THE CONFUTATION OF TORTURA TORTI: OR, AGAINST ●he King of England's Chaplain: for that he hath negligently defended his kings Cause.  
By the R. F. MARTINUS BECANUS, of the Society of JESUS: AND Professor in divinity.  
Translated out of Latin into English by W. I. ●.  
¶ Permissu Superiorum. M.DC.X   

TO THE RIGHT REVEREND AND RIGHT HONOURABLE PRINCE, AND LORD, LORD JOHN SVICARD, Archbishop of the holy Sea of Mentz, Arch-chancellour of the Sacred Roman Empire through Germany, and Prince elector: His most Clement Prince, and Lord, Martinus Becanus etc.  
THere came of late (right Reverend and right Honourable Prince) two books out of England; one whereof bare title of the Renowned King james; the other of his Chaplain: both which, as manifestly oppugning the Roman Church, I have, for the love of truth, refuted as modestly as I could. As for the former I have dedicated the Confutation thereof to the Invincible Emperor Rodulph, and the other renowned Kings, & Illustrious Princes of the Christian world (among whom you are one:) But the later I have thought it not amiss to dedicate specially unto your magnificent Name; and that for two reasons. The one, that for so much as I have taken this pains for defence of the Catholic faith and Religion; it seems unfit that the same should be published under the Patronage of any other, than yourself who are so great a professor and protector of the said faith in Germany. The other reason is, for that your merits and benefits towards our archiepiscopal College of Mentz, do by a certain right challenge, and exact the same at my hands. You will, I trust, take i● in good part, and favourably accept this my sincere token of Duty and Reverence.   

THE TRANSLATOR to the Reader.  
WHEREAS (gentle Reader) in the year of our Lord God 1607. there being published, both in English & Latin, a Book, entitled Triplici nodo triplex cuneus, or, An Apology for the Oath of Allegiance, and this without Name of Author: the same was answered very briefly & modestly in both languages by the Catholic party the next year following. And first in English, by an Englishman, who also concealed his Name: and then in latin by Card. Bellarmine, under the Name of Matthaeus Tortus; Who not suspecting the said Book to be his Majesties of Great Brittany, (as indeed it was) but rather of some of his Ministers about him, thought it not fit to publish this his answer in his own, but in the name of the foresaid Matthaeus Tortus. But when in the year 1609. his Majesty (having now seen these answers to his book come forth) resolved to publish anew his said Apology, with a large Preface or Premonition To all Christian Princes etc. he therewithal forthwith gave commandment to two of the best learned (as is thought) in his Realm, that they should separately make Answer to both the forenamed Books, written against his foresaid Apology, which presently they did. And that in English he committed to M. Doctor Barlow, who made Answer thereto, and published it the same year 1609. but how substantially he hath performed the same, may perhaps be shortly examined. The other in latin of the foresaid Matthaeus Tortus, he recommended to M. Doctor Andrew's, a man of great esteem and literature in our Country, who the same year in like manner, set forth an Answer thereto, intituling it Tortura Torti: which Answer of his coming forth in latin, F. Martinus Becanus, of the Society of jesus, and Professor in divinity, hath, though briefly, yet substantially, confuted, this present year 1610. And for that the said Father's Book is very short, & written in latin, I have bestowed a few hours to translate the same into our English tongue, for such, as either understand not the latin, or else have not had the commodity to come by any of the said Copies of the former edition, published in that language.  
W. I.   

THE CONFUTATION OF TORTURA TORTI: OR, AGAINST the King of England his Chaplain.  
YOU have written a book of late in defence of your King, against Matthaeus Tortus, entitled Tortura Torti, (or the Torture of Tortus.) You discover not your Name, but insinuate yourself to be a Chaplain, Alm-nour, or Tormentor. I (because it is more honourable) will call you Chaplain. In the said Book you dispute principally of three heads. FIRST, of the Oath of Allegiance, which your King● exacteth of his subjects. SECONDLY, of the King's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical (or Spiritual) matters▪ THIRDLY, of the Pope's power. If we consider your words, you are neat and elegant enough: if you● labour and diligence, I accuse you not of idleness. But many other things there are, which I do not so wel● approve; especially these. First, that you are exceedingly given to reproaching and taunting. Secondly, that you do every where insert many falsities and absurdities. Thirdly, that you rather overthrow, then establish your King's Supremacy, which you would fortify: which is as foul a fault as may be. Of these three heads then, will I treat in order.  

1. Of the Chaplains Reproaches.  
2. Of his Paradoxes.  
3. Of the kings Supremacy overthrown by him.   
I trust you will pardon me, Sir, if I modestly set before your eyes these three things; as well for your own benefit as others. For your own, that hereby you may know yourself, and, if it be possible, become hereafter more wise. For others, that they may learn not so lightly to trust you, who have so often, and so foully faltered in things of so great moment. Hear me then patiently.  

THE FIRST CHAPTER:  
Of the Chaplains Reproaches.  
STRAIT then in the entrance of your Torture, you reprehended Matthaeus Tortus, that he is altogether full of railings and reproaches. For thus you writ of him: Per librum totum ita petulans, ita immodestè immodestus, ita totus in convitijs, facilè ut quivis, Matthaeum Tortum esse, possit intelligere etc. Throughout all his book so impudent he is, so imodestly immodest, so wholly given to reproaches, that every man may easily perceive him to be Matthew Tortus etc. But you, Sir, do far surpass Matthaeus Tortus in this kind. You spare no man. You provoke all with some reproach or other, where the least occasion is offered. Pope Clement the 8. you call perfidious, Cardinal Bellarmine, a Vow-breaker, D. Sanders, the greatest liar of all men living, Edmund Campian and others who have suffered martyrdom for the Catholic faith, you call Traitors. The Jesuits, Authors of most outrageous wickedness, the Catholics you term the race of Malchus, who having their right ears cut of, do hear and interpret all with the left. I pretermit, what you have malepertly uttered against Matthaeus Tortus.  
2. These and the like reproaches, which are very familiar with you, as I perceive, do not beseem an honest man; much less the Chaplain or Almenour of a King: yet perhaps do they not altogether misbecome a Tormentor. Neither may you excuse yourself by the example of Matthew Tortus, as though he had first provoked you to these reproaches. First it is nothing so: and secondly if it had been so: what? do you think it the part of a Christian man to requite evil with evil? Truly the Apostle taught us otherwise, Rom. 12. 17. Nulli malum pro malo reddentes, to wit, that we should not render evil for evil to any man. And lastly, if you would have done so, why have you not spared others? Was not one Tortus enough for you to torture, unless with the like liberty you railed upon others also? Hereafter therefore abstain from the like, and give ear to that of the Wiseman, Proverb. 21. 23. Qui custodit os suum, & linguam suam, custodit ab angustijs animam suam. He that keepeth his mouth and his tongue, doth preserve his soul from distress. And again Matth. 12. 35. Ex abundantia cordis os loquitur. Bonus homo, de bono thesauro profert bona; & malus homo de malo thesauro profert mala. Of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of a good treasure, bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 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 Railers shall not possess the Kingdom of God.   

THE SECOND CHAPTER:  
Of the Chaplains Paradoxes.  
AFTER your reproaches and railings, follow your Paradoxes, which are many in your book: but especially these.  
1. That the Puritans in England do sincerely swear to the King's Supremacy.  
2. That the said Supremacy is to be given to the King by all right.  
3. That no man hath yet denied, but that the Kings of the old Testament, had Supremacy in the Church.  
4. That the Kings of the new Testament are Pastors of the flock of Christ.  
5. That Kings are often called in the Scripture Christ's, or, the Anointed of our Lord; but Priests or Bishops are never 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 have power to depose Kings; Ethnics (or Infidels) were better in condition than Christian Princes.  
8. That if the Pope will have a Temporal Kingdom, it were to be persuaded that he went to the Devil for it.  
9 That power to excommunicate, was not given to S. Peter, but unto the Church.  
10. That the Prophecy of the Revelation of Antichrist is already fulfilled; and therefore is clear, and not intricate.  
11. That the Kings of Denmark and Sweveland, 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 own, or to admit Catholic Religion in his Kingdom, for that he hath sworn twice to the contrary.  
13. That Cardinal Bellarmine is a Vow-breaker, because of a jesuit he is become a Cardinal.  
14. That Catholics teach, fidelity not to be kept, and falsehood to be lawful.  
15. That Catholics are of the race of Malchus, because they interpret nothing aright, but all sinistrously. These few heads of many, are now briefly to be examined  

The first Paradox.  
2. FIRST therefore you say, that the Puritans in England do sincerely swear to the kings Supremacy. Your words are these pag. 379. towards the end of the page: Quos verò Puritanos appellat, si Regium Primatum detestentur, detestandi ipsi. Profitentur enim, subscribunt, iurant indies: said & illi, quod faciunt, ingenuè faciunt etc. Those whom he (to wit Tortus) calleth Puritan, if they abhor the kings Primacy, they are to be abhorred. For they do profess, subscribe, and swear daily: And moreover, what they do, they do sincerely etc. that is to say, they sincerely profess the King's Supremacy, they sincerely subscribe, they sincerely swear.  
3. But your king himself thinketh far otherwise of them in his Premonition to the Emperor, Kings, and Princes. For thus he speaketh: Praeclara sanè laus, praeclarum encomium, quo Puritanos ornavi, cum me plus fidei, vel in illis efferis, cum montaniss, tum limitaneis latronibus, quam in hoc genere hominum invenisse professus sim. Surely I give a fair commendation to the Puritans, when I affirm, that I have found greater honesty with the highland and border thieves, then with that sort of people etc. Behold now how greatly you differ from your King, your Head, and Ecclesiastical Primate. Your King professeth, that he hath found more fidelity amongst barbarous or cruel thieves, them amongst the Puritans: You on the contrary side affirm, that the Puritans, what they do, they do sincerely. So as those to you are sincere men, that to your King are worse than cruel thieves.  
4. Again, saith the King: Ego à Puritanis, non solùm à nativitate continuò vexatus fui; verùm etiam in ipso matris utero propemodum extinctus, antequam in lucem editus essem etc. I have been persecuted by the Puritans, not only from my birth, but almost extinguished also, even in my mother's womb, before I was yet borne etc. What say you to this? Will you still chant your wont song, That the Puritans, what they do, they do sincerely? To wit, forsooth, as you interpret, they would sincerely have extinguished the King in his mother's womb, before he was borne. And is this in your Chapel, to be sincere indeed?  
5. Moreover the King saith: Ego in meo ad Filium Libro, multò acriùs ac vehementiùs in Puritanoes, quam Pontificios invectus sum. I in my book to my Son, do speak ten times more bitterly of the Puritans then of the Papists etc. So as by the Kings own judgement the Puritans are worse than the Papists: But you call Papists, Traitors: Ergo, the Puritans are worse than Traitors. And yet notwithstanding you write, that what they do, they do sincerely.  
6. Again the King yet writeth thus: Mihi praecipuus labor fuit, deiectos Episcopos restituere, & Puritanorum Anarchiam expugnare. I have laboured nothing so much, as to depress the Puritans Anarchy, and erect Bishops again etc. To wit, the Puritans affect an Anarchy (or to be without a King,) they hate a Monarchy, or Primacy: chose the King depresseth this Anarchy, and establisheth a Primacy. Now I demand, if the Puritans detest this Primacy, how do they then swear thus sincerely thereunto? Ergo, either the Puritans are no longer Puritan: or if they be the men they were (to wit Puritan,) 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 things you are to the King. Whom he accuseth, you excuse; and yet from impudence you cannot excuse them. And is it not a great impudency, and (if you will) imprudency, that the calvinists in Germany, and Holland, who are nothing else but Puritans, should dare so often to reprint the foresaid Premonition of your king, wherein they are so manifestly and sharply touched? For what could more belong to their ignominy or disgrace, then to be accounted worse than thieves, & that by the public testimony of a King: For as much as they had conspired his death, being yet in his mother's womb? And is it not impudency, to divulge in print again and again this their shameful ignominy, nor yet hereby to fear their public infamy? And yet nevertheless with you, what they do, they do sin●urely.   

The second Paradox.  
8. THE Primacy Ecclesiastical, say you, is due to Kings by all Right: For these are your words pag. 90. Primatus spiritualis debetur Regibus ●mni jure. The primacy spiritual is due to Kings by all right. Let us then see, if it be so. Right, or power, as you know, is divided into natural, and positive: this Right again is either divine or human. Divine power, is partly of the old Testament, and partly of the new. human likewise, is partly Canonical, partly Civil. Will you then that the Primacy Ecclesiastical be due to kings by all these kinds of Right? It seemeth you would. But in another place you confess, 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, cum in Testamento novo nullam habeamus. Nusquam enim in unum coaluerunt Ecclesia & Imperium; procul se habuit Imperium ab Ecclesia etc. From the custom and in●stitute of Israel (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 Kingdom for his people and in that Kingdom did he found a Church to hi● own liking. From thence are we to take an example: for so much as in the new Testament we have none. For no where have the Church and Empire been joined together in one: The Empire hath kep● aloof of from the Church etc.  
9 I doubt not, you will acknowledge these your words, which do condemn you. For if the Question of Supremacy, as here you affirm, hath no other force, then from the custom and institute of the People of Israel; then is not this Supremacy due to Kings by natural Right; nor by divine of the new Testament; nor by Canonical, or Civil. How then is it due by all Right? Again, if in the new Testament the Church and Empire did no where consist or join together 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 truly, if no where in the new Testament they consisted together in one: how cometh it to pass, that now of late in England they be thus united together in one? Here you have plainly brought yourself into straits.   

The third Paradox.  
10. NO man, say you, hath yet denied, 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 parts, penes Regem extitisse. In Israel (to wit the old Testament) could I never yet find any man so impudent that durst deny, but that the principal offices in matters of Religion, were in the King's power etc. But I have found, not one, but many, that dare deny the same. Of your own Countrymen are found that dare deny it, Nicolas Sanders in his second book Of the visible Monarchy of the Church, and 3. Chapter, in solution of the 5. objection of Protestants: and Thomas Stapleton in his fifth book of Doctrinal Principles of faith, the 23. Chapter. Of our men are found that dare deny it, Cardinal Bellarmine in his first book Of councils, and 20. Chapter. jacobus Gretzerus in his second book Of Considerations to the Divines of Venice, 1. 2. & 3. Consider. Adam Tannerus in his first book Of the Defense of Ecclesiastical liberty the 15. Chapter, and others.  
11. All these said Authors in the places here cited, propose the argument, which you are wont to use to prove the King's Supremacy in Spiritual matters. And it is this: Moses, joshua, David, Solomon, josias, and other Kings of the old Testament have had the Primacy of the Church: Ergo, the Kings of the new Testament have 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 grant, that some of them had that power, not by any ordinary Right, as being Kings, but for so much, as that they were both Prophets and Priests, by an extraordinary concession or grant. The words of Bellarmine are these: Respondeo primo, Moysen etc. I answer first, that Moses was not only a Prince, but a chief Priest also, as is manifest out of the 98. Psalm, Moses & Aaron in sacerdotibus eius. Moses and Aaron were accounted amongst his Priests etc. joshua, David, Solomon, and some others, were not only Kings, but also Prophets, to whom God committed many things extraordinarily which otherwise by office and Right belonged to the Priests. And in this sort King Solomon removed Abiathar from his function of Priesthood, and appointed Sadoc in his place. And this he did not as King, but as a Prophet, by divine inspiration. Secondly I say (quoth Bellarmine) that divers other good Kings of the Synagogue, did never intermeddle in the affairs or offices of the Priests: and if at any time they did, they were sorely punished by God for it etc. Thus far Bellarmine. The like have the rest of the forenamed Authors.  
12. This notwithstanding, I add moreover (wherein you deceive, or are deceived) that some of the foresaid Authors do not only deny the antecedent, but the consequence of the former argument also: and therefore 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 have the same also etc. For which they assign divers reasons. Read what I have said in solution of the same argument, in my Confutation of the King of England's Apology, the 2. Chapter.   

The fourth Paradox.  
13. YOU say, the Kings of the new Testament are Pastors of the flock of Christ. And although those words Pasce oves meas, (Feed my sheep) were spoken to Peter; yet notwithstanding do they belong to Christian Kings also: And for that there were no Christian Kings in Christ's time, to whom the care of his flock might be committed, therefore 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 unum omnes, sua si iura nossent, & vel vires illis, vel animus non deesset etc. Our King (to wit of England) is Head of the flock under Christ the chief 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 plainly pag. 91. Neque quiquam ad rem, quod de Christo addis, non Regem aliquem, sed Apostolum gregis sui Pastorem designante. Certè, ut nec Regem sub lege, quia nondum ibi Rex ullus; at ubi iam Rex, tum nec ei Pastoris nomen negatum: Ita sub evangelio, cum non essent Reges adhuc, qui tum nulli erant, pastors esse non poterant. At ubi Reges Christo nomen dederant, tum demum, non minùs pastors high, quam olim Reges Israelis. Quòd si autem ab initio statim nomen Christo dedissent, nulla ratio, quò minùs Gregis Christiani pastors designari potuissent. Neither (say you) is that to any purpose, which you (to wit Tortus) add of Christ, appointing not a King, but an Apostle the Pastor of his flock. Truly, as he appointed no King under the law, for that there was yet no King, but when there was a King, than the name of Pastor was not denied him: Even so under the Gospel 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 less Pastors, than were of old the Kings of Israel. And if presently from the beginning, they had been Christians, there can be no reason given, why they should not have been designed Pastors of the Christian flock etc.  
14. here is not one alone, but many Paradoxes, or singular opinions. And first I demand of you, if in Christ's time there had been any Christian King, whether Christ would have said unto him, Pasce oves meas, feed my sheep? If you affirm, yea, how prove you it? Or who did ever affirm it before yourself? Or whether are you the first that have revealed this mystery to the Christian world? If you deny it, you do well. But if Christ did not say to any Christian King, Feed my sheep; by what authority do you say now to King JAMES Pasce oves Christi; feed the flock of Christ? What? Will you depose Peter from his Pastoral office, who was ordained thereto by Christ, and suborn your King, who was not ordained by Christ? Surely, a bold enterprise: and worthy, no doubt, such a Chaplain.  
15. Again I demand, what mean these words, Pasce oves meas, feed my flock? You (in the 52. page of your book) expound them of the feeding by Word and Doctrine. Be it so. But you yourself (Pag. 380.) do confess, that your King doth not feed the sheep of Christ by Word and Doctrine: Ergo, the King, by your own grant, is not the Pastor of the flock of Christ. Neither can those words, Feed my sheep, in the sense that Christ spoke them, any way belong unto the King. here you may not so soon quit yourself, I wot well. For of necessity you must either confess, that these words, (Feed my sheep) are not understood of the feeding by Word and Doctrine; or else that it belongs to the King to feed by Word and Doctrine: or verily, that the King is not the Pastor of Christ's flock. But all these 3. ways are against you. You will have the words of Christ (feed my sheep) to be understood of feeding by Word and Doctrine. You will have your King not to feed the flock of Christ by Word and Doctrine: You will have your King to be the Pastor of Christ's flock. What evasion then can you here have?  
16. Thirdly I demand, why do not other Christian Kings take upon them this Pastoral office, if they be truly Pastors of Christ's flock? They would do it (say you) if either they knew their rights, or that their strength or courage failed 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 fools? He hath force and strength, the rest are weak and impotent? He is courageous, the rest are fearful and cowardly. Thus it cometh to pass, that whilst you flatter your own King, you become contumelious against others.   

The fifth Paradox.  
17. KINGS, say you, in Scripture are often called Christ's, or the Anointed of our Lord, but Bishops and Priests are never so called: and therefore Matthew Tortus did very ill to call the Pope by that Name. Your words are these pag. 114. Mihi verò multò magis improprium videtur, quòd Pontificem novo nomine, nec ei in Scriptures sacris usquam attributo CHRISTUM DOMINI indigitasti. Truly it seemeth to me much more improper that you have entitled (or pointed out) the Pope with a new name, to wit, The Anointed of our Lord, when as the same was never attributed unto 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: Iwet nos Matthaeus, & vel unum locum designet in toto volumine Bibliorum, ubi nomen hoc ulli Pontifici, sacri illi scriptores attribuerint. kings do I often find, to have been often so called in holy Writ: but I remember not, that this name is there attributed to the Pope. Let Matthew (to wit Tortus) help us to find out, though but one place only, in all the volume of the Bible, where this name hath been given to any Priest by any of those sacred writers etc.  
18. But stay (my friend) there is no need that Matthew should be sent for out of Italy, to show you one place. I myself, that am nearer at hand will assign you more than one. Hear me then. First Exod. 29. 7. Oleum unctionis fundes super caput eius (Aaronis) atque hoc ritu consecrabitur. Thou shall power out oil of Anointing upon his head (to wit of Aaron) and with this ceremony he shallbe consecrated. And Leuit. 4. 3. Si Sacerdos qui unctus est, peccaverit. If the Priest that is anointed, shall offend etc. Again Leuit. 8. 12. Fundens oleum super caput Aaron, unxit eum & consecravit. Pouring out oil upon the head of Aaron, he anointed and consecrated him. And Leuit. 16. 32. Expiabit autem Sacerdos, qui unctus fuerit. And the Priest that is anointed shall expiate, or reconcile. And Numbers 3. 3. Haec nomina filiorum Aaron Sacerdotum, qui uncti sunt, & quorum consecratae manus, ut Sacerdotio fungerentur. These be the names of the Sons of Aaron, the Priests that were anointed, and whose hands were consecrated to do the function of Priesthood. And again Num. 35. 25. Manebit ibi donec sacerdos magnus, qui oleo sancto unctus est, moriatur. He shall stay there, until the high Priest, that is anointed with holy oil, do die.  
19 Behold here, you have divers places of Scripture, in which Priests are called Anointed; and therefore Kings are not alone so called. This you might have learned out of S. August. upon the 26. Psalm, concerning the title thereof, where he teacheth, that in the old Testament, Kings and Priests were anointed, for that both of them did prefigure one Christ (or Anointed) which was to be both King and Priest. The words of S. Augustine are these: Tunc ungebatur Rex & Sacerdos. Duae istae illo tempore, unctae personae. In duabus personis praefigurabatur futurus unus Rex & Sacerdos, utroque munere unus Christus; & ideo Christus à Chrismate. Then was anointed both the King & the Priest. These two persons at that time were anointed. In two persons was prefigured to be both a King and a Priest, one Christ in both offices: & therefore was Christ so called, of Chrism, etc. And again upon the 44. Psalm about those words, unxit te Deus, God hath anointed thee etc. he writeth thus: Vnctum audis: Christum intellige: Etenim Christus à Chrismate. Hoc nomen quod appellatur Christus, unctionis est: Nec in aliquo alibi ungebantur Reges & Sacerdotes nisi in illo regno, ubi Christus prophetabatur & ungebatur, & unde venturum erat Christi nomen. Nusquam est alibi omnino, in nulla gente, in nullo regno. Thou hearest (saith S. Augustine) Anointed: understand Christ: For Christ is derived of Chrism. This name that is called Christ, is a name of Anointing, or unction. Neither were Kings and Priests anointed in any sort any where, then in that Kingdom, where Christ was prophesied and anointed, and whence the name of Christ was to come. In no other place is it at all, in no other nation, in no other Kingdom etc. So S. Augustine.  
20. Therefore by the judgement both of Scripture and S. Augustine, no less Priests than Kings, are called Anointed. But you will say they are not called the Lords Anointed, as Kings are. First I answer, that that's no matter. For we dispute not of words, but of the matter signified by words. Moreover these two words Christ and Anointed do signify one and the same thing: and, as S. Augustine speaketh, This Name which is called Christ, is a Name of unction. And secondly I say, you assume falsely. For that Priests are not called in Scripture Anointed only, but also Christ's. And so we read in the second of Maccabees 1. 10. Populus qui est jerosolymis, & in judaea, Senatusque & judas Aristobolo Magistro Ptolomei Regis, qui est de genere Christorum Sacerdotum, & his, qui in Aegypto sunt, judaeis, salutem & sanitatem. The people of jerusalem, & judea, the Senate and judas, do send greeting to Aristobolus Master to King Ptolomey, who is of the race of Christ's (or Anointed) Priests, and to the jews that be in Egypt, etc. Behold here, Aristobolus is of the race of Christ's Priests, therefore Priests are called Christ's, that is to say, Anointed.  
21. But you will yet object: All these things are understood of Priests of the old Testament: but I would fain see a place (say you) where the Priest of the new Testament (to writ the Pope) is called Christ, or Anointed. Marry hark you: And I in like manner would as fain see a place where Kings of the new Testament are called by that Name. Is it lawful (trow ye) for you to transfer this Name, which was of old given to ancient Kings and Priests by the holy Ghost, to the King of England: and shall it not be lawful for us likewise by the same right to transfer it to the Pope? here you take upon you too much.  
22. Moreover I say, that once only this Name of Christ, or Anointed 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 prius videret Christum Domini. Simeon had received an answer of the Holy Ghost, that he should nor see death, unless he first saw the Christ (or Anointed) of our Lord. Here our Saviour is called the Christ of our Lord, to wit, Anointed of our Lord. He was anointed both King and Priest as S. Augustine above noted, not with corporal oil, as were the Kings and Priests of the old Testament; but with spiritual oil, to wit, of the holy Ghost. For▪ upon him rested the spirit of our Lord, the spirit of wisdom & understanding, the spirit of counsel and fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and piety, as it is written in Isay the 11. Chapter vers. 3. And this is that which David foretold Psalm 44. 8. Vnxit te Deus, Deus tuus, ole● laetitiae prae consortibus tuis. God hath anointed thee, yea thy God, with the oil of gladness, before all thy companions: That is to say, God hath anointed thee Priest and King in a peculiar manner, before all other Kings & Priests. For he anointed thee with the holy Ghost, and them with corporal oil only. herehence I gather, that whereas the Kings & Priests of the old Testament, were therefore anointed with corporal oil, that they might be a Type or figure of the Messias to come, who was to be anointed both King and Priest with spiritual oil: so much the more doth this Name Anointed, or, Christ our Lord, agree to Priests, then unto Kings, by how much Christ took upon him the office of a Priest in this life, more than of a King. Or else, if he equally took upon him both offices: then by equal right, Priests as well as Kings may be called Anointed, or, Christ's of our Lord And therefore I see no cause, why you should attribute this Name only to Kings, and take it away from Priests, unless it was, because it pleased your fancy so to do.   

The sixth Paradox.  
23. IF besides Christ (say you) 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 Book. Monstrosum verò corpus, cui plus uno sit capite. That is a monstrous body, that hath more heads than one. And then again pag. 398. unicum est caput uni corpori: Ecclesia unum 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 heads, as there be Crowns in the Pope's mitre. Christ therefore alone is Head of the Church, and not the Pope.  
24. But if it be so, as here you would bear us in hand, that it is; why do you otherwhere affirm (not a little forgetting yourself) that the King is Head of the Church? Do you not fear lest the Church should be double headed, if not Christ alone, but your King also be head thereof? For thus you say pag. 338. jam verò ut nomen capitis ad Regem revocetur, arte mirabili non est opus. Praeivit nobis voce Spiritus Sanctus 1. Reg. 15. 17. Nun cum pervulus esses in oculis tuis, caput in tribubus Israel factus es? Inter tribus verò Israel, tribus Levi. Caput ergo Rex vel tribus Leviticae; qua in tributum Pontifex Achimelech sub Rege capite suo. Chrysostomus camdem hanc vocem Capitis revocavit 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 given to the King, there shall need no great art. The holy Ghost hath gone before us in this word, 1. Reg. 15. 17. saying: When thou wast a little one in thine own eyes, wast thou not made head in the Tribes of Israel? Amongst the tribes of Israel, is the tribe of Levi. Therefore the King is head at least of the Levitical tribe: in which Tribe was then the chief Priest Achimelech under the King his Head. Chrysostome in like manner attributed this Name of Head unto Theodosius, and called him not only Head, but (which is most high in the head itself) the top or crown of the Head, and that of all men on earth etc.  
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 have the King to be head, and not only head, but the top or crown of the head also. Why so? Because you seek to please and flatter the King. And so it cometh to pass, 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 have placed Christ and the King of England as two Heads of this Church, than it seems to you a fair and comely Church: but if Christ and the Pope be placed together, then is it deformed & monstrous. Get you hence with this your Head, wherein the Church hath one while one head, another while two. It seems that, that of Ecclesiasticus 27. 12. may be fitly applied unto you: Stultus ut luna mutatur. A fool is changed like the moon. And that also of S. james 1. 8. Vir duplex animo inconstans est in omnibus vijs suis. A double dealing fellow is inconstant in all his ways.   

The seventh Paradox.  
26. You say, that if the Pope should have power to depose Kings; Ethnics or Infidels, were better in condition than Christian Princes: to wit, for that these may be deposed by the Pope, the other may not. For thus you write pag. 36. of your book: 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 ut est) manebit Ethnicus? Subditi, qui Ethnicisunt, officio suo in Reges laxari nequeunt: at Christiani queunt. Quis non subditos suos malit Ethnicos quam Christianos? Quis Christianus Rex esse velit? This Doctrine (to wit of deposing Princes) being once set abroach, I believe few Sceptres will hereafter be subjecteth to Christ. For why? An Ethnic King cannot be deposed by the Pope, a Christian King may be: therefore it is better to be a King amongst Ethnics. Who will not henceforward now (if he be so) remain still an Ethnic? Subjects, if they be Ethnics, cannot be absolved from their obedience to their Kings, but Christian Subjects may. Who would not then have his subjects Ethnics rather then Christians? Who would be a Christian King?  
27. You neither speak warily, nor Christianlike. Not warily: for first what you have said, may be thus retorted upon you. If the King of England should have power to depose Bishops (which you affirm;) then were the Bishop; in Spain, France, and Poland better in condition then the Bishops of England: For that here they may be deposed at the King's pleasure, and there not. Secondly, for as we say that Christian Princes may be deposed by the Pope, if they offend, & not Ethnics: so do you likewise confess, that Christian Princes may be excommunicated, and not Ethnics: Yet is it not well inferred of this your Doctrine, that Ethnics are better in condition then Christians, seeing that it is a greater evil to be deprived of the spiritual goods of the Church by excommunication; them of a temporal Kingdom by deposition. And therefore can that be much less inferred out of our opinion.  
28. You speak not Christianlike. For it is not a Christian man's part thus to dispute: The offences of Kings are punished amongst Christians, but not amongst Ethnics, Ergo, I had rather be an Ethnic Prince, where I may not be punished, if I offend, than a Christian Prince, where I shall be punished, if I do offend. Thus truly you dispute. If (say you) Christian Kings, when they deserve it, may be deposed, and Ethnics, although they do offend, cannot be deposed; I had rather be an Ethnic King then a Christian. And so truly, you plainly show, that you more esteem a temporal Kingdom, which you would not lose, than a heavenly Kingdom, which you do not greatly care for.   

The eight Paradox.  
29. IF the Pope (say you) will have a Temporal Kingdom, it were to be persuaded, that he went to the Devil for it: seeing that he hath power to dispose of the Kingdoms of this world. For thus you write pag. 36. Quod si Pontifici animus est ad regna mundi; est in evangelio (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 have a mind to a temporal kingdom, there is mention in the Gospel (I remember) of a certain fellow (to wit the Devil) who said, that all the kingdoms of the world were in his power, & that he had right to dispose of them. I think it best he go unto him, and covenant with him etc.  
30. Say, my friend, speak you this in jest or in earnest? In whether manner you do it, you either become injurious to your own King, or else contumelious to the Pope neither whereof doth well beseem you. The injury you offer to your King, you cannot deny. For durst you (without injury) have answered your king, either in jest or earnest, when as, after the death of Queen Elizabeth, he demanded the Crown of England, with these words: If you will reign in England, go to the Devil, and covenant with him, who is the distributer of all Kingdoms? I think you durst not. For if you had, then farewell Chaplaineship. Wherefore then dare you be so saucy to speak thus to the Pope, but for that you list to rail upon him?  
31. But, you will say, the Pope seeks a temporal Kingdom, which is not due unto him. Let him content himself with a spiritual Kingdom. But what if in like manner I should say of your King? He seeks a spiritual Kingdom. Let him content himself with a temporal. Moreover I add, that the Pope hath far more right to temporal Kingdoms, than you King hath to the Church: which thing I am to declare more largely in another place.   

The ninth Paradox.  
32. You say, that power to excommunicate was not given unto S. Peter, but unto the Church: to wit, by those words, Dic Ecclesiae etc. Tell the Church: and if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as an Ethnic. As also by those other words: Quaecumque solueris etc. Whatsoever you shall lose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven and whatsoever you bind upon earth, shallbe bound in heaven etc. And yet notwithstanding you add, that the Church may transfer this power to whom she please. For thus you write pag. 14. of your book. Potestas haec ibi, cui data? Non Apostolo Petro. This power there, to whom was it given? Not to Peter the Apostle. And again: Vt autem Petro potestas ibi non data censuram hanc usurpandi; ita nec Petro, si usurparet, ratihabitio promissa. Dicitur enim: Quoscumque ligaveritis. Non Petro igitur vel Papae, sed Ecclesiae. And as power was not there given to Peter, to use this censure; so neither if he had used it, was the ratihabition (or approving thereof) promised to Peter. For it is said: whomsoever ye shall bind: therefore it was not given to Peter, or to the Pope, but to the Church. And yet again, pag. 42. Res ipsa, rei ipsius promissio, ratihabitio, usus denique Ecclesiae datur: ab Ecclesia, & habetur, & transfertur in unum, sive plures, qui eius pòst vel exercendae, vel denunciandae facultatem habeant. The thing itself, the promise of the thing itself, the approving of it, yea the use thereof is given to the Church. From the Church it is both had, and transferred to one or more, who shall afterward have 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 immediately given to the Church of the Corinthians, and from thence transferred to S. Paul the Apostle, that he might exercise and publicly denounce the same upon the incestuous person. But this very point you openly deny in the same place, in these words: Paulus congregatis Corinthijs, potestatem censurae denunciandae facit. Paul having gathered together the Corinthians, gives power to denounce the Censure. Certes, if S. Paul give power to the Congregation or Church of Corinth to denounce the Censure (upon the incestuous person) as here you affirm; how had he then received the self same power from the same Church? Or what necessity was there, I pray you, to give that power to the Church, if the Church had received it before from Christ, by those words, Dic Ecclesiae, tell the Church? These things do not agree together.  
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 give this power to the King, her Head, and Primate? Why doth she rather give it to the bishops, then to the King; when as the Bishops are subordinate unto the King in spiritual jurisdiction, as you will needs have it? And is it not an absurd thing, that you (to wit the Church of England) should give 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 give the same power to the King to inflict the same Censures upon his subjects, to wit the Bishops? Surely, you are either very cruel towards your King, or else you do not seriously, and in good earnest give him the Supremacy. One of the two must needs follow. Therefore look well with what spirit, you wrote these words following in the 151. pag. of your book; Nos Principi Censurae potestatem non facimus: We do not give power to our King to exercise Censures upon us. And wherefore do ye not, if you truly acknowledge him for your Pastor & Primate? But let us go forward.   

The tenth Paradox▪  
35. You say, that the Prophecy of the revelation of Antichrist, is already fulfilled and therefore it is so clear, that it may be seen with the eyes. For thus you write pag. 186. Minimè verò mirum, si ista, quae dixi, tam vel claram, vel certam in scriptures Patrum interpretationem non habeant: signatus adhuc liber huius Prophetiae erat. It is no marvel, if these things which I have said, be neither clear nor certain in the writings of the Fathers. For as yet the book of this Prophecy was not unsealed etc. And a little after, say you: Mirari tamen non debeat quis, si non illis tam adeo explicita omnia fuerint, quam Nobis per Dei gratiam iam sunt, qui consummatam iam Prophetiam illam quotidie oculis usurpamus. But yet let no man marvel, if all things were not then so unfolded unto them, as now by God's grace they be to us, who daily see with our eyes that prophecy (to wit of Antichrist) to be already fulfilled etc.  
36. And is it so indeed? But your King thinketh the contrary: For that in his Premonition he plainly averreth, that, That Prophecy of Antichrist, is yet obscure, and intricate; and that by only conjectures it may be disputed of. His words are these: Sanè quod ad definitionem Antichristi, nolo rem tam obscuram & involutam, tamquam omnibus Christianis ad credendum necessariam, urgere. As for the definition of Antichrist, I will not urge so obscure a point, as a matter of faith to be necessarily believed of all Christians etc. And shall we think that, that which is obscure and intricate to your King, is daily manifest to you? No▪ It followeth in the King's words. Id autem maximè mihi in votis est, ut si cui hanc meam de Antichristo coniecturam libebit refellere, singulis disputationis meae partibus ordine respondeat. And my only wish shallbe, that if any man shall have a fancy to refute this my conjecture of Antichrist, that he answer me orderly to every point of my discourse etc. But for you, Sir, it shall not be necessary, to answer thus to every point: you may dispatch the matter in one word, if you shall but say to your King: And it shall please your Majesty, you are deceived in your conjecture: that which is seen with the eye, needs no conjecture. We all daily see with our eyes this Mystery of Antichrist: And are you the only man in England that seeth it not & c? If you do but thus, you have gotten the goal.  
37. But indeed, you are not only contrary to the King herein, but to yourself also. For if the Prophecy of Antichrist were now already revealed, and clear in all men's eyes (as you affirm:) who is then this Antichrist, whom the prophecy meaneth? The Pope, you will say. And this also doth your King conjecture, 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 deprived of his Kingdom: 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 eleventh Paradox.  
38. THE Kings of Denmark (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 book. 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, quam quae est pars Pauli Quinti. But if it were our present purpose here to declare, you (to wit Tortus) might be taught to know, that the kings excellent Majesty of Great Brittany, and they which agree with him, to wit, the Kings of Denmark and Suetia, the Princes of Germany, the Comon-wealthes of Suitzerland and Rhetia, & all other States, that adherre unto us, throughout France, the Low Countries, Polonia, Hungary, Bohemia, and Austria, are part of the Lords flock: and not a meaner, nor a less famous part, then that of Paul the fifth etc.  
39 Yea although it were your present purpose, you could never be able to teach us, that which you hereaffirme. And this I will show you particularly. For first you say, your King agreeth (in matters of faith) with the Kings of Denmark and Suetia. But how can this be? They be Lutheran Princes, and acknowledge Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist, which your King doth utterly deny. Secondly, you affirm the same of the Princes of Germany, and States of other Countries. But these do not agree amongst themselves, some being open Lutherans, and others calvinists. How then can they, being divided amongst themselves, agree with your King? except your king (as you insinuate he doth) profess Calvinian Religion with Caluinists, and Lutheran, with Lutherans: Omnibus omnia factus, ut omnes lucrifaciat, being all to all that he may gain all. Thirdly, suppose this were so, though it be not: and that all Princes and States, as well Lutherans, as calvinists did agree among themselves, and together with your king; how can it be verified, that they are a part of the Lords flock? This I understand not. I understand it not (I say) how they are a part of the flock, and not the whole flock: For either there be yet others, besides those you have named which belong to the Lords flock, or none. If there be others, why then did you not name them? or who be those others? I suppose, by your own judgement, they are neither Papists nor anabaptists. For these you reject. If there be no others, besides those you have named before, wherefore did you then call them a part, & not the whole flock of Christ? I will speak yet more clearly. If the kings of England, Denmark, and Suetia, and other Princes and States which agree with them, be but a part of Christ's flock, and not the whole flock; then followeth it of necessity, that besides those, there is another part of Christ's flock which agreeth not with them: and so Christ's flock must consist of two parts, whereof one is divided from the other. Do you think so indeed? If you do not, then explicate yourself better.  
40. But let us grant this also, that they are a part of Christ's flock that agree with your King in Religion: with what face dare you yet affirm, that part to be no meaner, nor less famous a part, then that of Pope Paul the fifth? This I understand less than the other. For with Paul the fifth, agree Rodulph the Emperor, the Kings of Spain, France, Polonia, the Archdukes of Austria, the Prince's Electors of Mentz, Trevers, Cullen, the Dukes of Bavaria, Lorraine, Brabant, Franconia, Tuscany, the Bishops of Bamberge, Constance, Spire, Worms, Paderborne &c. to omit many others: and yet dare you be so bold as to affirm that this is a more mean, and less famous part, then that which agreeth with your King in matters of Religion? You are too-too intemperate in avouching: and I doubt not, but your King, who is of no dull wit, will easily perceive, that you very grossly flatter him.   

The tweluth Paradox.  
41. YOU say, that it is not now free for the King of England to change his Religion, or permit the Catholic in his Kingdom, because he hath sworn twice to the contrary. For thus you write pag. 81. of your book, 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 usum eorum publicum, qui susceptâ primùm Scotiae, susceptâ deinde Angliae Coronâ Regiâ, utrolique solemni ritu, Deo iusiurandum praestitit de conseruanda in Statu suo illa colendi Dei formula, nec alia, quam quae in regnis suis tum publicè recepta, & utriusque Gentis legibus stabilita esset? Neither in this point are you to be heard of the King, in that you give him counsel to permit the free exercise of religion; this being not lawful for him now to do. For that thereby he shall not be once, but twice perjured, if he hear you herein. For with what faith or conscience (if there be any conscience of faith twice given) can he admit your ceremonies, or the public use thereof, who when he was first Crowned in Scotland, and after in England, did most solemnly swear to God in both places, to maintain in his Dominions that form of Religion, and no other, which was then received publicly in his Kingdoms, and established by the laws of both Realms & c?  
42. Truly I perceive you threaten your King, that he shall be accounted perjured, if he permit the Catholic Religion in his Kingdom, or forsake his own, & embrace another. What? do you not think it lawful for him to change his Religion, if he have sworn he will not do it? So it seems, belike. But, how if the Religion be false which he hath sworn to maintain? What shall he then do? Shall he persist rather in his false Religion, then break his oath? Take heed what you say. An oath (say the Lawyers) is no band of iniquity, and I may add, nor of falsity. And therefore notwithstanding an oath never so often made, a man may change his Religion if it be false: he may annul his pact or covenant, if it be unjust. This is most certain. What would you do if your King should say, that the Religion is false which he now professeth? Would you urge him upon his oath? That, in an evil act, is annulled. What? Would you persuade him to forsake his false Religion, & embrace the true? I think you would. Why do you then dissemble? Why do you so much urge the King upon his oath, as though upon no occasion or event soever it were lawful to change a Religion that is once confirmed by an oath, although it be impious and false? Go too, gather your wits together a little better, and then speak. 43. One thing I would yet demand of you, and that is this: Your King in his book of Premonition, doth exhort Catholic Kings and Princes, that they should forsake the faith and Religion, which hitherto they have professed under the Pope, and embrace the English Religion which the King professeth. Now, it is well known, that most of these Princes, in their Coronation do swear, that they will never do it, to wit, change their Religion. here I demand (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 Catholics, who do but the like in a better cause? If he did it unlawfully and imprudently; why did you not admonish him, to surcease from such an, Exhortation: seeing you are his Chaplain, and perhaps in this matter, his Secretary? Thus you stumble at every block.   

The thirteenth Paradox.  
44. You say, that Cardinal Bellarmine is a Vow-breaker, because of a jesuit he is become a Cardinal. 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 jesuita 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,) unless, in mentioning of the same, he would needs gratify his Master (Bellarmine), who being sometime a vowed jesuit, hath now broken that vow by putting on purple etc.  
45. It seems you understand aswell what it is to be a Vow-breaker, as a perjured person. And even as a little before you did pronounce your King to be forsworn, if he should admit Catholic Religion in his Kingdom: So now you pronounce Cardinal Bellarmine to be a Vow-breaker, because against his will he admitted the Dignity of a Cardinal. Truly you are very ready to upbraid and taunt. And why, I pray you, do you not call Luther, a Vow-breaker, who of a Monk became a married man (if he may be called a married man, and not rather a sacrilegious fornicator and adulterer?) Why not also a perjured person, that rejecting the ancient faith, which he had received from Christ, the Apostles, and his Ancestors most holy and learned men, and sealed with an oath, did embrace a new Religion, repugnant to Christ and the truth?  
46. That you may therefore understand the matter, hear then what followeth: It is one thing to vow, or promise to God any thing absolutely and simply; and another thing to do it with a certain limitation. He that voweth after the first manner, is bound to perform that which he promiseth: he that voweth after the second manner may be quit of his band, when the limitation thereof doth suffer the same. Examples hereof we have in the old Testament. For the Daughters & Wives did use to vow with this limitation, to wit, if their Parents and Husbands did consent thereto. (Numb. 30.) The Nazaraeans in like manner vowed with this limitation, to wit, they bound themselves for a certain time only, & not for their whole life. (Numb. 6.) So likewise do 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 Superiors: So as if he should be by them, for a just cause, dismissed out of the SOCIETY, the band or obligation ceaseth. But he that bindeth himself by a solemn 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 daily exercised amongst you. You promise your King Allegiance and Obedience, but with this double limitation. First, as long as you remain in England. Secondly, as long as the King doth not change his Religion. For if it be otherwise, you think you are not bound thereunto.   

The fourteenth Paradox.  
47. YOU say, the Catholics teach, fidelity not to be kept, and falsehood to be lawful. For thus you write pag. 156. of your book. 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, falsehood to lawful; dare you (I say) as much as once open your lips against falsehood or perfidiousness? or to name the thing to your own shame?  
48. But stay, my friend; who be they with us that teach this doctrine? If your set purpose be nothing else, but to deal falsely and to calunniate, it is no great marvel, if you write thus. For (be it spoken with your good leave) this is a loudly, and a manifest calumniation. But if you be desirous of truth (as it becomed you to have been;) why did you not examine the matter first, before you wrote it down? No doubt, but you should have found another kind of doctrine amongst Catholics. And if you yet please, you may see, what I have formerly written of this argument in my Disputation, Of keeping faith (or promise) to Heretics: and in my Sundry mixed Questions of the same matter. And there shall you find, what the Catholics truly and really think of this point; and what our Adversaries do falsely calumniate.   

The fifteenth Paradox.  
49. YOU say, that the Catholics are of the race of Malchus, for that they hear and interpret all with the left ear, and nothing with the right. For thus you write pag. 92. of your book: Interea tamen dextrâ datum, dextrâ positum, quicquid in juramento positum. Quod dextrâ datum est, vos sinistrâ accepistis, & de Malchi prosapia estis, cui praecisa auris dextra: nec ulla vobis auris reliqua, nisi sinistra, qua auditis omnia; omnium, quae à nobis dicuntur, sinistri auditores & interprete. In the mean while notwithstanding, whatsoever is put in an oath, is given with the right, is put with the right. That which is given with the right, you receive with the left, and are of the race of Malchus, who had his right ear cut of: Neither have you any right ear, but a left, wherewith you hear, all things; and become the sinister hearers and interpreters of all things, that are said by us etc.  
50. Thus you hold on, after your wont manner, either to trifle, or calumniate. But I care not. Let us grant, what you say, to wit, that the catholics are of the race of Malchus. What get you by this? Truly nothing that makes against us. For do you not know, out of the Gospel, that assoon as Malchus his right ear was cut of, it was again presently restored by Christ? And to this end, that he should hear or interpret nothing with the left, but all with the right ear? If you therefore will have us to be of the race of Malchus, you must confess, that this was so brought to pass by Christ for us, that we should hear and interpret all with our right ears, and nothing with our left alone.  
51. But if I listed in like sort to jest, I would not say, that you were of the race of Malchus, whose ear was cut of; but rather of the race of the jews, who have ears, and yet hear not, according to that of S. Matthew 13. 14. Auditu audietis etc. You shall hear with you ears, and you shall not understand; and seeing, you shall see, and shall not see. For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and with their ears they have heavily heard: and their eyes they have shut etc. and the rest that followeth. But I will not deal so with you.    

THE THIRD CHAPTER:  
Of the kings Supremacy badly defended by his Chaplain.  
SING you have once determined to flatter the King, you go about to defend and approve whatsoever you imagine will please him. And with this mind & desire, you are emboldened to defend the Primacy of the Church, which he usurpeth to himself. But truly very unluckily: For in this kind you commit a double fault. First because you bring many Arguments which do overthrow the King's Supremacy, which yet you do for lack of foresight. SECONDLY because the Arguments you bring for proof of the said Supremacy in the King, are of so small reckoning or account, as they seem 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 own Principles, against the King's Supremacy.  

The first Argument, against the King's Supremacy, taken out of the Chaplains own Doctrine.  
2. THE first Argument I frame thus: He hath not the Primacy of the Church, who hath no jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, neither in the interior Court, nor exterior: But the King, out of your own Doctrine hath no jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, neither in the interior Court, nor exterior: Ergo, he hath not the Primacy of the Church. The mayor proposition is clear of itself, because by the name of Primacy, we understand nothing else in this place, but supreme jurisdiction Ecclesiastical. He then who hath no jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, neither internal nor external, hath not the Primacy of the Church: But the King, by your doctrine hath none, neither internal, nor external.  
3. Not internal: For that this jurisdiction consisteth in the power of the Keys, or in the power or authority of forgiving sins in the Court of Conscience, which the King hath not, as you confess pag. 380. of your book, in these words: Rex non assumit ius Clavium. The King doth not assume, or take upon him, the power of the Keys. And worthily. For that Christ spoke not to Kings, but to the Apostles, when he said, Accipite Spiritum Sanctum etc. receive the holy Ghost: whose sins you forgive, shallbe forgiven them: and whose sins you retain, shallbe retained etc.  
4. Not external: For this I will evidently evince out of your own Principles, which are these three. The first, that the jurisdiction Ecclesiastical of the exterior Court, is not founded upon any other place, then that of S. Matthew 18. 17. Dic Ecclesiae etc. Tell the Church: if he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee, as an Ethnic and Publican. Your second Principle is, that the jurisdiction which is founded on that place, is nothing else, than 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 acknowledge these your three Principles. And the last, you set down pag. 151. of your book in these words: Nos Principi potestatem Censurae non facimus. We do not give power, or authority to the King to use Censures. And again pag. 380. Rex non assumit ius Censurae. The King doth not take upon him the Right or power of using Censures. The former two Principles you in like manner set down 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, ut 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 jurisdictio, illo, nec alio loco fundata est. A Censure is twofold; to wit of the Publican & Ethnic; 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 itself, and maketh men like unto Ethnics, there is scarce any man, but will confess, that it was instituted by Christ Matth. 18. by these words. Tell the Church; if he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Ethnic. And in that place is it meant of the exterior Court: the jurisdiction of which exterior Court is grounded on that, and no other place etc. Mark well what here you say. The jurisdiction of the external Court, where is it founded in the Gospel? In no other place, (say you) then in Matth. 18. It is well. I desire no more.  
5. Hence then do I thus now conclude: All jurisdiction Ecclesiastical of the external Court, is founded in that only place, Dic Ecclesiae, tell the Church: But the King hath not the jurisdiction that is founded in that place: Ergo, he hath no jurisdiction founded in the Gospel of Christ, but in the brains of his chaplain. Consider now well, how you will deal with your King, who by your own Doctrine is devested of all Ecclesiastical power: and recall those words of yours, that you wrote pag. 90. of your Book, Primatus spiritualis debetur Regibus omni iure. The spiritual Primacy is due unto Kings by all right. No truly, not by all right: for, as now you confess, they have it not by right of the Gospel, or new Testament.   

The second Argument.  
6. THE second argument which I produce, no less forcible than the former, is this: He hath not the Supremacy of the Church, who cannot (by his power Spiritual) expel out of the Church, any man, although he be never so guilty or faulty: and yet himself, 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 own 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 Mayor is certain, and is manifest by a like example. For as he is not accounted a King, who cannot banish or exile out of his Realm any man, though never so wicked; and yet himself notwithstanding may be banished and exiled by others, if he offend: even 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 yourself speaketh: & yet notwithstanding may he be excommunicated himself, or driven out of the Church, as you confess pag. 39 of your Book in these words: Aliudest privare Regem bonis Ecclesiae communibus, quod facit sententia, & potest fortè Pontifex: aliud privare bono proprio, idest regno suo, quod non facit sententia, nec potest Pontifex. Privabit censura Pontificis societate fidelium, quâ fideles sunt: bonum illud enim spirituale & ab Ecclesia. Non privabit obedientia subditorum, quâ subditi sunt: bonum enim civil hoc, nec ab Ecclesia etc. It is one thing to deprive a King of the common (or spiritual) goods of the Church which the sentence (of Excommunication) doth, & perhaps the Pope can: It is another thing to deprive him of his own proper good, to wit, his Kingdom, which the sentence (of Excommunication) doth not, nor the Pope can. The Pope's Censure shall deprive, or exclude him from the society of the faithful, in that they be faithful: for that is a spiritual good and dependeth of the Church. But it shall not deprive him of the obedience of his subjects, in that they be his subjects: for this is a civil (or temporal) good, nor doth it depend of the Church etc. Then I conclude thus: Ergo, the King by your own sentence hath not the Supremacy of the Church.  
8. And by this Argument, which is taken out of your own Doctrine, I not only prove, the King to have no Supremacy Ecclesiastical: but also that himself doth think far otherwise, in this point, than you do. For you confess out of your former words, that the King may be excommunicated by the Pope: Ergo, you must also confess, 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 ulla ex part inferiorem esse credo, pace illius dixerim. For neither do I think myself any way inferior to the Pope, by his leave be it spoken. If he be no way inferior unto him; how can he then be excommunicated or punished by him? See then by what means you will here defend your King.   

The third Argument.  
9 MY third Argument is drawn from your own words pag. 177. of your Book, which are these: Duo haecregna, Reipublicae & Ecclesiae, quamdiu duo manent, hoc ab illo divisum, duos habent: postquam in unum cealescunt, non ut in ducbus duo, sed ut in uno unus Primus est. These two Kingdoms, to wit, of the Commonwealth and the Church, so long as they remain two, this divided from that, they have two Heads: but after they become one, not as two in two, but as one in one, there is but one Chief etc. This you would say: There be two distinct Kingdoms in this world, one of the Civil Commonwealth, another of the Church of Christ: These Kingdoms so long as they remain two, have two Primates, or Heads: but when they grow into one, they have but one Primate or chief Head. I accept that which you grant, and do subsume thus: But in the new law, which Christ instituted, there remain two Kingdoms; 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 Civil Commonwealth: Ergo, the King of England, if he belong to the new Law, doth not rule both at once.  
10. What can you here now deny? Tell me, I pray you, in Christ's time, when the new Law was instituted, were these two Kingdoms divided, or were they one? This later, you neither can, nor dare affirm. For if the Church and Commonwealth had been one in Christ's time, then should there have been but one Chief or Head of both, according to your own doctrine. And therefore either Christ should have been Chief both of the Church & common wealth, which you will not grant; or else he should have been Chief or Head of neither, which is against Scripture. It remaineth then, that in Christ's time those two Kingdoms were distinct & divided, and had two different Primates or Heads; to wit Christ, Head of the Church, and the King or Emperor, Head of the Commonwealth.  
11. But now if in Christ's time, there were not one and the same Chief, or Head, both of the Church and Commonwealth, which you ought to grant; how then dare your King, who professeth the Institution of Christ, usurp unto himself both Primacies, to wit, both of the Church, & commonwealth: unless you will say, that he followeth herein the custom of the jews, and not of the Christians, & so in this point is more like a jew then a Christian. For this you do seem to insinuate, when as pag. 363. of your Book you say: A more, institutoue Israelis orditur Apologia etc. From the custom and institute of Israel (to wit 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 Israel did God erect a Kingdom for his people, & in that Kingdom he founded a Church to his own liking. From thence are we to take example: for so much, as in the new Testament we have none. For no where have the Church and Empire been joined, or united together in one etc.  
12. Out of this your so clear and manifest confession I gather two things. The one is, that your King of England doth usurp unto himself the Primacy both of the Church and Common wealth, without any example thereof in the new Testament. The other: that either your King of England must needs be deceived, or else that other Kings and Emperors are in error. For if, as you say, the Church and Empire no where in the new Testament have conjoined together in one; & that yet now in England they are united in one: it followeth necessarily, that hitherto all Kings and Emperors have erred in this point, & your King only is the first that is wise: or else, truly, (which is more credible) that other Kings and Princes have herein been wise, and your King to have been deceived, and miss the mark.  
13. But I see well, what may be hereto objected, and that is this: That the Pope, forsooth, in some part of Italy doth usurp also the Primacy both of the Commonwealth and Church. I confess it to be so. But this conjoining (to wit, of temporal and spiritual states) hath been introducted by human right only: but you contend that your King hath both Primacies by divine right. And this you cannot prove.   

The fourth Argument.  
14. THE fourth Argument, is taken out of the words of your Book, 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 lived upon earth: he had no Kingdom which was of this world: He gave not another his place in a Kingdom, which he had not &c. And then again a little 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, quam quâ mortalis Christus. He truly (to wit Christ) is King of Kings, but in that he is King of Kings, he is immortal: he hath no mortal Viceroy (or Vicar.) The pope is mortal; nor he is otherwise the Vicar of Christ, then in that Christ is mortal etc.  
15. In these words you go about to prove, that the Pope, although he be Christ's Vicar; yet hath he no temporal Kingdom. You suppose Christ to be considered two manner of ways. First, as he is immortal, or according to his Divinity: Secondly, as he is mortal, or according to his humanity. This done, you argue thus: Christ according to his Divinity, or, in that he is immortal, is King of Kings, and hath all the Kingdoms of this world in his power, yet notwithstanding hath he no mortal Vicar or Substitute: But the Pope is mortal: Ergo, he is not the Vicar of Christ, in that Christ is immortal, or God. Again: Christ according to his Humanity (say you) or, as he is mortal, hath no temporal Kingdom: and therefore cannot have any Vicar or Substitute in a temporal Kingdom: Ergo, the Pope, although he be his Vicar, yet is he not so in his temporal Kingdom, but in his Spiritual.  
16. This is the force of your Argument. But do you not see that this may be in like manner retorted back upon your King? Yea by the very same argument your King may be devested, both of his temporal Kingdom, and his Supremacy in the Church. Which I prove thus: If your King have a temporal Kingdom, he hath it either as the Vicar of God immortal (which he pretendeth,) or else as the Vicar of Christ mortal. But neither of these may be said. Not the first: Because God, as he is immortal, hath no mortal Vicar, as you freely affirm: But your King, without all doubt is mortal: Ergo, he is not the Vicar of God immortal. Not the later: Because Christ, as he is mortal, hath no temporal Kingdom, and consequently no temporal Vicar: Ergo, your King is not the Vicar of Christ, in his temporal Kingdom. And so, he is either devested of all temporal dominion: or if he have any, he must needs be some other body's Vicar, than God's immortal, or Christ's mortal. This, I know: you will not grant, therefore the other must be granted.  
17. Hence do I further conclude: Your King doth not usurp unto himself the Primacy of the Church, by any other title, then that he is a temporal Prince and the Vicar of God: But now I have showed out of your own doctrine that he is not a temporal King, nor the Vicar of God: Ergo, by the title of a temporal Prince, he cannot claim the Primacy of the Church. here you had need to succour him, if you can.   

The fifth Argument.  
18. THE fifth Argument may be taken out of your own words, before rehearsed, pag. 39 of your book thus: Aliud est privare Regem bonis Ecclesiae communibus etc. It is one thing to deprive a King of the common (or spiritual) goods of the Church, which the sentence (of excommunication) doth, & perhaps the Pope can. It is another thing to deprive him of his own proper good, to wit, his Kingdom, which the sentence (of excommunication) doth not, nor the Pope can. The Pope's Censure shall deprive or exclude him from the society (or communion) of the faithful, in that they be faithful, for that is a spiritual good, & dependeth of the Church. But it shall not deprive him of the obedience of his subjects, in that they be subjects; for this is a civil (or temporal) good, nor doth it depend of the Church etc.  
19 here you distinguish two sorts of good things which belong to the King. Some you call Spiritual, which depend of the Church: others Civil, which depend not of the Church. You add: These (to wit Civil) are proper to the King, of which he cannot, by Censure, be deprived: The other, are the common goods of the Church, of which he may be deprived. Now I demand whether the Primacy of the Church, which the King usurpeth, belong to the common goods of the Church, or rather to his own evil or temporal goods? One of these two must you grant, if your distinction be good and sufficient. If this Primacy belong to the common goods of the Church, it followeth then, that every faithful Christian, that is in the Church, is no less Head of the Church, than your King. For that the goods, which be common to all Christians being in the Church, may no less be usurped of one then of another. But if this Primacy belong to the Civil goods of the Church; than it followeth, that the King cannot be deprived of the Primacy of the Church by any Ecclesiastical Censure: and therefore after that he is excommunicated, and cast out of the Church, as an Ethnic, yet 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 book. Rex quivis cum de Ethnico Christianus fit, non perdit terrenum ius, sed acquirit ius nowm; put â, in bonis Ecclesiae spiritualibus. I tidem cum de Christiano fit sicut Ethnicus, vigore sententiae amittit nowm ius, quod acquisierat in bonis Ecclesiae spiritualibus; sed retinet tamen terrenum ius, antiquum ius in temporalibus quod fuerat illi proprium, priusquam Christianus fieret. Every King when of an Ethnic he is made a Christian, doth not thereby lose his temporal right, but getteth a new right, to wit, in the spiritual goods of the Church. In like manner, when of a Christian he is made an Ethnic (to wit by Excommunication) he, by force of the Censure, loseth his new right, which he had gotten in the spiritual goods of the Church: but yet notwithstanding he keepeth his temporal right, his ancient right in temporalities, which was proper unto him, before he was a Christian.  
21. here also do you distinguish the double right of a King: the one ancient and temporal, which a King hath before he be a Christian; the other new and spiritual, which he getteth, when he is made a Christian. Now in like manner I demand, whether doth the Supremacy of the Church which your King usurpeth, belong to that ancient & temporal right, or rather to this new and spiritual? If it belong to the ancient and temporal right; it followeth, that Ethnic Kings before they be made Christians, have the Supremacy of the Church, which is absurd. If it belong to the new and spiritual right; it followeth, that Kings, when in baptism they be made Christians, or members of the Church, do receive more in their baptism then other men; which in another place of your Book you deny. For you contend, that all men, of what sort or degree soever they be, are equal unto them, in those things, which are obtained through baptism.   

The sixth Argument.  
22. THE sixth Argument you insinuate pag. 53. of your book, when you say: Nec enim Regum subditi, quâ subditi, Ecclesiae pars ulla sunt, sed Regni. Antequam de Ecclesiae essent, subditi erant; cum extra Ecclesiam sunt, nihilominus manent subditi. Quâ fideles sunt, pars Ecclesiae sunt: quâ subditi sunt, Regni ac Reipublicae p●rs sunt. Neither are the subjects of a King, in that they be subjects, any part of the Church, but of the Kingdom. Before they were of the Church, they were subjects: when they are out of the Church, notwithstanding they remain subjects. In that they be faithful, (or Christians) they are a part of the Church: In that they be subjects, they are a part of the Kingdom and Commonwealth.  
23. Heerhence do I argue thus: The jurisdiction of a King, doth not extend itself but to the subjects of the King, in that they are subjects (for if we regard them, in that they be not subjects, they cannot be under the jurisdiction of the King:) But the subjects of a King, in that they be subjects, are not a part of the Church, but only of the commonwealth, as you affirm: So as the jurisdiction of a King which he hath over his subjects, in that they be subjects, cannot be Ecclesiastical, but Civil only: Ergo, they are not subject to the King in Ecclesiastical affairs, but only in Civil. Nothing is more certain out of this your own Principle.     

THE CHAPLAINS Argument for the kings Supremacy.  
24. HItherto have I showed, that out of your own doctrine strong Arguments may be drawn to overthrow the King's Supremacy: Now let us see, if your others be as forcible to the contrary, wherewith you go about to establish the same Supremacy in the King. I will pretermitt those, which are common to you, and your King, and are by me refuted otherwhere. One, which is most peculiar and principal to yourself, I will here discuss. Thus than you propose it, in the 157. page of your Book. Dixit autem olim Iosue populus, in omnibus pariturum se ei, sicut & Moysi paruerunt; paruerunt autem & Moysi in Ecclesiasticis. Non intercessit tum Pontifex Eleazarus, ne in omnibus, sed temporalibus. Quòd si quicquam interesse putet, quòd Iosue verus Dei cultor fuit, ne in Orthodoxis solis locum habere videatur; Rex Babel certè, haeretico par, nempe Idololatra, cui tamen Propheta non modò non dissuasit populo, sed author etiam fuit submittendi colla sub iugo eius, eique seruiendi. Idem Pharaoni factum, cuius absque veniâ, nec pedem movere volverunt de Aegypto, ut Deo sacrificarent. Idem Cyro, cuius itidem absque veniâ nec excedere Chaldaea, ut templum aedificarent etc. The people sometime said unto joshua, that they would obey him in all things, as they had obeyed Moses, but they obeyed Moses in Ecclesiastical matters. Nor did the high Priest Eleazarus then meddle, no not in any thing, but in temporal. But if any man shall think this more to avail, because joshua was a true worshipper of God, and lest this right should seem to have place in only Orthodoxal, or right-beleeving Kings; Behold then the King of Babel, equal to an Heretic, to wit an Idolater, whom notwithstanding the Prophet not only not dissuaded the people to obey, but also was Author, that they submitted their necks under his yoke, & served him. The like was done to Pharaoh, without whose leave, they (to wit the jews) would not move a foot out of Egypt, that they might sacrifice to God. And the same to Cyrus without whose leave in like manner, they would not depart out of Chaldaea, that they might build their Temple etc.  
25. The force of your Argument is this, that not only Orthodoxal Kings in the old Testament, but Gentiles also & Idolaters had the Primacy of the Church▪ Ergo, the same is to be said of Kings of the new Testament. The former part of the antecedent you prove by the example of joshua, to whom the people of the jews said (jos. 1. 17.) As we have obeyed Moses in all things, so will we obey you. But they obeyed Moses, not only in temporal matters, but also in Ecclesiastical: Ergo, did they so obey joshua. The later you prove by the example of the three Gentile Kings, Nabuchodonosor in Babylon, Pharaoh in Egypt, and Cyrus in Chaldaea, to whom the jews were subject, even in Ecclesiastical matters, because without their leave, they durst neither offer Sacrifice, nor build their Temple.  
26. That you may then see, of what small moment this your Argument is; I will briefly examine every part thereof. And first I will speak something of Moses: secondly of joshua, who succeeded him: and thirdly of the Gentile Kings which you have cited. Concerning Moses then, it is certain, that he was not only a Temporal Prince, but an Ecclesiastical also: or if we speak all, he sustained a quadruple person, or the person of four men. The first of a Temporal Prince, the second of a Lawmaker, the third of a high Priest, or Bishop, and the fourth of a Prophet. And this is testified by Philo lib. ●. of the life of Moses in the end, where he saith: Haec est vita, hic exitus Moysis, Regis, Legislatoris, Pontificis, Prophetae. This is the life and death of Moses, a King, a Lawmaker, a high Priest, and a Prophet. And the same is plainly evinced out of the Scripture. That he was a temporal Prince or judge, it is manifest by that of Exodus 18. 13. Altera die etc. And the next day Moses sat to judge the people, who stood by Moses from morning until night: which thing S. Augustine mentioneth in his 68 quaest. upon Exodus thus: Sedebat (inquit) iudiciaria potestate solus, populo universo stante. He sat (saith S. Augustine) alone with power to judge, all the people standing. That he was a Lawmaker, it is manifest, as well by other places, as that of S. john 1. 17. Lex per Moysen data est. The law was given by Moses. That he was a Bishop or high Priest, is partly gathered out of that of the Psalm 98. 6. Moses & Aaron in Sacerdotibus eius. Moses and Aaron are numbered amongst his Priests: and partly also by the Priestly function, that he exercised. For that (as it is written Levit 8.) he consecrated Aaron a Priest, he sanctified the Tabernacle and the Altar, he offered Sacrifice, Holocaustes, and Incense to our Lord. And this was not lawful for any to do, but Priests, according to that of 2. Paralip. 26. 18. Non est officij tui, Ozia, ut adoleas incensum Domino, sed sacerdotum. It is not your office, Ozias, to offer incense to our Lord, but the office of Priests. Lastly, that he was a Prophet, is manifest by that Num. 12. 6. Si quis fuerit inter vos Propheta Domini etc. If there shallbe among you a Prophet of our Lord, in vision will I appear to him, or in sleep will I speak unto him. But my servant Moses is not such a one, who in all my house is most faithful: for mouth to mouth I speak to him, and openly, and not by riddles and figures doth he see the Lord etc.  
27. Now as for joshua, he succeeded not Moses in all these offices. For he succeeded him not in Bishoply degree, or high Priesthood: Nor yet in lawmaking. In Prophecy, whether he did or no, I dispute not. But that he succeeded him in temporal Principality, it is manifest out of Num. 27. 18. Dixitue Dominus ad Moysen, tolle Iosue filium Nun etc. And our Lord said to Moses, take joshua the son of Nun etc. And put thy hand upon him: who shall stand before Eleazar the Priest, & all the multitude: & thou shalt give him precepts in the sight of all, & part of thy glory that all the Synagogue of the Children of Israel may hear him. For him, if any thing be to be done, Eleazar the Priest shall consult the Lord. At his word shall he go out, & shall go in, and all the Children of Israel with him, and the rest of the multitude etc. In which words three things are to be noted which make to our purpose: the first, that joshua, was designed the successor of Moses: the second, that Moses gave him part of his glory, that is to say, he gave him not all the power he had, aswell Ecclesiastical, as temporal, but temporal only: the third, that he should be subject to Eleazar the High Priest, and do every thing at this commandment. For this do those words signify, Pro hoc etc. For him (to wit joshua) if any thing be to be done, Eleazar the Priest shall consult the Lord. At his word (to wit of Eleazar) shall joshua go out, and in etc.  
28. here may you plainly see, in how different a sense you alleged that place, Sicut in istis obedivimus Moysi, ita obediemus & tibi: As in these things we obeyed Moses, so will we obey you. For you understand it thus; as who should say, the people of the jews ought to obey joshua, in all things both Ecclesiastical and civil, as they had obeyed Moses. But you are deceived. First, for that in Ecclesiastical affairs they were to obey Eleazar the Priest. Secondly, because those words (as we have obeyed Moses) were not uttered of all the people, but only of the Rubenites, Gaddites, and of half the Tribe of Manasses. Neither did they say, that they would obey joshua in all things simply, wherein they had before obeyed Moses (although sometimes they murmured against him, & did not obey him:) but in those things only, which were appointed them by Moses, to wit, that they should leave their wives, children, & cattle in the place where they than were, and arming themselves, together with the rest of the Tribes, should pass over jordan, and fight against their enemies, until they being vanquished, the rest of the Tribes should there make their quiet possession. And this is evident out of the context of Scripture itself joshua 1. 12. in these words: Rubenitis quoque & Gadditis, & dimidiae tribui Manasse ait etc. To the Rubenites also and Gaddites, and to half the tribe of Manasses, joshua said: Remember the word which Moses the servant of our Lord commanded you, saying: Our Lord your God hath given you rest, and all this land, your wives and children, and cattle shall tarry in the land, which Moses delivered unto you beyond jordan: but pass you over armed before your brethren, all that are strong of hand, & fight for them, until our Lord give rest to your brethren, as to you also he hath given; and they also possess the land, which our Lord your God will give them, and so return into the land of your possession: and you shall dwell in it, which Moses the servant of our Lord gave you beyond jordan, against the rising of the sun etc. Thus joshua to the people. So as that which immediately followeth (to wit, Omnia quae praecepisti nobis etc. All things that thou hast commanded us, we will do, and whithersoever thou shalt send us, we will go. And as we obeyed Moses in all things, so will we obey thee also,) is referred to that which went before. But there is no mention made of Ecclesiastical matters, but only of taking arms against their enemies, who possessed their land.  
29. On this side then, as you see, your Argument falleth to the ground, & proceedeth from a false principle. On the other side, that which you bring of Gentile and Idolatrous Kings, I do not see what force it may have. For that those three Kings, which you mention, were by your own confession either Primates of the Church of God, or they were not. I hope you will not say that they were, because you affirm the contrary more than once in your Tortura: and that worthily: to wit, that they who be out of the Church of God, cannot be Princes and Rulers in the same Church. If they were not Primates of the Church, as certes they were not, how then will you prove by this their example, that the King of England is head or Primate of the Church? This only you may conclude, that as the jews durst not go forth of Egypt, to sacrifice to God, without King Pharaoh his leave, who had brought them into cruel bondage under his yoke: So in like manner the Catholics, that live in England, dare not go out to other Catholic Countries, where they may receive the holy Eucharist after the Catholic manner, without King james his leave, who will not suffer them so to do, without his licence, under pain of death or imprisonment. And the like may be said of the other two Idolatrous Kings. But what is this to the Primacy of the Church? I should rather think it belonged to tyranny or impiety.  

The Conclusion to the chaplain.  
30. You have here briefly, what I have thought concerning your Book, which you have written in defence of your King: You have here (I say) these three points: First, that you have oftentimes handled the matter not so much in Argument, as in railings or exprobrations. Secondly, that you have defiled every thing with Paradoxes, and false opinions. Thirdly, that you have rather overthrown then established the King's Primacy, which you sought to fortify: and all these things have you done through a certain desire you have to flatter the King. Therefore if you shall repress this your desire, and behold the only truth of the thing itself, it will be very easy for you to amend your former faults, which I altogether counsel you to do. And if you set God before your eyes (who is the first and principal verity) you will do it.    

AN APPENDIX,  
Of the Comparison between a King and a Bishop.  
IN your book you do so compare a King and a Bishop together, that you manifestly depress the Authority of the one, and extol the Dignity (higher than is sitting) of the other. And therefore what others have thought before you concerning this point, I will briefly lay before your eyes, that you may choose whether, changing your opinion, you will stand to their judgements, or else retaining it, still persist in your error. Thus then have others thought and taught before you.  
Num. 27. 21. Pro Iosue si quid agendum erit etc. If for joshua any thing be to be done, let Eleazar the Priest consult with the Lord. At his word (to wit Eleazar's) shall he go out, and go in, and with him all the sons of Israel, and the rest of the multitude etc. So as here the secular Prince is commanded to do his affairs at the discretion of the Priest.  
Deuter. 17. 12. Qui superbierit etc. He that shall be proud, refusing to obey the commandment of the Priest, who at that time ministereth to our Lord thy God etc. that man shall die, and thou shalt take away the evil out of Israel etc.  
1. Reg. 22. 27. Ait Rex Saul Emissarijs etc. King Saul said to his Servants that stood about him: Turn yourselves, and kill the Priests of the Lord etc. And the King's servants would not extend their hands upon the Priests of the Lord. So as, they made greater esteem of the Priest's authority, then of their King's commandment.  
4. Reg. 11. 9 Fecerunt Centuriones juxta omnia etc. And the Centurions did according to all things, that Ioida the Priest had commanded them: and every one taking their men etc. came to Ioida the Priest etc. And he brought forth the King's son, and put upon him the diadem, and the covenant etc. And Ioida commanded the Centurions, and said to them: Bring forth Athalia (the Queen) without the precincts of the Temple, and whosoever shall follow her, let him be strooken with the sword etc.  
2. Paralip. 19 11. Amarias Sacerdos & Pontifex vester etc. Amarias the Priest and your Bishop shallbe chief in those things, which pertain to God. Moreover Zabadias, the son of Ishmael, who is the Prince of the house of juda, shallbe over those works, which pertain to the King's office etc.  
2. Paralip. 26. 16. cum rob oratus esset etc. When Ozias the King was strengthened, his heart was elevated to his destruction etc. and entering into the temple of our Lord, he would burn incense upon the altar of incense. And presently Azarias the Priest entering in after him, and with him the Priests of our Lord etc. they resisted the King and said: It is not thy office, Ozias, to burn incense to our Lord, but the Priests etc. Get thee out of the Sanctuary, contemn not, because this thing shall not be reputed unto thee for the glory of our Lord God. And Ozias being angry etc. threatened the Priests. And forthwith there arose a leprosy in his forehead before the Priests etc. and in hast they thrust him out etc.  
joan. 21. 32. Feed my sheep etc. Matth. 16. 19 To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven etc. Act. 20. 28. The holy Ghost hath placed Bishops (not secular Kings) to govern the Church of God etc. 1. Cor. 4. 1. So let a man esteem us, as the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God etc. 2. Cor. 5. 20. We are Legates for Christ etc.  
S. Gregory Nazianzen, writing to the Emperors of Constantinople apud Gratian. dist. 10. can. 7. saith: Libenter accipitis etc. You do willingly hear, that the law of Christ doth subject you to Priestly power. For he hath given us that power: yea, he hath given us a Principality, much more perfect, then that of yours etc.  
S. Gregory the Pope writing to Hermannus Bishop of Metz dist. 96. can. 6. saith: Quis dubitat etc. Who doubteth, but that the Priests of Christ are to be accounted the Fathers, and masters of Kings, and princes?  
joan. Papa, dist. 96. can. 11. Si Imperator Catholicus est etc. If the Emperor be a Catholic; he is a Son, and not a Prelate of the Church. What belongeth to Religion, he ought to learn, and not to teach. And then again afterwards: Imperatores etc. Christian Emperors; and Kings, aught to submit their employments unto Ecclesiastical Prelates, and not prefer them.  
Innocentius 3. in decret. de maior. & obed. can. 6. Non negamus etc. We deny not, but that the Emperor doth excel in temporal things: but the Pope excelleth in spiritual; which are so much the more worthy, then temporal, by how much the soul is preferred before the body etc.  
Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spain, to the Emperor Constantius, saith: Desine, quaeso, Imperator etc. Give over, I beseech you, o Emperor: do not busy yourself in Ecclesiastical affairs, nor in such things do not teach us, but rather learn of us. To you hath God committed the rule of the Kingdom, but unto us hath he delivered the affairs of his Church etc.  
S. Ambrose in his 33. Epistle to his Sister Marcellina, writeth, that he had said to the Emperor Valentinian: Noli te gravare Imperator etc. Do not trouble yourself, o Emperor, to think that you have any Imperial right in those things which are divine. To the Emperor do palaces belong; but Churches pertain unto Priests etc.  
Valentinianus the Emperor said: Mihi qui unus è numero laicorum etc. It is not lawful for me, that am but one of the number of lay-men, to interpose myself in such businesses, (to wit Ecclesiastical.) Let Priests and Bishops meet, about these things, wheresoever it shall please them, to whom the care of such affairs belong etc. This is related by Zozomenus lib▪ 6. hist. c. 7. and by Nicephorus lib. 11. cap. 33. by Ruffinus lib▪ 1. cap. 2.  
Elinor Queen of England in an Epistle she wrote to Pope Celestine, hath these words: Non Rex, non Imperator à iugo vestrae jurisdictionis eximitur. Neither King, nor Emperor is exempted from the yoke of your jurisdiction, or power. More of this matter in another place.  
FINIS.   

Faults escaped in the Printing.  
Pag. 7. lin. ult. in some copies deal is 17. lin. 7. shall read shalt 19 lin. 21. to write read to wit 36. lin. 4. in some copies Mattheaeo read Matthaeo 38. lin. 8. to lawful read to be lawful 40. lin. 7. in some copies you read yours 57 lin. 15. in some copies the read he 58. lin. 1●. in some copies this read his  
LAUS DEO.