe Priest also , as is manifest out of the 98. Psalme , Moyses & Aaron in sacerdotibus eius . Moyses and Aaron were accompted amongst his Priestes &c. Iosue , Dauid , Salomon , and some others , were not only Kings , but also Prophets , to whome God committed many things extraordinarily which otherwise by office and Right belonged to the Priests . And in this sort King Salomon remoued Abiathar from his function of Priesthood , and appointed Sadoc in his place . And this he did not as King , but as a Prophet , by diuine inspiration . Secondly I say ( quoth Bellarmine ) that diuers other good Kings of the Synagogue , did neuer intermeddle in the affaires or offices of the Priests : and if at any time they did , they were sorely punished by God for it &c. Thus farre Bellarmine . The like haue the rest of the forenamed Authors .

12. This notwithstanding , I adde moreouer ( wherein you deceiue , or are deceaued ) that some of the foresaid Authors do not only deny the antecedent , but the consequence of the former argument also : and therfore they admit two solutions . The first is this : We deny ( say they ) that the Kings of the old Testament had Supremacy in the Church . The later this : Although we should grant , that Kings of the old Testament had the Primacy of the Church ; yet would it not follow , by consequence , that the Kings of the new Testament haue the same also &c. For which they assigne diuers reasons . Read what I haue said in solution of the same argument , in my Confutation of the King of Englands Apology , the 2. Chapter .

The fourth Paradoxe .

13. YOV say , the Kings of the new Testament are Pastors of the flocke of Christ . And although those wordes Pasce oues meas , ( Feede my sheep ) were spoken to Peter ; yet notwithstanding do they belong to Christian Kings also : And for that there were no Christian Kings in Christs time , to whome the care of his flocke might be committed , therfore they were not spoken to them . For thus you write pag. 53. Rex noster est Dux gregis sub Christo Pastorum Principe . Sunt & alij Reges Christiani ad vnum omnes , sua si iura nossent , & vel vires illis , vel animus non deesset &c. Our King ( to wit of England ) is Head of the flocke vnder Christ the chiefe of Pastors . And so are all other Christian Kings , not one excepted , if either they knew their rights , or that their strength , or courage failed them not &c. And yet more plainely pag. 91. Neque quiquam ad rem , quod de Christo addis , non Regem aliquem , sed Apostolum gregis sui Pastorem designante . Certè , vt nec Regem sub lege , quia nondum ibi Rex vllus ; at vbi iam Rex , tum nec ei Pastoris nomen negatum : Ita sub Euangelio , cùm non essent Reges adhuc , qui tum nulli erant , Pastores esse non poterant . At vbi Reges Christo nomen dederant , tum demum , non minùs pastores hi , quàm 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 ? What ? 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 Writ : 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 autem Sacerdos , qui vnctus fuerit . And the Priest that is annointed shall expiate , or reconcile . And Numbers 3. 3. Haec nomina filiorum Aaron Sacerdotum , qui vncti sunt , & quorum consecratae manus , vt Sacerdotio fungerentur . These be the names of the Sonnes of Aaron , the Priests that were annoynted , and whose handes were consecrated to do the function of Priesthood . And againe Num. 35. 25. Manebit ibi donec sacerdos magnus , qui oleo sancto vnctus est , moriatur . He shall stay there , vntill the high Priest , that is annoynted with holy oyle , do dye .

19. Behould heere , you haue diuers places of Scripture , in which Priests are called Annoynted ; and therefore Kinges are not alone so called . This yow might haue learned out of S. August . vpon the 26. Psalme , concerning the title therof , where he teacheth , that in the old Testament , Kinges and Priests were annoynted , for that both of them did prefigure one Christ ( or Annoynted ) which was to be both King and Priest . The wordes of S. Augustine are these : Tunc vngebatur Rex & Sacerdos . Duae istae illo tempore , vnctae personae . In duabus personis praefigurabatur futurus vnus Rex & Sacerdos , vtroque munere vnus Christus ; & ideo Christus à Chrismate . Then was annoynted both the King & the Priest . These two persons at that time were annoynted . In two persons was prefigured to be both a King and a Priest , one Christ in both offices : & therfore was Christ so called , of Chrisme , &c. And againe vpon the 44. Psalme about those words , vnxit te Deus , God hath annointed thee &c. he writeth thus : Vnctum audis : Christum intellige : Etenim Christus à Chrismate . Hoc nomen quod appellatur Christus , vnctionis est : Nec in aliquo alibi vngebantur Reges & Sacerdotes nisi in illo regno , vbi Christus prophetabatur & vngebatur , & vnde venturum erat Christi nomen . Nusquam est alibi omnino , in nulla gente , in nullo regno . Thou hearest ( saith S. Augustine ) Annoynted : vnderstand Christ : For Christ is deriued of Chrisme . This name that is called Christ , is a name of Annointing , or vnction . Neyther were Kings and Priests annoynted in any sort any where , then in that Kingdome , where Christ was prophesied and annoynted , and whence the name of Christ was to come . In no other place is it at all , in no other nation , in no other Kingdome &c. So S. Augustine .

20. Therefore by the iudgment both of Scripture and S. Augustine , no lesse Priests then Kinges , are called Annointed . But you will say they are not called the Lords Annoynted , as Kings are . First I answere , that that s no matter . For we dispute not of wordes , but of the matter signified by words . Moreouer these two wordes Christ and Annoynted do signify one and the same thinge : and , as S. Augustine speaketh , This Name which is called Christ , is a Name of vnction . And secondly I say , you assume falsly . For that Priests are not called in Scripture Annoynted only , but also Christs . And so we read in the second of Machabees 1. 10. Populus qui est Ierosolymis , & in Iudaea , Senatusque & Iudas Aristobolo Magistro Ptolomei Regis , qui est de genere Christorum Sacerdotum , & his , qui in Aegypto sunt , Iudaeis , salutem & sanitatem . The people of Ierusalem , & Iudea , the Senate and Iudas , do send greeting to Aristobolus Maister to King Ptolomey , who is of the race of Christes ( or Annoynted ) Priests , and to the Iewes that be in Aegipt , &c. Behould heere , Aristobolus is of the race of Christes Priests , therefore Priests are called Christs , that is to say , Annoynted .

21. But you will yet obiect : All these things are vnderstood of Priests of the old Testament : but I would fayne see a place ( say you ) where the Priest of the new Testament ( to writ the Pope ) is called Christ , or Annoynted . Marry hearke you : And I in like manner would as fayne see a place where Kinges of the new Testament are called by that Name . Is it lawfull ( trow yee ) for you to transferre this Name , which was of old giuen to ancient Kinges and Priests by the holy Ghost , to the King of England : and shall it not be lawfull for vs likewise by the same right to transferre it to the Pope ? Heere you take vpon you too much .

22. Moreouer I say , that once only this Name of Christ , or Annoynted is to be found in the new Testament , in that sense whereof we now treat , to wit in the 2. Chapter of S. Luke vers. 29. where it is said : Responsum acceperat Simeon à Spiritu Sancto , non visurum se mortem , nisi priùs videret Christum Domini . Simeon had receiud an answere of the Holy Ghost , that he should nor see death , vnlesse he first saw the Christ ( or Annoynted ) of our Lord . Here our Sauiour is called the Christ of our Lord , to wit , Annoynted of our Lord . He was annoynted both King and Priest as S. Augustine aboue noted , not with corporall oyle , as were the Kings and Priests of the old Testament ; but with spirituall oyle , to wit , of the holy Ghost . For ▪ vpon him rested the spirit of our Lord , the spirit of wisdom & vnderstanding , the spirit of counsell and fortitude , the spirit of knowledg and piety , as it is written in Isay the 11. Chapter vers. 3. And this is that which Dauid foretold Psalme 44. 8. Vnxit te Deus , Deus tuus , ole● laetitiae prae consortibus tuis . God hath annoynted thee , yea thy God , with the oyle of gladnes , before all thy companions : That is to say , God hath annoynted thee Priest and King in a peculiar manner , before all other Kings & Priests . For he annoynted thee with the holy Ghost , and them with corporall oyle only . Heerehence I gather , that wheras the Kings & Priests of the old Testament , were therefore annoynted with corporall oyle , that they might be a Type or figure of the Messias to come , who was to be annoynted both King and Priest with spirituall oyle : so much the more doth this Name Annoynted , or , Christ our Lord , agree to Priests , then vnto Kings , by how much Christ tooke vpon him the office of a Priest in this life , more then of a King . Or els , if he equally tooke vpon him both offices : then by equall right , Priests as well as Kings may be called Annoynted , or , Christs of our Lord And therfore I see no cause , why yow should attribute this Name only to Kings , and take it away from Priests , vnlesse it was , because it pleased your fancy so to do .

The sixt Paradoxe .

23. YF besides Christ ( say yow ) the Pope should also be head of the Church , it should be a monstrous and two-headed Church . For thus you write pag. 331. of your Booke . Monstrosum verò corpus , cui plus vno sit capite . That is a monstrous body , that hath more heads then one . And then againe pag. 398. Vnicum est caput vni corpori : Ecclesia vnum corpus . Nisi bicipitem aquilam fingas , autem tricipitem Geryonem , cui tot capita sunt , quot in mitra Pontificia coronae . Christus ergo solus Ecclesiae caput , non Papa . There is but one only head to one body : The Church is one body . Except you imagine her to be a spread Eagle , or a triple Geryon , who hath as many heades , as there be Crowns in the Popes myter . Christ therfore alone is Head of the Church , and not the Pope .

24. But if it be so , as heere you would beare vs in hand , that it is ; why do you otherwhere affirme ( not a little forgetting your selfe ) that the King is Head of the Church ? Do you not feare least the Church should be double headed , if not Christ alone , but your King also be head thereof ? For thus you say pag. 338. Iam verò vt nomen capitis ad Regem reuocetur , arte mirabili non est opus . Praeiuit nobis voce Spiritus Sanctus 1. Reg. 15. 17. Nonne cùm peruulus esses in oculis tuis , caput in tribubus Israel factus es ? Inter tribus verò Israel , tribus Leui. Caput ergo Rex vel tribus Leuiticae ; qua in tributum Pontifex Achimelech sub Rege capite suo . Chrysostomus camdem hanc vocem Capitis reuocauit ad Theodosium , eumque dixit , non solum caput , sed quod in ipso capite maximè sublime est , capitis verticem , idque omnium in terris hominum . Now that the Name of Head may be giuen to the King , there shall need no great art . The holy Ghost hath gone before vs in this word , 1. Reg. 15. 17. saying : When thou wast a little one in thine owne eyes , wast thou not made head in the Tribes of Israel ? Amongst the tribes of Israel , is the tribe of Leui. Therfore the King is head at least of the Leuiticall tribe : in which Tribe was then the chiefe Priest Achimelech vnder the King his Head . Chrysostome in like manner attributed this Name of Head vnto Theodosius , and called him not only Head , but ( which is most high in the head it selfe ) the top or crowne of the Head , and that of all men on earth &c.

25. I wonder at your inconstancy : A little before you said , that only Christ was head of the Church . And why so ? That you might exclude the Pope , whom you hate . Now you will also haue the King to be head , and not only head , but the top or crowne of the head also . Why so ? Because yow seeke to please and flatter the King . And so it commeth to passe , that you will easily endure a two-headed Church , if the King may be one , but in no wise , if the Pope should be any . And when you haue placed Christ and the King of England as two Heads of this Church , then it seemes to you a faire and comely Church : but if Christ and the Pope be placed togeather , then is it deformed & monstrous . Get you hence with this your Head , wherin the Church hath one while one head , another while two . It seemes that , that of Ecclesiasticus 27. 12. may be fittly applied vnto you : Stultus vt luna mutatur . A foole is changed like the moone . And that also of S. Iames 1. 8. Vir duplex animo inconstans est in omnibus vijs suis. A double dealing fellow is inconstant in all his wayes .

The seauenth Paradoxe .

26. YOv say , that if the Pope should haue power to depose Kinges ; Ethnickes or Infidels , were better in condition then Christian Princes : to witt , for that these may be deposed by the Pope , the other may not . For thus you write pag. 36. of your booke : Hac doctrina semel promulgata , non multa pòst sceptra , credo , Christo subijcientur . Quid enim ? Rex Ethnicus non potest deponi à Papa , Christianus potest : Meliori ergo iure regnatur apud Ethnicos . Quis non dehin● iem ( sic vt est ) manebit Ethnicus ? Subditi , qui Ethnicisunt , officio suo in Reges laxari nequeunt : at Christiani queunt . Quis non subditos suos malit Ethnicos quàm Christianos ? Quis Christianus Rex esse velit ? This Doctrine ( to wit of deposing Princes ) being once set abroach , I beleeue few Scepters will hereafter be subiected to Christ . For why ? An Ethnicke King cannot be deposed by the Pope , a Christian King may be : therefore it is better to be a King amongst Ethnickes . Who will not henceforward now ( if he be so ) remayne still an Ethnicke ? Subiects , if they be Ethnickes , cannot be absolued from their obedience to their Kinges , but Christian Subiects may . Who would not then haue his subiects Ethnickes rather then Christians ? Who would be a Christian King ?

27. You neyther speake warily , nor Christianlike . Not warily : for first what you haue sayd , may be thus retorted vpon you . Yf the King of England should haue power to depose Bishops ( which you affirme ; ) then were the Bishop ; in Spayne , France , and Poland better in condition then the Bishops of England : For that heere they may be deposed at the Kings pleasure , and there not . Secondly , for as we say that Christian Princes may be deposed by the Pope , if they offend , & not Ethnicks : so do you likewise confesse , that Christian Princes may be excommunicated , and not Ethnicks : Yet is it not wel inferred of this your Doctrine , that Ethnickes are better in condition then Christians , seing that it is a greater euill to be depriued of the spirituall goods of the Church by excommunication ; them of a temporall Kingdome by deposition . And therefore can that be much lesse inferred out of our opinion .

28. You speake not Christianlike . For it is not a Christian mans part thus to dispute : The offences of Kinges are punnished amongst Christians , but not amongst Ethnickes , Ergo , I had rather be an Ethnick Prince , where I may not be punnished , if I offend , then a Christian Prince , where I shall be punnished , if I doe offend . Thus truly you dispute . If ( say you ) Christian Kinges , when they deserue it , may be deposed , and Ethnicks , although they do offend , cannot be deposed ; I had rather be an Ethnicke King then a Christian. And so truly , you playnly shew , that you more esteeme a temporall Kingdome , which you would not loose , then a heauenly Kingdome , which you doe not greatly care for .

The eight Paradoxe .

29. YF the Pope ( say you ) will haue a Temporal Kingdome , it were to be perswaded , that he went to the Diuell for it : seing that he hath power to dispose of the Kingdomes of this world . For thus yow write pag. 36. Quod si Pontifici animus est ad regna mundi ; est in Euangelio ( memini ) mentio de quodam , qui regna mundi penes se esse , eademque disponendi ius habere se dixit . Eum adeat censeo ; cum illo transigat . And if the Pope haue a mynd to a temporall kingdome , there is mention in the Ghospel ( I remember ) of a certayne fellow ( to wit the Diuell ) who sayd , that all the kingdomes of the world were in his power , & that he had right to dispose of them . I thinke it best he go vnto him , and couenant with him &c.

30. Say , my friend , speake you this in iest or in earnest ? In whether manner you doe it , you eyther become iniurious to your own King , or els contumelious to the Pope neyther whereof doth well beseeme you . The iniury you offer to your King , yow cannot deny . For durst you ( without iniury ) haue answered your king , eyther in iest or earnest , when as , after the death of Queene Elizabeth , he demaunded the Crowne of England , with these words : If you will raigne in England , go to the Diuell , and couenant with him , who is the distributer of all Kingdomes ? I thinke you durst not . For if you had , then farewell Chaplaineship . Wherfore then dare you be so saucy to speake thus to the Pope , but for that you list to raile vpon him ?

31. But , you will say , the Pope seekes a temporall Kingdome , which is not due vnto him . Let him content himselfe with a spirituall Kingdome . But what if in like manner I should say of your King ? He seeks a spirituall Kingdome . Let him content himselfe with a temporall . Moreouer I adde , that the Pope hath far more right to temporal Kingdomes , then you King hath to the Church : which thing I am to declare more largely in another place .

The ninth Paradoxe .

32. YOv say , that power to excommunicate was not giuen vnto S. Peter , but vnto the Church : to wit , by those wordes , Dic Ecclesiae &c. Tell the Church : and if he will not heare the Church , let him be to thee as an Ethnicke . As also by those other wordes : Quaecumque solueris &c. Whatsoeuer you shall loose vpon earth , shall be loosed in heauen and whatsoeuer you bynd vpon earth , shal be bound in heauen &c. And yet notwithstanding you adde , that the Church may transferre this power to whome she please . For thus you write pag. 14. of your booke . Potestas haec ibi , cui data ? Non Apostolo Petro. This power there , to whome was it giuen ? Not to Peter the Apostle . And againe : Vt autem Petro potestas ibi non data censuram hanc vsurpandi ; ita nec Petro , si vsurparet , ratihabitio promissa . Dicitur enim : Quoscumque ligaueritis . Non Petro igitur vel Papae , sed Ecclesiae . And as power was not there giuen to Peter , to vse this censure ; so neyther if he had vsed it , was the ratihabition ( or approuing thereof ) promised to Peter . For it is said : Whomesoeuer ye shall bind : therfore it was not giuen to Peter , or to the Pope , but to the Church . And yet againe , pag. 42. Res ipsa , rei ipsius promissio , ratihabitio , vsus denique Ecclesiae datur : ab Ecclesia , & habetur , & transfertur in vnum , siue plures , qui eius pòst vel exercendae , vel denunciandae facultatem habeant . The thing it selfe , the promise of the thing it selfe , the approuing of it , yea the vse therof is giuen to the Church . From the Church it is both had , and transferred to one or more , who shall afterward haue the faculty to exercise , or denounce the same .

33. Out of this your Doctrine it followeth : first , that in the time of the Apostles , power to excommunicate was immediatly giuen to the Church of the Corinthians , and from thence transferred to S. Paul the Apostle , that he might exercise and publikely denounce the same vpon the incestuous person . But this very point you openly deny in the same place , in these wordes : Paulus congregatis Corinthijs , potestatem censurae denunciandae facit . Paul hauing gathered togeather the Corinthians , giues power to denounce the Censure . Certes , if S. Paul giue power to the Congregation or Church of Corinth to denounce the Censure ( vpon the incestuous person ) as heere you affirme ; how had he then receaued the selfe same power from the same Church ? Or what necessity was there , I pray yow , to giue that power to the Church , if the Church had receaued it before from Christ , by those words , Dic Ecclesiae , tell the Church ? These things do not agree togeather .

34. Secondly it followeth : that now at this present in England the power to excommunicate is immediately in the English Church , and not in the Bishops : and from the Church the same may be transferred to Bishops . But if it be so , why doth not the Church of England giue this power to the King , her Head , and Primate ? Why doth she rather giue it to the Bishopes , then to the King ; when as the Bishops are subordinate vnto the King in spirituall Iurisdiction , as you will needs haue it ? And is it not an absurd thing , that you ( to wit the Church of England ) should giue power to the Bishops , to excommunicate , and cast out of the Church their King , their Head , their Pastor and their Primate , and yet would not giue the same power to the King to inflict the same Censures vpon his subiects , to wit the Bishops ? Surely , you are eyther very cruell towardes your King , or els you do not seriously , and in good earnest giue him the Supremacy . One of the two must needs follow . Therfore looke well with what spirit , you wrote these wordes following in the 151. pag. of your booke ; Nos Principi Censurae potestatem non facimus : We do not giue power to our King to exercise Censures vpon vs . And wherfore do ye not , if you truly acknowledg him for your Pastour & Primate ? But let vs go forward .

The tenth Paradoxe ▪

35. YOv say , that the Prophesy of the reuelation of Antichrist , is already fulfilled and therefore it is so cleere , that it may be seene with the eyes . For thus you write pag. 186. Minimè verò mirum , si ista , quae dixi , tam vel claram , vel certam in scripturis Patrum interpretationem non habeant : signatus adhuc liber huius Prophetiae erat . It is no meruayle , if these things which I haue sayd , be neyther cleere nor certayne in the writinges of the Fathers . For as yet the booke of this Prophesy was not vnsealed &c. And a little after , say you : Mirari tamen non debeat quis , si non illis tam adeo explicita omnia fuerint , quàm Nobis per Dei gratiam iam sunt , qui consummatam iam Prophetiam illam quotidie oculis vsurpamus . But yet let no man meruayle , if all thinges were not then so vnfoulded vnto them , as now by Gods grace they be to vs , who dayly see with our eyes that prophesy ( to wit of Antichrist ) to be already fulfilled &c.

36. And is it so indeed ? But your King thinketh the contrary : For that in his Premonition he playnely auerreth , that , That Prophesy of Antichrist , is yet obscure , and intricate ; and that by only coniectures it may be disputed of . His wordes are these : Sanè quod ad definitionem Antichristi , nolo rem tam obscuram & inuolutam , tamquam omnibus Christianis ad credendum necessariam , vrgere . As for the definition of Antichrist , I will not vrge so obscure a point , as a matter of faith to be necessarily beleeued of all Christians &c. And shall we thinke that , that which is obscure and intricate to your King , is dayly manifest to you ? No ▪ It followeth in the Kings words . Id autem maximè mihi in votis est , vt si cui hanc meam de Antichristo coniecturam libebit refellere , singulis disputationis meae partibus ordine respondeat . And my only wish shal be , that if any man shall haue a fancy to refute this my coniecture of Antichrist , that he answere me orderly to euery point of my discourse &c. But for you , Syr , it shall not be necessary , to answer thus to euery point : you may dispatch the matter in one word , if you shall but say to your King : And it shall please your Maiesty , you are deceyued in your coniecture : that which is seene with the eye , needs no coniecture . We all dayly see with our eyes this Mystery of Antichrist : And are you the only man in England that seeth it not & c ? Yf you do but thus , you haue gotten the goale .

37. But indeed , you are not onely contrary to the King heerin , but to your selfe also . For if the Prophesy of Antichrist were now already reuealed , and cleere in all mens eyes ( as you affirme : ) who is then this Antichrist , whome the prophesy meaneth ? The Pope , you wil say . And this also doth your King coniecture , though he see it not with his eyes . Well , be it so . But then in another place you say , That your King may be excommunicated by the Pope , though not deposed , or depriued of his Kingdome : Can therefore Antichrist excommunicate your King ? Take heed what you say , and beware least whilst you please your King by flattery , you displease him through imprudency .

The eleauenth Paradoxe .

38. THE Kinges of Denmarke ( say you ) & Suetia , as also the Princes of Germany with many others , do agree with the King of England in matters of faith . For thus you write pag. 53. of your booke . Quod si praesentis instituti foret , edoceriposses , Serenissimum Magnae Britanniae Regem , & qui cum eo sentiunt , Reges Daniae , & Suetiae , Germaniae Principes , Respublicas Heluctiae & Rhetiae , quiue per Galliam , Belgium , Poloniam , Hungariam , Bohemiam , Austriam , Ordines à nobis sunt , partem esse Dominici gregis : nec minorem , nec minùs illustrem partem , quàm quae est pars Pauli Quinti . But if it were our present purpose heere to declare , you ( to wit Tortus ) might be taught to know , that the Kinges excellent Maiesty of Great Britany , and they which agree with him , to wit , the Kings of Denmarke and Suetia , the Princes of Germany , the Comon-wealthes of Suitzerland and Rhetia , & all other States , that adherre vnto vs , throughout France , the Low Countryes , Polonia , Hungary , Bohemia , and Austria , are part of the Lords flocke : and not a meaner , nor a lesse famous part , then that of Paul the fifth &c.

39. Yea although it were your present purpose , you could neuer be able to teach vs , that which you hereaffirme . And this I will shew you particulerly . For first you say , your King agreeth ( in matters of faith ) with the Kings of Denmarke and Suetia . But how can this be ? They be Lutheran Princes , and acknowledge Christes Reall Presence in the Eucharist , which your King doth vtterly deny . Secondly , you affirme the same of the Princes of Germany , and States of other Countryes . But these do not agree amongst themselues , some being open Lutherans , and others Caluinistes . How then can they , being deuided amongst themselues , agree with your King ? except your king ( as you insinuate he doth ) professe Caluinian Religion with Caluinists , and Lutheran , with Lutherans : Omnibus omnia factus , vt omnes lucrifaciat , being all to all that he may gaine all . Thirdly , suppose this were so , though it be not : and that all Princes and States , as well Lutherans , as Caluinistes did agree among themselues , and togeather with your king ; how can it be verified , that they are a part of the Lords flocke ? This I vnderstand not . I vnderstand it not ( I say ) how they are a part of the flocke , and not the whole flocke : For eyther there be yet others , besides those you haue named which belong to the Lords flocke , or none . If there be others , why then did you not name them ? or who be those others ? I suppose , by your owne iudgement , they are neyther Papists nor Anabaptistes . For these you reiect . If there be no others , besids those you haue named before , wherefore did you then call them a part , & not the whole flocke of Christ ? I will speake yet more cleerely . If the kinges of England , Denmarke , and Suetia , and other Princes and States which agree with them , be but a part of Christs flocke , and not the whole flocke ; then followeth it of necessity , that besides those , there is another part of Christes flocke which agreeth not with them : and so Christs flocke must consist of two partes , wherof one is deuided from the other . Do you thinke so indeed ? If you do not , then explicate your selfe better .

40. But let vs graunt this also , that they are a part of Christs flock that agree with your King in Religion : with what face dare you yet affirme , that part to be no meaner , nor lesse famous a part , then that of Pope Paul the fifth ? This I vnderstand lesse then the other . For with Paul the fifth , agree Rodulph the Emperour , the Kinges of Spaine , France , Polonia , the Archdukes of Austria , the Princes Electors of Mentz , Treuers , Cullen , the Dukes of Bauaria , Lorayne , Brabant , Franconia , Tuscany , the Bishops of Bamberge , Constance , Spire , Wormes , Paderborne &c. to omit many others : and yet dare you be so bould as to affirme that this is a more meane , and lesse famous part , then that which agreeth with your King in matters of Religion ? You are totoo intemperate in auouching : and I doubt not , but your King , who is of no dull wit , will easily perceaue , that you very grossely flatter him .

The tweluth Paradoxe .

41. YOV say , that it is not now free for the King of England to change his Religion , or permit the Catholicke in his Kingdome , because he hath sworne twice to the contrary . For thus you write pag. 81. of your booke , speaking to Tortus . Nec in eo Regi audiendus , qui consilium das de religione liberè habenda : integrum hoc iam illi non est . Nam non semel periurus sit , quin bis , si te audiat . Qua enim ( siqua est fidei bis data conscientia ) vel conscientia , vel fide , ferret in regnis suis ritus vestros , vel vsum eorum publicum , qui susceptâ primùm Scotiae , susceptâ deinde Angliae Coronâ Regiâ , vtrolique solemni ritu , Deo iusiurandum praestitit de conseruanda in Statu suo illa colendi Dei formula , nec alia , quàm quae in regnis suis tum publicè recepta , & vtriusque Gentis legibus stabilita esset ? Neither in this point are you to be heard of the King , in that you giue him counsaile to permit the free exercise of religion ; this being not lawfull for him now to do . For that therby he shall not be once , but twice periured , if he heare you herin . For with what fayth or conscience ( if there be any conscience of fayth twice giuen ) can he admit your cerimonies , or the publike vse therof , who when he was first Crowned in Scotland , and after in England , did most solemnely sweare to God in both places , to mantaine in his Dominions that forme of Religion , and no other , which was then receaued publikely in his Kingdomes , and established by the lawes of both Realmes & c ?

42. Truly I perceaue you threaten your King , that he shall be accompted periured , if he permit the Catholicke Religion in his Kingdome , or forsake his owne , & imbrace another . What ? do you not thinke it lawfull for him to change his Religion , if he haue sworne he will not do it ? So it seemes , belike . But , how if the Religion be false which he hath sworne to mantaine ? What shall he then do ? Shall he persist rather in his false Religion , then breake his oath ? Take heed what you say . An oath ( say the Lawiers ) is no band of iniquity , and I may adde , nor of falsity . And therfore notwithstanding an oath neuer so often made , a man may change his Religion if it be false : he may annull his pact or couenant , if it be vniust . This is most certaine . What would you do if your King should say , that the Religion 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 manner may be quit of his band , when the limitation therof doth suffer the same . Examples herof we haue in the old Testament . For the Daughters & Wiues did vse to vow with this limitation , to wit , if their Parents and Husbands 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 them 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 limitation . 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 calumniate , it is no great meruaile , if you write thus . For ( be it spoken with your good leaue ) this is a loudlye , and a manifest calumniation . But if you be desirous of truth ( as it becommed you to haue byn ; ) why did you not examine the matter first , before you wrote it downe ? No doubt , but you should haue found another kind of doctrine amongst Catholicks . And if you yet please , you may see , what I haue formerly written of this argument in my Disputation , Of keeping faith ( or promise ) to Heretickes : and in my Sundry mixt Questions of the same matter . And there shall you find , what the Catholickes truly and really thinke of this point ; and what 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 Malchus , 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 Conscience , 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 from Sacraments for the present . But as for the greater , which casteth out of the Church it selfe , and maketh men like vnto Ethnicks , there is scarce any man , but will confesse , that it was instituted by Christ Matth. 18. by these words . Tell the Church ; if he will not heare the Church , let him be vnto thee as an Ethnicke . And in that place is it meant of the exteriour Court : the iurisdiction of which exteriour Court is grounded on that , and no other place &c. Marke well what heere you say . The iurisdiction of the externall Court , where is it founded in the Ghospell ? In no other place , ( say you ) then in Matth. 18. It is wel . I desire no more .

5. Hence then do I thus now conclude : All Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the externall Court , is founded in that only place , Dic Ecclesiae , tell the Church : But the King hath not the Iurisdiction that is founded in that place : Ergo , he hath no iurisdiction founded in the Ghospell of Christ , but in the braynes of his Chaplayne . Consider now well , how you will deale with your King , who by your own Doctrine is deuested of all Ecclesiasticall power : and recall those wordes of yours , that you wrote pag. 90. of your Booke , Primatus spiritualis debetur Regibus omni iure . The spirituall Primacy is due vnto Kinges by all right . No truly , not by all right : for , as now yow confesse , they haue it not by right of the Ghospell , or new Testament .

The second Argument .

6. THE second argument which I produce , no lesse forcible then the former , is this : He hath not the Supremacy of the Church , who cannot ( by his power Spirituall ) expell out of the Church , any man , although he be neuer so guilty or faulty : and yet himselfe , if he be guilty , may be expelled by others : or ( which is the same thing ) cannot excommunicate any man , and yet may be excommunicated himself by others . But your King , by your owne Doctrine cannot excommunicate , or cast out of the Church any man ; 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 notwithstanding may be banished and exiled by others , if he offend : 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 common ( 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 obedience 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 : Nam neque me Pontifice vlla ex parte inferiorem esse credo , pace illius dixerim . For neither do I think my selfe any waie inferiour to the Pope , by his leaue be it spoken . Yf he be no waie inferiour vnto him ; how can he then be excommunicated or punished by him ? See then by what meanes you will heere defend your King .

The third Argument .

9. MY third Argument is drawne from your own wordes pag. 177. of your Booke , which are these : Duo haecregna , Reipublicae & Ecclesiae , quamdiu duo manent , hoc ab illo diuisum , duos habent : postquam in vnum cealescunt , non vt in ducbus duo , sed vt in vno vnus Primus est . These two Kingdomes , to wit , of the Common-wealth and the Church , so long as they remaine two , this deuided from that , they haue two Heades : but after they become one , not as two in two , but as one in one , there is but one Chiefe &c. This you would say : There be two distinct Kingdomes in this world , one of the Ciuil Comon-wealth , another of the Church of Christ : These Kingdomes so long as they remaine two , haue two Primates , or Heades : but when they grow into one , they haue but one Primate or chiefe Head . I accept that which you graunt , and do subsume thus : But in the new law , which Christ instituted , there remayne two Kingdomes ; nor are they become one : Therefore in the new Law , there must be two distinct Primates , or Heads , one whereof must rule the Church , the other the Ciuill Commonwealth : Ergo , the King of England , if he belong to the new Law , doth not rule both at once .

10. What can you heere now deny ? Tell me , I pray you , in Christes time , when the new Law was instituted , were these two Kingdomes deuided , or were they one ? This later , you neyther can , nor dare affirme . For if the Church and Common-wealth had byn one in Christes tyme , then should there haue byn but one Chiefe or Head of both , according to your owne doctrine . And therefore eyther Christ should haue byn Chiefe both of the Church & common wealth , which you will not graunt ; or els he should haue byn Chiefe or Head of neyther , which is against Scripture . It remayneth then , that in Christs tyme those two Kingdomes were distinct & deuided , and had two different Primates or Heads ; to wit Christ , Head of the Church , and the King or Emperour , Head of the Common-wealth .

11. But now if in Christs tyme , there were not one and the same Chiefe , or Head , both of the Church and Common-wealth , which you ought to graunt ; how then dare your King , who professeth the Institution of Christ , vsurpe vnto himselfe both Primacies , to wit , both of the Church , & commonwealth : vnlesse you will say , that he followeth herin the custome of the Iewes , and not of the Christians , & so in this point is more like a Iew then a Christian. For this you doe seeme to insinuate , when as pag. 363. of your Booke you say : A more , institutoue Israelis orditur Apologia &c. From the custome and institute of Israel ( to witt the old Testament ) our Apology or defence beginneth , and from thence hath all this question her force and strength ( to wit of the Supremacy . ) For in Israell did God erect a Kingdome for his people , & in that Kingdome he founded a Church to his owne liking . From thence are we to take example : for so much , as in the new Testament we haue none . For no where haue the Church and Empire byn ioyned , or vnited togeather in one &c.

12. Out of this your so cleare and manifest confession I gather two things . The one is , that your King of England doth vsurpe vnto himselfe the Primacy both of the Church and Common wealth , without any example therof in the new Testament . The other : that either your King of England must needs be deceaued , or els that other Kings and Emperours are in errour . For if , as you say , the Church and Empire no where in the new Testament haue conioyned togeather in one ; & that yet now in England they are vnited in one : it followeth necessarily , that hitherto all Kings and Emperours haue erred in this point , & your King only is the first that is wise : or els , truely , ( which is more credible ) that other Kings and Princes haue heerin beene wise , and your King to haue beene deceaued , and missed the marke .

13. But I see well , what may be heerto obiected , and that is this : That the Pope , forsooth , in some part of Italy doth vsurpe also the Primacy both of the Commonwealth and Church . I confesse it to be so . But this conioining ( to wit , of temporall and spirituall states ) hath beene introducted by humane right only : but you contend that your King hath both Primacies by diuine right . And this you cannot proue .

The fourth Argument .

14. THE fourth Argument , is taken out of the wordes of your Booke , pag. 35. & 36. where you say : Christus enim , cuius hic vicem obtendis , non sic praefuit , dum in terris fuit . Regnum quod de mundo fuit , non habuit . Regni , quod non habuit , vices non commisit . Christ , whose office you pretend , did not so rule , when he liued vpon earth : he had no Kingdome which was of this world : He gaue not another his place in a Kingdome , which he had not &c. And then againe a litle after say you : Est ille quidem Rex Regum , sed quâ Regum Rex est , immortalis est ; mortalem nullum Proregem habet . Papa mortalis ipse , non aliter Christi vicarius , quàm quâ mortalis Christus . He truly ( to wit Christ ) is King of Kings , but in that he is King of Kings , he is immortall : he hath no mortall Viceroy ( or Vicar . ) The pope is mortall ; nor he is otherwise the Vicar of Christ , then in that Christ is mortall &c.

15. In these words you go about to proue , that the Pope , although he be Christs Vicar ; yet hath he no temporall Kingdome . You suppose Christ to be considered two manner of waies . First , as he is immortall , or according to his Diuinitie : Secondly , as he is mortall , or according to his humanity . This done , you argue thus : Christ according to his Diuinity , or , in that he is immortall , is King of Kings , and hath all the Kingdomes of this world in his power , yet notwithstanding hath he no mortall Vicar or Substitute : But the Pope is mortall : Ergo , he is not the Vicar of Christ , in that Christ is immortall , or God . Againe : Christ according to his Humanity ( say you ) or , as he is mortall , hath no temporall Kingdome : and therfore cannot haue any Vicar or Substitute in a temporall Kingdome : Ergo , the Pope , although he be his Vicar , yet is he not so in his temporall Kingdome , but in his Spirituall .

16. This is the force of your Argument . But do you not see that this may be in like manner retorted backe vpon your King ? Yea by the very same argument your King may be deuested , both of his temporall Kingdome , and his Supremacy in the Church . Which I proue thus : If your King haue a temporall Kingdome , he hath it either as the Vicar of God immortall ( which he pretendeth , ) or els as the Vicar of Christ mortall . But neither of these may be said . Not the first : Because God , as he is immortall , hath no mortall Vicar , as you freely affirme : But your King , without all doubt is mortall : Ergo , he is not the Vicar of God immortall . Not the later : Because Christ , as he is mortall , hath no temporall Kingdome , and consequently no temporall Vicar : Ergo , your King is not the Vicar of Christ , in his temporall Kingdome . And so , he is either deuested of all temporall dominion : or if he haue any , he must needes be some other bodies Vicar , then Gods immortall , or Christs mortall . This , I know : you will not graunt , therfore the other must be graunted .

17. Hence do I further conclude : Your King doth not vsurpe vnto himselfe the Primacy of the Church , by any other title , then that he is a temporall Prince and the Vicar of God : But now I haue shewed out of your owne doctrine that he is not a temporall King , nor the Vicar of God : Ergo , by the title of a temporall Prince , he cannot claime the Primacy of the Church . Heere you had need to succour him , if you can .

The fifth Argument .

18. THE fifth Argument may be taken out of your owne wordes , before rehearsed , pag. 39. of your booke thus : Aliud est priuare Regem bonis Ecclesiae communibus &c. It is one thing to depriue a King of the common ( 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 shal depriue or exclude him from the society ( or communion ) of the faithfull , in that they be faithful , for that is a spiritual good , & dependeth of the Church . But it shal not depriue him of the obedience of his subiects , in that they be subiects ; for this is a ciuil ( or temporall ) good , nor doth it depend of the Church &c.

19. Heere you distinguish two sorts of good things which belong to the King . Some you call Spirituall , which depend of the Church : others Ciuill , which depend not of the Church . You adde : These ( to wit Ciuill ) are proper to the King , of which he cannot , by Censure , be depriued : The other , are the common goods of the Church , of which he may be depriued . Now I demaund whether the Primacy of the Church , which the King vsurpeth , belonge to the common goods of the Church , or rather to his owne eiuill or temporall goods ? One of these two must you graunt , if your distinction be good and sufficient . If this Primacy belong to the common goods of the Church , it followeth then , that euery faithfull Christian , that is in the Church , is no lesse Head of the Church , then your King . For that the goods , which be common to all Christians being in the Church , may no lesse be vsurped of one then of another . But if this Primacy belong to the Ciuill goods of the Church ; then it followeth , that the King cannot be depriued of the Primacy of the Church by any Ecclesiasticall Censure : and therfore after that he is excommunicated , and cast out of the Church , as an Ethnicke , vet in him remaineth the Primacy of the Church : which is most absurd .

20. The like Argument is taken out of your words following , which are these pag. 40. of your booke . Rex quiuis cùm de Ethnico Christianus fit , non perdit terrenum ius , sed acquirit ius nouum ; put â , in bonis Ecclesiae spiritualibus . I tidem cùm de Christiano fit sicut Ethnicus , vigore sententiae amittit nouum ius , quod acquisierat in bonis Ecclesiae spiritualibus ; sed retinet tamen terrenum ius , antiquum ius in temporalibus quod fuerat illi proprium , priusquam Christianus fieret . Euery King when of an Ethnicke he is made a Christian , doth not therby loose his temporall right , but getteth a new right , to wit , in the spirituall goods of the Church . In like manner , when of a Christian he is made an Ethnicke ( to wit by Excommunication ) he , by force of the Censure , leeseth his new right , which he had gotten in the spirituall goods of the Church : but yet notwithstanding he keepeth his temporall right , his ancient right in temporalities , which was proper vnto him , before he was a Christian.

21. Heere also do you distinguish the double right of a King : the one ancient and temporall , which a King hath before he be a Christian ; the other new and spirituall , which he getteth , when he is made a Christian . Now in like manner I demaund , whether doth the Supremacy of the Church which your King vsurpeth , belong to that ancient & temporall right , or rather to this new and spirituall ? If it belong to the ancient and temporall right ; it followeth , that Ethnicke Kings before they be made Christians , haue the Supremacy of the Church , which is absurd . If it belong to the new and spirituall right ; it followeth , that Kings , when in baptisme they be made Christians , or members of the Church , do receaue more in their baptisme then other men ; which in another place of your Booke you deny . For you contend , that all men , of what sort or degree soeuer they be , are equall vnto them , in those things , which are obteined through baptisme .

The sixt Argument .

22. THE sixt Argument you insinuate pag. 53. of your booke , when you say : Nec enim Regum subditi , quâ subditi , Ecclesiae pars vlla sunt , sed Regni . Antequam de Ecclesiae essent , subditi erant ; cùm extra Ecclesiam sunt , nihilominus manent subditi . Quâ fideles sunt , pars Ecclesiae sunt : quâ subditi sunt , Regni ac Reipublicae p●rs sunt . Neyther are the subiects of a King , in that they be subiects , any part of the Church , but of the Kingdome . Before they were of the Church , they were subiects : when they are out of the Church , notwithstanding they remaine subiects . In that they be faithfull , ( or Christians ) they are a part of the Church : In that they be subiects , they are a part of the Kingdome and Commonwealth .

23. Heerhence do I argue thus : The Iurisdiction of a King , doth not extend it selfe but to the subiects of the King , in that they are subiects ( for if we regard them , in that they be not subiects , they cannot be vnder the Iurisdiction of the King : ) But the subiects of a King , in that they be subiects , are not a part of the Church , but only of the commonwealth , as you affirme : So as the Iurisdiction of a King which he hath ouer his subiects , in that they be subiects , cannot be Ecclesiasticall , but Ciuill only : Ergo , they are not subiect to the King in Ecclesiasticall affaires , but only in Ciuill . Nothing is more certaine out of this your owne Principle .